Sitting of 22 March 2001

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 29 March.

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

    Renewable Energy
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What action he is taking to promote renewable energy. [153626]
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to increase energy production from renewable resources. [153642]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government have set an ambitious target of securing 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables by 2010, driven mainly by the proposed renewables obligation on all electricity suppliers. In addition, we have allocated more than £250 million over the next three years to promote new renewable energy technologies, including offshore wind, energy crops and solar voltaics. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government have also decided to introduce an order in the House that will allow non-fossil fuel obligation 3, 4 and 5 contracts to change location, so freeing up projects that have been unable to win, planning consent to transfer elsewhere and help meet our renewables target.
    Mrs. Lawrence: The Minister will be aware that the tariff payments to generators of wind power change on 1 April and that sites with wind velocity as low 7.5 m a second will be viable, instead of the previous 9 m a second. Will be do everything possible to encourage wind generators to switch their attention to new sites and remove pressure from environmentally and aesthetically sensitive sites, such as those in my constituency near the Pembrokeshire coast national park?
    Mr. Hain: I am well aware of the beautiful countryside in my hon. Friend's constituency—indeed, I may even
    464
    visit it with her in the next few weeks. We are anxious to ensure that renewables projects, in particular offshore and onshore wind projects, are sensitively located. I assure her that NFFO portability will encourage transfer of projects to less sensitive sites. In addition, the increased buy-out price for renewables will encourage wind farm projects to be located at lower levels. That should reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents.
    Ms Drown: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey published by the Scottish Executive that shows overwhelming support for renewable energy. especially wind energy? Interestingly, there was more support in areas adjacent to existing projects. That reinforces evidence from many surveys that show that a lot of the fears that are raised before a project is installed are unfounded. Will my hon. Friend agree to have a public information campaign to emphasise the benefits of renewable energy, which is better for the environment, uses safer production methods and improves the environment for the staff who work in the area? Will he also emphasise the fact that that massively expanding sector also benefits British business.
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have made £250 million available to support wind projects, solar photovoltaics, biomass projects in better generation and other renewable energy projects that we are keen to promote. Our approach will encourage cleaner energy and environmentally more sustainable energy. I agree that public opinion is often more content with such projects when they are established. When people consider a renewables project on their doorstep. they should bear in mind the fact that it is the cleanest form of energy. Whatever planning issues may be at stake, people should not adopt a Nimby attitude to those projects.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister agree with the unanimous view of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that energy from waste should not be classified as renewable energy?
    Mr. Hain: I read the report yesterday and was impressed with the level of analysis. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such matters. However, it is important that we give maximum encouragement both to the recycling of waste and to clean methods of waste disposal. New technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis allow the transformation of waste into energy in a manner that is clean and produces few, if any, emissions. I do not rule out bringing the biodegradable form of waste generation into the renewables obligation. We are studying how that might be achieved to give maximum environmental protection while ensuring that the alternative of burying waste in landfill sites is not encouraged. Indeed, we want radically to change that practice.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that this is likely to be the last trade and industry questions before Labour has to defend its record to the country, will the hon. Gentleman say how he will explain to the electorate the fact that the Government's target of reducing CO2 emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 will be missed by a mile, with Britain achieving just 8 per cent. by 2010 and CO2 emissions rising,

    465
    according to the Government's own figures? How will he explain his Department's failure to get anywhere near the target of generating 5 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2003, given that just 2.8 per cent. has been achieved so far, and most of that is hydro-electric? Is not the truth that this is a Government full of grandiose targets that no one believes will be met and with absolutely no idea of how to achieve them?
    Mr. Hain: It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to complain about renewables targets when the Conservatives did virtually nothing to support renewable energy when they were in power. There is the potential for at least two more terms of Labour Government before 2010, and during that time we will drive forward the renewables programme and meet the targets. We have already achieved 2.8 per cent. of generation from renewables towards our target of 5 per cent. by 2003. Today's announcement will help us, and the recent announcement of £250 million will be a huge boost to spending on research and development and capital projects in renewable energy.
    Mr. Brian White: Given that the Labour party had a strong commitment to renewables in its last manifesto, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the next Labour Government will strongly support renewables industries—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hardly a day goes by when the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) does not shout. I do not know whether he is rattling anyone else, but he is beginning to rattle me.
    Mr. White: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be strong support for indigenous renewables industries, especially combined heat and power programmes?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want a vibrant, expanding renewable energy industry. There is enormous potential for British businesses, with which I have had many discussions in the past few weeks, to take advantage of the fantastic opportunities that exist as part of our strategy for creating the best knowledge-based economy in Britain.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the role of the nuclear industry in helping to meet Britain's future electricity generation requirements. [153629]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The nuclear industry's role will depend on its cost compared with that of other generation options and on securing public confidence in respect of issues such as safety and the environment. The generators have said that they have no current plans for new nuclear power stations.
    Mr. Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware of the commitment to the industry of nuclear workers in my constituency and their awareness of the industry's contribution to meeting our Kyoto target and giving us security of energy supply. In light of recent press reports
    466
    of the wish of British Energy and BNFL to investigate further investment in nuclear energy, will he say what is the Government's strategic vision for the industry? Will he support both companies' endeavours to renew our rapidly ageing stock of nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Byers:The right hon. Gentleman refers to the press reports about comments allegedly made by British Energy and BNFL. Both companies have denied that they have any proposals at present to begin a new generation of nuclear power stations.
    Springfields, the facility in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, is a major employer, and he is rightly concerned about the implications of the decline of Magnox in the next few years and its impact on his constituents. It will be another five years or so before the Magnox fuel demands at Springfields will be in decline, so we have time to work out together the new role that Springfields can play . I believe that it can remain a vibrant manufacturing facility, employing many people. I want to work with the right hon. Gentleman and BNFL to make sure that the expertise and talent at Springfields can be used in future, perhaps in a slightly different way. There is huge potential at that facility, and we have time to map out a way to ensure that it can be used to the full.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear industry's importance lies in the people in that industry, and that without clear and coherent policies we shall not attract into the industry the younger people we need not only to develop new generation potential but to manage safety issues, which must always be uppermost in our mind?
    Mr. Byers:My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that public confidence in nuclear is retained, so we need to explain the benefits that can be derived from nuclear, as well as the safety measures that are in place. Nuclear accounts for 23 per cent. of electricity production; even given the projected decline, in 10 years it will still account for 18 per cent. of electricity generation in the UK. Therefore, nuclear will have a strong role to play well into the foreseeable future. We need to communicate to the young and talented people who want to know whether there is a future for the industry the clear statement that yes, there is. We want diversity of generation and nuclear electricity will continue to play a significant role in achieving that.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: We heard in answer to the previous question that the Government are way behind on their target for renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that even if the Government were to meet their renewable energy target of 5 per cent. and then 10 per cent., CO2 emissions would start to increase in the medium term because of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations? How can the Government claim to have a rational climate change policy when, according to their own figures, emissions will start to rise again? Is not the truth that the Government have no coherent policy, save for a hope that that future will never arise? Does that have something to do with the fact that the junior Minister responsible for nuclear power is a member of CND, which opposes the civil use of nuclear power? Will the Secretary of State override his junior Minister and CND and conduct a

    467
    review of nuclear power and the environment policy; or is the Government's entire climate change programme yet another sham, condemned by their own figures in their own document?
    Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman knows that our energy policy has not changed as a result of the appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. Our policy remains as it has been for the past few years an energy policy based on diversity and on sustained and secure energy production. The right hon. Gentleman appears to argue that the Government should embark on a new generation of nuclear build, but he must be aware that the two UK companies working in that sector—BNFL and British Energy—have both clearly stated that they have no plans to begin a new generation of nuclear build. Therefore, it would fall on the Government to support such a programme. The last nuclear plant built—Sizewell B, which was commissioned and Completed in 1994—cost £2 billion at 1994 prices. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a commitment on behalf of the Conservatives to fund a new generation of nuclear build? The figures are clear: we project a 5 per cent. reduction in nuclear by 2010 and a 10 per cent. renewables contribution. We shall benefit from the climate change programme to which we are committed. In government, the right hon. Gentleman did absolutely nothing about it.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Would my right hon. Friend care to tell us when he thinks the MOX—mixed oxide—facility at BNFL's Sellafield plant will be given permission? I realise that the responsibility is held jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the matter appears to have been lying on Ministers' desks for some time. Given that some of the problems that BNFL has encountered in recent years have been addressed and that the nuclear installations inspectorate is giving positive signals about the improvement in performance, when is the MOX facility likely to be licensed?
    Mr. Byers:My hon. Friend raises an important point. The nuclear installations inspectorate has said some positive things about the steps that have been taken at Sellafield in the light of the difficulties that were experienced a few months ago. My hon. Friend is right that my Department and DETR are jointly responsible. Within government, we are discussing closely the progress that we can make. I hope that shortly there will be a proposal from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that will allow us to make some speedy progress.

    Business Incubation Programme
    Mr. Paul Goggins:If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the business incubation programme in the north-west. [153630]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt):The North West Development Agency will spend nearly £4 million over the next two years to initiate the north-west incubation programme.
    468
    Organisations in the north-west will have the opportunity to bid for the Small Business Service's £75 million business incubation fund.
    Mr. Goggins:I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for her Department's support for the business incubation programme in the north-west.
    Campus Ventures, which is a Manchester-based company, is playing a leading role in the development of the programme. It recently initiated discussions with key players in the region with a view to establishing a seedcorn capital fund. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline the importance of such a fund to new enterprises and encourage public and private organisations to contribute to the fund once it is established?
    Ms Hewitt:I readily respond to my hon. Friend's question. Seedcorn funds of the sort that he mentioned are enormously important in helping more businesses to start up and to grow. I congratulate Jim Keaton, the chairman of Campus Ventures, and the vice-chancellors of many of the universities in the north-west, who have collaborated in different ventures, including the Manchester challenge seed fund, which was helped by the first round of university challenge funding that we provided.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton:What assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on UK manufacturing industry's competitiveness. [153632]
    The Minister for Trade:The climate change levy is an environmental protection measure designed to avoid damaging the competitiveness of UK manufacturing. The levy's impact on individual businesses will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new scheme of enhanced capital allowances for energy efficiency, the energy efficiency advice and support from the new carbon trust, and whether their sites qualify for a discount from the levy. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are offering an 80 per cent. discount to energy-intensive industries exposed to international competition in return for their commitment to challenging energy- saving targets.
    Mr. Winterton:Has the Minister seen the report published last week by Ernst and Young, which was commissioned by the Engineering Employers Federation? Will he comment on the remarks of Nick Turner of Ernst and Young, who said:
    "There is no doubt that the climate change levy will penalise a number of manufacturing enterprises in the UK, particularly those that have made considerable improvements to their energy efficiency prior to the introduction of the levy."?
    Is it not important that we do not have policies that damage the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of manufacturing?

    469
    Will the Minister comment also on the remarks of Martin Temple, the director-general of the EEF, who said that he believes that the levy is
    "one of the most badly designed economic instruments in recent times."?
    Will the Minister reconsider the effect of the climate levy on manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Caborn: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the levy is one element of a national climate change programme, which was published in November. Our answers to earlier questions make it clear that we want to approach energy in the most effective way and to stop damage to the environment. The levy is one of the instruments that is being used to address the Kyoto targets, with which I think the entire House agreed. We have made major concessions in discussions with organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation—I listed some of them in my main answer—and dialogue continues with them. The tax will take effect in April. It must be seen as part of the Government's attack on damage to the environment.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not the case that the Government have given many millions of pounds of relief to the British steel industry on the levy? Corus repaid the Government's generosity by giving £700 million back to its shareholders and promulgating 4,000 job losses in Wales, including 400 in Shotton steelworks in my constituency. Bearing in mind the fact that the Shotton steelworkers went, with Corus, to see the Government to ask for the levy on steel to be lessened, my steelworkers think that that is a disgrace.
    Mr. Caborn:Some of my right hon. Friend's questions about Corus should be directed at the company itself. However, the climate change levy was not a major factor in the decisions that were made, rightly or wrongly, on the present restructuring. That was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by the chairman and chief executive of Corus.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: How is it that the Department of Trade and Industry has the professed aim of helping manufacturing industry and improving competitiveness—that appears in its so-called mission statement—but in reality is so weak and ineffective that it allows the Treasury to impose a new energy tax, which will come into effect in less than two weeks, at a time when energy prices for industry are already rising fast? Will the Minister confirm that the new tax will be particularly damaging for manufacturing industry, which has already lost more than 350,000 jobs since the general election, and that it is an unwelcome additional burden on the steel industry, which is already suffering severe job losses? The damage caused by the new energy tax has been confirmed by the chairman of Corus.
    Will the Minister also confirm that the tax is an extremely clumsy and inefficient way of tackling climate change, which could be dealt with much better by other means, such as emissions permit trading, and that the tax has been condemned by business groups, all of which have declared that it is ridiculously complicated and an additional stealth tax? Above all, will the DTI start to
    470
    stand up for the interests of British business instead of constantly being ignored and overridden by the tax-raising ambitions of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Caborn: I repeat what the chairman and chief executive of Corus said: the climate change levy was not a major consideration in the company's decision to restructure, as has been said at the Dispatch Box before.
    The levy is part of the Government's attack on the question of damage to the environment, and of our responsibilities as a Government. The DTI has been extremely active on behalf of British industry, including manufacturing, in our discussions and dialogue with the Treasury. Because representations were made, and strongly supported by the DTI, we have a package of measures to address the concerns raised by manufacturers when we first started discussions on the climate change programme last November. We are now coming to a consensus, and when the levy starts to operate on 1 April, we shall be able to reflect and see that it is a sensible move for all the population.

    Miners' Compensation
    Mr. Bill Michie:What action he is taking to deliver coal health payments in the south Yorkshire area. [153634]
    Ms Rosie Winterton:What action he is taking to deliver coal miners' illness compensation payments in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. [153640]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain):Some 2,100 claims in the Yorkshire area have been settled in full, with the highest full settlement to date being £61,004. A further 6,200 claimants have received interim payments, the highest being £30,000. In Yorkshire alone, we have paid out £100 million in coal mining compensation. In total, the Department has paid out more than £360 million in compensation for respiratory disease and vibration white finger, and we continue to pay out about £1 million per working day.
    Mr. Michie:I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the work that he is doing to increase the speed with which compensation is paid out. He will be aware that 139,000 cases are still waiting to be dealt with, and that more cases are still coming in than are being completed. He will also know that it will be a long time before those claims are completed. We had another meeting with IRISC this week and were given further suggestions on how to speed things up. Will he again visit IRISC to see what help he can provide in that respect?
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for visiting IRISC and I know about his close engagement with its headquarters in Sheffield. We have put in place a series of steps that are resulting in huge improvements in the speed of compensation delivery. Although my hon. Friend is right that there are about 140,000 claimants in the system, many of them have received payments and 1,000 are joining every year, which makes this the biggest compensation claim in Britain's history. He will be

    471
    encouraged to learn that we expect offers worth £440 million to be sent out in the next five or six months. That compares with £360 million in the past three years, which shows that the programme is being hugely accelerated. We are determined to deliver justice for miners and their widows.
    Ms Winterton:I welcome the opening of a centre in Doncaster to deal with vibration white finger claims, but I was concerned to hear yesterday from Tommy Bird, a constituent of mine from Armthorpe. Mr. Bird has chronic bronchitis and emphysema. but even though he has had his final medical assessment, it is likely to be about 15 weeks before he gets a final offer . As I understand it, the problem lies in getting the medical assessment from Healthcall to IRISC. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to speed up that part of the process?
    Mr. Hain:We will certainly consider the case of my hon. Friend's constituent. Mistakes have been made and there have been bottlenecks, but we have gradually removed such problems so that the compensation scheme is proceeding much more speedily. There should be no rigid figure of 15 weeks or any other period. We are now processing 1,000 medical assessments each week. That compares with about 500 claims per week last year, so it is clear that the process is being speeded up. I am sure that we will pay special attention to my hon. Friend's constituent's case now that she has raised it with me.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd:I am concerned about miners' compensation in Yorkshire and Wales. I wrote to the Minister on 6 January, congratulating him on his appointment and asking for an urgent meeting to discuss the matter. Is he happy that I received a reply on 3 March saying,"Try some time later in the spring."? That is simply not good enough.
    Mr. Hain:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for congratulating me, but I remind him, that he has had an Adjournment debate in which I gave a full response. I am as happy to discuss any matters with him as I am with any other hon. Member. We have been working night and day to drive the programme forward in Wales, as elsewhere.[Interruption.] On Friday week, I shall open a new medical assessment centre in Ystrad Mynach, which will take forward the whole process of compensation. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker:Order. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked the Minister a question, so he should not shout during the reply.
    Mr. Hain:I remind the House that while Plaid Cymru whinges about miners' compensation we are delivering it on a scale that has never been seen in British history and that the Tories refused to deliver in their long years of power. We will continue to do that.
    Mr. Michael Clapham:I congratulate my hon. Friend on his decision on claimants' pension rights, and, in particular, on his decision about asthma cases in which it is shown that it a man could have contracted asthma by working in dust underground. I have no doubt whatever that such cases would have gone to court if the Conservative party had been in power. He will know
    472
    that the matter involves civil litigation and that although he has extended the claims period until mid-summer, the time bar will come down then. On the basis of the evidence that IRISC will have accumulated in calculating the claims, will he consider introducing a scheme after the time bar comes down, to ensure that people can make future claims?
    Mr. Hain:I will certainly consider that. There is no reluctance on our part to pay out the money. Recently, £50 million in offers was stuck with solicitors who were unable to make progress. We want them to speed up their operations. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the hugely complex process of litigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often makes the point that the Labour Government in the 1970s dealt with such claims immediately and with great speed. We have been unable to do that because of the court process. However, speed has been increased greatly, and compensation will be paid throughout the country.

    Metrication
    Mr. James Gray:What recent representations he has received concerning metrication. [153636]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells):Not a lot. However, several individuals have written directly to the Government or their Members of Parliament about the obligation on traders, under legislation made by a Conservative Government in 1994, to use metric weights after 31 December 1999 for the sale of loose goods.
    Mr. Gray:I am grateful for that reply, as far it goes. The younger generation is happy and comfortable using metric measurements. However, try as I may to keep up with them, I understand "a couple of miles down the road" better than "5 km". I understand that it is a hot summer's day when the temperature is 75 deg F, but I am a bit muddled about 20 deg C. I understand a pound of butter or 8 oz of sweeties. I may be out of date, but I am comfortable with those measurements.
    Does not the Minister regret the fact that the statutory instrument that he introduced last week removes the right of the retailer to offer an option? Currently, we are offered both sorts of measurements and people know where they are, no matter whether they are young or, like me, a bit of a fuddy-duddy. The statutory instrument means that we will not know what we are buying.
    Dr. Howells:As far as I understand the question, I can reply that the hon. Gentleman knows that we negotiated a 10-year extension so that anyone who sells loose goods can use imperial as well as metric measurements.
    It is too late for the hon. Gentleman to convince the people of his lovely county that he is more anti-European and anti-metrication than the UK Independence party—that is what he is really worried about. He has a majority of only 3,500, and the UK Independence party is pecking away at it.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend believe that the acute grasp of modern measurement that

    473
    the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) displays is one of the reasons for the Confederation of British Industry's announcement yesterday that a Tory Government would pose a threat to Britain?
    Dr. Howells: Probably.
    Mr. Alan Duncan:The introduction of metrication has been a confusion of European Union directives, opt-outs, derogations and statutory instruments. The final stage in that messy process was yesterday's deferred Division. A majority of Labour Members voted to end for ever the ability to display imperial measurements alongside metric ones.
    Dr. Howells indicated dissent
    Mr. Duncan: Nevertheless, Lord Sainsbury gave incorrect information in the Lords debate on the matter. He claimed that supplementary measurements were already forbidden: that is not true. Will the Minister confirm for the record that the Labour party's vote has killed off imperial measurements for good? They would otherwise have been permitted in parallel. Will he also confirm that Lord Sainsbury' s comments did not reflect the truth?
    Dr. Howells:No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It will remain permissible until 2009 for weighing machines to be marked with imperial measurements, and for anybody to ask for a product in an imperial measure. The trader can measure it metrically if he wishes. There is nothing to prevent us from negotiating a further 10-year derogation if we choose to do that.

    Universal Bank
    Mr. Desmond Swayne:What progress has been made in agreeing a memorandum of understanding with banks concerning the universal bank. [153637]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson):Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be resolved shortly.
    Mr. Swayne:Will the Minister comment on the reports in today's edition of The Independent, and confirm that Barclays and the Halifax are resisting proposals that post office employees should be able to open accounts at their banks, and that they are concerned about the prospect of money laundering? Will the Minister also say whether the Select Committee was accurate in its estimate that the running costs of the universal bank would be in the region of £150 million a year? What element of public subsidy will be involved in that?
    Mr. Johnson:We are engaged in commercial negotiations at the moment, and I will not breach the confidentiality of those negotiations. I advise the hon. Gentleman to take as much notice of the report published this morning as of the report published in the same newspaper in November, which said that the universal bank was going to hit the dust. Shortly after that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Barclays, Lloyds TSB, the Royal Bank of
    474
    Scotland, HSBC, Abbey National and the Halifax had all agreed in principle to the universal bank. Since then, I visited the Alliance and Leicester Girobank in Merseyside, on 8 February. It announced that it too would join a universal bank. I had discussions with the Nationwide building society on 20 February, and it announced that it would sign up to the universal bank.
    I advise Opposition Members to recognise that we have an opportunity hen to tackle financial exclusion. One hundred per cent. of the socially and financially excluded are among the 28 million people a week who visit post offices, and the universal bank will provide an exciting opportunity to move forward and, at the same time, to address the problems of branch closures and of people continuing to receive their benefits and pensions in cash across a post office counter. That is our aim. This is an exciting prospect and we aim to deliver on it.
    Mr. David Kidney: Will the universal bank not bring a new income stream to sub-post offices? Will it not also result in more people holding bank accounts? Are not those both highly desirable outcomes?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would have expected Members on both sides of the House to recognise the opportunities that the proposal makes available. The universal bank concept—originally set out by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit, which said that the Post Office should set up a universal bank—has moved on a stage, to the point where every bank that offers a basic bank account, a so-called PAT 14 bank account, will now make those accounts available across a post office counter. That will open up the opportunity for far more work across post office counters. It will also attack the disgraceful situation in which up to 5 million people in this country do not have bank accounts or any of the advantages that they bring.
    Dr. Vincent Cable:How far have the negotiations been advanced by yesterday's report by the Competition Commission, on the first anniversary of the Cruickshank report? Specifically, does the Minister agree with the chair man of the commission that it would be appropriate and a useful source of revenue for the universal bank if there were a windfall tax on the excess profits of the banking system?
    Mr. Johnson:I do not think that yesterday's report changes anything in respect of the discussions that we are having with the banks. Those are constructive, fruitful discussions. The banks have no legal obligation to sign up to universal banking services. Nevertheless, owing to the skill, wisdom and sagacity of the negotiators, they are willingly signing up to the universal banking services. We should ensure that we continue that process, finalise it shortly and be ready for 2003, when universal banking services will be launched.
    Mr. Richard Page:Is the Minister aware that owing to the clumsy way in which automated credit transfer was introduced, the Government have destroyed the confidence of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in their own offices? Those offices are now closing at then record rate of nearly two a day. Even

    475
    if the Minister sorts out the muddle and confusion that surround the universal banking service, there will be precious little income for those in the post offices.
    The Minister's answers have been muddled and confused over the months that we have been asking him questions about the universal banking service. Is he aware that when we sweep back to power after the next general election, we are going to cut through this confusion by introducing our own benefit card? That will enable beneficiaries to draw their money at the post offices, and enable the sub-post offices to get some income; most importantly of all, it will preserve the footfall in post offices. When the Minister goes back. to 1 Victoria street with his tail between his legs, will he put in hand our work, so that when we take over his office after the general election, we shall not have to waste any time putting in our benefit card scheme?
    Mr. Johnson:Last July, the hon. Gentleman described the universal bank as flabby and unlikely; if I were a less kind person, I might say that that was a suitable description of him. He mentioned the benefit payment card, which I understand those on the Opposition Front Bench will be committed to reintroducing. The idea behind that card was well intentioned, but as I said at the time, it was a turkey of a PFI. Read the National Audit Office report: the project was three years overdue and vastly overspent. If Conservative Members would bother to look at the plans for universal balking services, they would see that the smart card—the so-called clear account—which is the post office's part of the system, does precisely what the benefit payment card would have done, except that it is a smart card rather than a swipe card, because it moves the technology forward.
    I heard the leadership bid that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but I must tell Conservative Members that if we are to fight the election on the issues that he raised, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters will be on our side in implementing the PIU report; they will not support some adventurer who wants to go back and recreate the benefit payment card.

    Minimum Wage
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the impact of the minimum wage in Cleethorpes. [153638]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson):At least 120,000 workers in Yorkshire and Humberside have benefited as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. The national minimum wage has also helped to close the gap between the highest and lowest earners, and to reduce the differential between men's and women's pay, both in Cleethorpes and throughout the United Kingdom. Between April 2000 and February 2001, Inland Revenue enforcement officers visited 348 employers in the Inland Revenue's northern region, which includes Cleethorpes, and identified about £240,000 in underpayments for workers in that region.
    Shona McIsaac: I represent a part of the world in which low pay, such as £1 an hour piecework rates, was rife. The national minimum wage, and the increase in it that will be made later this year, has given a real boost to
    476
    eliminating poverty pay in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. My hon. Friend mentioned cases of employers who do not meet their obligations. That is probably the tip of the iceberg in some parts of the country. What rights do workers have to report employers who may not be paying the national minimum wage, or who may alter their terms and conditions of employment to get round the requirement to pay the minimum wage?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The second report of the Low Pay Commission last year examined enforcement, and its authors were pleased, by and large, with the way it was operating. We have 14 teams of Inland Revenue officers around the country, dedicated to national minimum wage issues. Thanks to the Employment Relations Act 1999, they have access to returns for tax, national insurance and working families tax credit. The Low Pay Commission will re-examine the subject, and its conclusions will be included in volume 2 of its third report, which will be published in May.
    If workers are scared of their employers, and scared to enforce their rights, they have only to ring the helpline. The rest will be done for them; they need have no further involvement. Enforcement officers will ensure that the employer complies—and so far, the enforcement officers have recovered £4 million in wages for people who had been denied their rights under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I was in a nursing home recently—[Interruption.] I was only visiting. The nursing home was in my constituency, but only a couple of miles from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and the people there said that the minimum wage had had a severe impact on their business. Although we all want people to receive decent wages, is the Minister conducting a survey of areas of traditionally high unemployment and low wages, such as Humberside and north Lincolnshire? The area contains his own constituency, and he knows it well. The issue is serious, and I am sure that the Minister would not want to increase unemployment in the area. What impact studies is he conducting, especially into the TUC's demands for a minimum wage as high as £4.50 or even £5 an hour?
    Mr. Johnson: The Low Pay Commission is an example of social partnership in action, and may not be too popular among Conservative Members. It was established to carry out the type of analysis that the hon. Gentleman has described.
    The sector mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has been a cause of concern in respect of the effect of the national minimum wage. What—for want of a better term—one could call social care employees have had a major input to the commission's deliberations. Indeed, the commission's second report found that 14 per cent. of establishments in the sector had experienced lower staff turnover since the introduction of the national minimum wage, that 18 per cent. reported higher staff motivation, and that 44 per cent. had increased investment in training and development.
    The matter is important. This Government introduced the national minimum wage, and the level at which it is set obviously has to take cognisance of the points raised by the

    477
    hon. Gentleman. That is why it is important that the process should be careful and steady, and that it be overseen by the Low Pay Commission. Anyone who reads the commission's reports will see that it conducts a thorough analysis of points such as the hon. Gentleman raised.

    Corus
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What support his Department plans to give to former employees of Corus affected by its decision to restructure steel production in the UK. [153639]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, even at this late stage the Government would urge Corus to reconsider its proposal. Should it proceed, we will work with the National Assembly for Wales, local agencies and other Government Departments to ensure that the best and most appropriate help is provided for the individuals and communities affected.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for the efforts made by his Department and the National Assembly for Wales to support the Corus steelworkers if they are made redundant. However, does not he agree that the prime responsibility remains with Corus to restructure its plans and save the jobs at Llanwern, Ebbw Vale and Bryngwyn? Does he share the astonishment felt by members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when Sir Brian Moffat confessed, while giving evidence, that he did not know whether the Bryngwyn works was profitable or not but that he was closing it anyway?
    Mr. Byer:Once we were able to reflect on the decision announced by Corus, it was clear that the company was adopting a short-term approach to the particular trading difficulties that it was experiencing. There is no getting away from the fact that it has been a difficult period for Corus. The House will understand that the company had to act to remedy the losses that it was incurring. The great concern for my hon. Friend, and many others, was that the company failed to adopt an approach guaranteeing a long-term future for steel.
    I have no doubt that steel is an important industry for the United Kingdom, and will remain so. The Government still want to work constructively with Corus and the trade unions to find a better way forward. We could have a plan for steel that would overcome the difficulties that individuals and communities will face if Corus goes ahead with the programme that it has proposed.
    Mr. James Clappison: Will the introduction of the climate change levy next month result in a net cost to the steel industry?
    Mr. Byers: What I can do is repeat the comments made by Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman and chief executive of Corus. His evidence to the Select Committee was very clear. He said that the introduction of the climate change levy made no difference whatever to the proposals being put forward by the company.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: There is nothing new about the conduct of the company. The
    478
    company's barrister admitted in a recent employment appeal tribunal that the company gave false information to employees during the closure of the H.H. Robertson firm in my constituency. Given the role of his Department, and the possible involvement of the Serious Fraud Office, will my right hon. Friend look again at the conduct of British Steel—now Corus—during that closure?
    Mr. Byers: I will agree to do that.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Chris Pond: What assessment he has made of the effects of raising the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [153641]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen. Byers): The Low Pay Commission has made a thorough assessment of the likely impact of raising the minimum wage to £4.10 an hour. Its report shows just how successful the policy has been, with nearly 1.5 million workers taken out of poverty pay, and no adverse impact on levels of employment.
    Mr. Pond:I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that he and the Low Pay Commission will be looking at the youth rate before this latest increase Comes into effect? Does he agree that although some propose that all small firms should be exempted from having to pay the minimum wage, most firms consider that the minimum wage makes good business sense? Could that be one of the reasons why the Confederation of British Industry said this week that
    "most businesses would take their hat off to this Government",
    and warned against the effect of another Tory Government, a view that I am sure is shared by most low-paid workers?
    Mr. Byers: I think that the fact that we have been able to create economic stability which allows business to plan ahead with confidence is the motive behind the CBI's warm endorsement. On the national minimum wage, the Low Pay Commission will be recommending the youth rate later in May. We expect it to report on that issue then.
    Many Conservative Members opposed the national minimum wage and continue to do so. The right hon. Member for Bexley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is a good example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bromley".] The right hon. Gentleman changes his constituency so often that I have difficulty keeping track. He, however, is a true believer. Conservative Front Benchers do not believe in the national minimum wage, either. The public know that, because the Conservatives have continually opposed it. The Government are committed to it; we are proud to have introduced it. That is why it is going up to £4.10 in October and to £4.20 in October the following year.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman been spending any of his March advertising budget on promoting the national minimum wage? Can he confirm that more than £8 million has been spent in March by his Department? Can he also confirm that the information in the advertisement on the four weeks' minimum holiday is incorrect, because the person featured

    479
    in that advertisement is a partner in a firm, so the minimum wage and the four weeks' minimum holiday do not apply?
    Mr. Byers: I am not sure that we are spending any money advertising the national minimum wage in March. If the hon. Gentleman is recommending that we should, I would be more than happy to consider it.
    We are, of course, advertising the fact that as a result of measures introduced by this Government, everybody is now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday a year. That would be taken away by the Conservative party. We make no apology for advertising the fact that people in work now have decent minimum standards as a result of the measures that we have introduced.

    Rural Post Offices
    Miss Anne McIntosh:If he will make a statement on the rural post office network. [153643]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson):By accepting all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report on the future of the post office network, the Government have demonstrated their continuing commitment to maintenance of a national network. We are working closely with the Post Office, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other stakeholders to implement the PIU recommendations. These measures are designed to modernise and improve post office services and to strengthen confidence in the future of the network. We have also established a new fund to support initiatives by volunteer or community groups to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where the traditional post office is closing.
    480
    The Post Office has accepted a formal requirement, placed on it by the Government, to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices.
    Miss McIntosh: The Minister will be aware of my keen interest in this matter. I am grateful for the briefing given to me by the Leeds regional office. That briefing proved that the rural post office network is virtually non-existent. It is hopelessly inadequate. The whole network is geared to urban and suburban post offices. Does the Minister accept that the Government have failed rural post offices and the countryside?
    Mr. Johnson: I realise that the hon. Lady takes an interest in that matter, but I am bemused by her response following a briefing. Rural closures are 20 per cent. down on the same period last year—[Interruption.] That is the first time there has been a reduction of any sort in the past 18 years. Many of the initiatives that we announced last month resulted from suggestions made by rural sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. So we are providing protection through Government subsidy—as specified in the Postal Services Act 2000. We have abolished the 25 per cent. of salary up-front fee that new sub-postmasters had to pay when they first took over a new post office—that was introduced by the previous Government in 1989 and we have waived the fee—and set up a £2 million fund to allow parish councils and local communities to meet the capital costs of opening a village hall as a post office. We predict that that will lead to the reopening of 200 offices that cannot at present find a location.
    The hon. Lady asked a genuine question and has a genuine interest, but we should have a better dialogue on the subject because the rural part of the network is doing better than the rest.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Would the Leader of the House please give us the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 MARCH—Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 27 MARCH—Second Reading of Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Debate on the Intelligence Agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 30 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
Consideration in Committee followed by remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
TUESDAY 3 APRIL—Second Reading of International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
FRIDAY 6 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the beginning of April will be as follows:
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Debate on renewable energy.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 28 March, there will be a debate relating to the support scheme for olive oil in European Standing Committee A.
On Wednesday 28 March, there will be a debate relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 4 April, there will be a debate relating to community postal services in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report
[Wednesday 28 March: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 9431/00, Support scheme for olive oil. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xxviii (1999–2000).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10802/00, Waste electrical and electronic equipment. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-i (2000–01) and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000).
Wednesday 4 April: European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10544/00, Community postal services. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 28-iv (2000–01) and HC 23-xxviii (1999–2000).]
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business and congratulate her on retaining
482
her composure, particularly as she read out the latter dates. I want to be helpful to the right hon. Lady today. I am afraid that she has been rather remiss as it is only three weeks until Maundy Thursday. It must either have slipped her mind, or she has been too busy with other matters, but we have not yet had the dates of the Easter recess. I am sure that that is only an oversight. Clearly, hon. Members who have serious matters with which to deal in their constituencies would like to make arrangements for the recess. I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady could give us some indication of its length this year.
In the event—I know that this is hypothetical, but I am trying to help the Leader of the House to foresee the sort of errors and omissions that I have just identified—of a general election [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, perhaps. In the event of an election in the next few weeks, will the right hon. Lady share with the House the Government's preparations for how the foot and mouth crisis will be dealt with at ministerial level during the campaign? She will be aware that there are strict codes of conduct on how Ministers handle matters and make announcements. Have the Government considered how they would make announcements about foot and mouth disease and keep people properly informed of developments during a general election campaign, in particular as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that the crisis is likely to continue for several months?
Before the Easter recess, will there be time for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on Macedonia, which is a matter that concerns many hon. Members? We have not yet heard from him on the subject. In the past two weeks we have seen quite a flurry of Bills scheduled for Second Reading. Can the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill?
Finally, this week the Government announced an important White Paper on learning disability, which I welcome although I have tabled a couple of specific questions on concerns that I have. Interestingly, the White Paper was launched at Fulham football ground, which is owned by Mr. Al Fayed. Is this to be the procedure in future? Clearly, the Government have abandoned making such important announcements on the Floor of the House. Could we have a ballot, so that Members like me with excellent football grounds, such as Ladysmead in Tiverton, without any patronage from anybody whom anyone would have heard of, could host the launch of important papers in our constituency? Perhaps we could have a weekly ballot, so that we could all share in this bonhomie which the Government have introduced.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady was kind enough to say that a reminder might be helpful and I appreciate the courtesy with which she made her point, but, no, the Easter recess had not slipped my mind. In fact, I was discussing it only this morning. I understand her point about the notice that the House likes to have about the length of the recess. All I can say is what I usually say on these matters, which is that it is subject to the progress of business. [Laughter.] When the Government have had a chance further to assess the progress of our legislative programme, I will share our thoughts with the House as soon as I can.
The hon. Lady asked about preparations for the continued handling of the foot and mouth crisis. As she will be aware, if a general election were called, Ministers

483
do not cease to be Ministers. They continue to carry out their duties. She raised the issue of the code of conduct. My recollection is and my impression has always been—although this will be a matter of discussion, should a general election be called—that what is intended is to ensure that the holding of a ministerial post does not lead either to controversial party political decisions being taken which might bind a subsequent Government unfortunately or to exploitation for party political advantage.
As Members on both sides of the House are striving to be responsible about this serious crisis and, although occasionally there have been some differences of view, both the Government and the Opposition take the crisis in the countryside seriously, so that seems to me to be almost the last area in which difficulties of the kind which the hon. Lady identified might be likely to arise. If, however, such a circumstance develops, it will undoubtedly be a matter for discussion and careful consideration in the relevant Departments.
I understand the hon. Lady's remarks about Macedonia. She will know that it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, when it will be possible for Members to raise the issue She asked about the legislative programme in general. Business is coming back from the Lords and returning to the Floor of the House. That is true for all legislation in the pipeline, including the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, and other issues on which the Government have proposals to put before the House.
The hon. Lady lost me on her final point about the learning disability White Paper. I am not sure what the relevance was of her careful point about Mr. Al Fayed. I am sure that there is a delightful football ground in her constituency. Indeed, there is a delightful one in mine—
Mr. John Bercow: The Baseball Ground.
Mrs. Beckett: No, not the Baseball Ground. The hon. Gentleman is out of date. We have a brand new football stadium, Pride Park, on which we hope to hold an international later this year, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see it on television.
Despite the many attractions of different football grounds in different parts of the country, the germ of the hon. Lady's charge was that the White Paper had not been announced to the House. That is incorrect. My right hon. Friend launched it properly through a written statement to the House. The hon. Lady will know that it is not always possible to fit in the many issues on which Members might seek statements, not least because, perfectly rightly, so many statements have been sought on different aspects of the present difficulties in the countryside.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I repeat the request for a debate on Macedonia? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the serious situation that is developing there; the Kosovo Liberation Army is attempting an insurrection from Kosovo. Macedonia has been an oasis of peace in the troubled former Yugoslavia and the, Albanian minority share in government and in all the institutions of state. They are in a terrible position as the militants take over. Greece, Bulgaria and other surrounding countries could be drawn into the conflict unless we act quickly. A debate is long overdue.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters and pursues them with great
484
diligence. The request from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was for a statement; my hon. Friend asks for a debate, but I understand that they both seek to make the same point—the issue should be aired. I understand and sympathise with the points made by my hon. Friend. She will know that the Government unreservedly condemn the violence that has been taking place in Macedonia. We are fully supportive of the Macedonian Government. We recognise and want to support the efforts made in Macedonia to maintain plurality of representation. I can say to my hon. Friend only what I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, however: there will be an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday. Obviously, there may be opportunities after that for my hon. Friend to press for a debate, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for one in the near future.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Did the Leader of the House note the apparent suggestion made by the Conservative spokesperson that Easter should be postponed? May I suggest that an authority higher even than the Lord President of the Council would be necessary for that?
The Leader of the House will have noted that the Minister for Transport in the other place, Lord Macdonald, announced that, next Thursday, he would make a statement on the progress of the public-private partnership for the National Air Traffic Services. May we have an explicit reassurance from the right hon. Lady today that we, too, will receive that statement next Thursday, and that there will be an opportunity to debate it?
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we have received no statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security about the considerable problems facing families in the areas hardest hit by the foot and mouth crisis. We have had a great deal of sympathy and heard many words from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for the Environment, who is responsible for the taskforce. My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself receive many representations—as, I am sure, do Members on both sides of the House—from families who cannot obtain assistance from the Benefits Agency at present, especially if no children are involved. I was in touch with the Benefits Agency earlier; no crisis loans are available in many circumstances for many of the hardest-hit families—be it in agriculture itself or in tourism and ancillary industries. May we have an immediate statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security on the steps to be taken by the Benefits Agency and on the introduction of flexibility in the system to cater for the problem?
I especially draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that at least one regional newspaper, The Western Morning News, today felt it necessary to launch its own special relief fund to assist those families. It is organising "green welly day" on 30 March. Although many of us will support that, it really should not be left to the media to take such steps. Surely the national welfare state system should be providing the safety net for those families.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) meant to ask that Easter should be postponed, but I admit that

485
one sometimes receives the distinct impression from the Conservative Benches that the mood is "Stop the world, we want to get off".
The hon. Gentleman asks about a statement to be made by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald. I was not aware of the announcement that had been made in the other Chamber, but I think that the statement will be made in fulfilment of an undertaking given by Lord Macdonald during debates in that House. Of course, we have held many extensive, thorough and well-attended debates on the matter in this place.
The hon. Gentleman asks about social security payments, especially with regard to the problems faced by families as a result of the impact of the foot and mouth crisis. Obviously, I take on board his remarks and will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, although I do not promise at present that my right hon. Friend will make a statement. However, if I heard the hon. Gentleman's final remarks correctly, he said that support for the families, and so on, should not be left to the media—and, of course, it is not. As I am sure that he and the House acknowledges, the Government are already making available hundreds of millions of pounds in a variety of ways, and we have said that we will continue to do what we can to tackle the impact of the crisis.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the Senior Salaries Review Body report on the office costs allowance? She will know that Members on both sides of the House and their staff have been waiting anxiously for that report. It is a very good one and goes some way to redress some of the difficulties that many hon. Members—and, more importantly, our staff, who are very loyal and dedicated—have with resources and the way in which we can finance them. Will some time be made available in the next couple of weeks to debate that very important issue?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the review body's report, but I would slightly take issue with him because he suggests that all hon. Members are aware of it. Not all hon. Members have followed such matters with the assiduity of my hon. Friend, who has long been a very effective campaigner on behalf of Members' staff. As the report was published less than a week ago, many Members may well not yet have had time to study and assimilate its contents, but, of course, I understand, and take very seriously, the point that he makes. The way in which the staff of the House and Members' staff work is what makes the House work, and most hon. Members recognise the debt that they owe to their staff, but I am not sure that they are yet ready to debate an issue that has been on the table for only a few days.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Leader of the House find time very soon for an urgent debate on the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in relation to the report on Hollis Industries and the former Paymaster General, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State has claimed that he was not legally able to publish the contents of the report, because it was carried out under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985?
486
Section 449, however, explicitly states that he may publish the information with the company's permission and that, even without that permission, he may publish it if doing so helps a public authority, designed by him, to fulfil its obligations. So what possible grounds are there for the Secretary of State to sue people who are making it clear that he held back that report and did not ask the former Paymaster General to come to the House to put the record right about the payment that he had received from Robert Maxwell? If he did not read the report and handed over the decisions to officials, what on earth is he there for?
Mrs. Beckett: That is a disgraceful remark from the right hon. Gentleman. I have not had the chance to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the matter, but I understand that he was advised, by the permanent secretary at the Department, that it should be dealt with by others, not by himself. Under those circumstances, it is quite disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to say that my right hon. Friend should have insisted on dealing with the matter himself. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would have had much more to say about it, and done so much more fervently, if my right hon. Friend had insisted on overruling the advice of his permanent secretary.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that the Standards and Privileges Committee will publish its report on amendments to the code of conduct tomorrow. Will she make time for a debate on those very important matters before the Easter recess, when many Opposition Members will be able to go on indefinite holiday, because there is a lot of misrepresentation in the press about the rules—indeed, there is some confusion in the House about them?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware that the Committee intended to publish its report tomorrow, and the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Obviously, I shall. as always, take the report very seriously. I agree with my hon Friend's observations about the importance of the House carefully considering those matters, and I take heed of his request, but I cannot undertake to find time to debate the report in the next two weeks. However, if the report appears tomorrow, it will form part of the portfolio of matters that the House is being asked to consider.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Many Members wish to ask a question of the Leader of the House and only a limited amount of time is available in view of other business. Too much argument is creeping into the questions, so I ask hon. Members to be as brief as possible.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 170 Members have signed early-day motion 3 in my name?
[That this House welcomes the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on complementary and alternative medicine; notes the widespread and increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine in the UK; supports improved

487
regulatory structures and the development of single voluntary regulatory bodies for complementary and alternative medicine professions; encourages conventional healthcare professions to develop clear guidelines on competence and training in complementary and alternative medicine disciplines; welcomes the recommendation that the NHS Research and Development Directorate and the Medical Research Council should allocate research funding to develop centres of excellence for conducting complementary and alternative medicine research; supports the provision of better information for the public on what works and what is safe; and urges complementary and alternative medicine practitioners, GPs and other health care professionals to exchange information and work together to provide an integrated system of healthcare which puts patients' needs first.]
It broadly supports the Lords report on complementary and alternative medicine. Will the right hon. Lady confirm or deny the rumours that the Government are about to publish their response to that report tomorrow or perhaps on Monday? Does she recognise the urgency of that response given that the recommendations on research—particularly that into homeopathy—have a bearing on the foot and mouth crisis? There is very strong anecdotal evidence that a remedy called borax can stop animals getting the disease. It is urgent that research is commissioned.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the great and serious interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in these matters. Again, I am not aware of the imminent publication to which he refers, but the recommendations that have been made are being considered carefully. I believe that a response is likely, but I am not aware of the precise time scale. I understand his point and will add it to the list of requests, but I cannot undertake to grant his request at the moment.
Mr. Michael Clapham: May I refer to early-day motion 231, which stands in my name?
[That this House is extremely concerned to learn that thousands of asbestos related disease sufferers and other industrial injury victims may be unable to claim compensation because the Iron Trades Insurers hived off the company's pre-1990 liabilities into a separate company registered as Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd that recently went into voluntary liquidation, suggesting that it may well have been launched with inadequate resources; and calls on the insurance industry to give an undertaking that it will settle all current claims not covered by the company's asses as well as those which arise in the future.]
That motion and early-day motions 355 and 450, which also stand in my name, draw attention to the Iron Trades Holdings insurance scandal in which that company dumped its liabilities in Chester Street Holdings, leaving it with insufficient assets. In fact, the liquidator's initial report is that the assets represent only 5 per cent. of liabilities. If my right hon. Friend cannot provide me with a date for a debate on the insurance industry, will she draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need for the insurance industry to provide the certainty that all the victims of
488
Iron Trades Holdings will receive their compensation in full? There is also a need for an independent inquiry into the scandal.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend and others have run on this matter. I understand and share their concerns that victims of such serious diseases should receive the compensation that is their due fairly and speedily. I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, because my hon. Friend is right to suspect that I cannot find time for a debate on the subject in the near future. It is my understanding that the Policyholders Protection Board will deal with and meet the claims for compensation, but I will draw all my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Chancellor.
Sir George Young: Yesterday afternoon, the Prime Minister said that he would give serious consideration to the case for postponing the local elections. As the Leader of the House has announced no such legislation, would the House be right to conclude that the local elections will go ahead as planned?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I announced the business for the coming week and the provisional business for the following week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said entirely properly that we are listening to the important representations that the Government are receiving on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will know that those representations are not all one way and that the tourism industry has expressed increasingly strong concerns. The Government will have to consider the matter seriously, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, in peacetime, no Government have suspended local elections except for what some might regard as the unfortunate precedent when the noble Lady Thatcher suspended local elections when she intended to abolish the authority in question.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the educational implications of the case of Marjorie Evans, my constituent who was suspended as a head teacher for 18 months and has now returned to school with no evidence having been found against her? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case raises a number of issues that relate to the way in which teachers deal with disruptive pupils and the way in which head teachers and teachers are disciplined?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point that raises concerns that are shared across the House. Although, like the whole House, I am aware of the case, I admit that it had not struck me that it had dragged on for 18 months. I strongly share my hon. Friend's view that that can only be damaging to all concerned. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but he might consider the opportunities offered by Westminster Hall. However, I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be useful to let the House know that the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs and

489
on which I serve, is concerned about programming? Without breaching any confidentiality, can she confirm that the Committee is considering that issue?
Mrs. Beckett: The House might like to know that. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, the Committee shares some of the concerns identified. We recognise that there have been some successes, but also some problems. The Committee is considering that. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not prejudge those discussions.
Mr. Syd Rapson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on television programme funding? Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called "Seven Days that Shook Britain". Although it was good, there were sinister and worrying undertones about the way in which it was produced. Cameras were placed in the homes of the main operators of the dispute before and during it and bugged telephone conversations were broadcast. I am concerned that funding might be received from companies to promote a dispute purely for the benefit of television.
Mrs. Beckett: I could not see that programme, but I heard that it was going to be shown. I was not aware that those who were engaged in the filming were party to the likelihood of a dispute before it occurred. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter. Perhaps he will find an opportunity to raise it in questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on Monday.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will she reconsider the SSRB report, which specifically states that the recommendation on computers and staff should be implemented before the next general election? Some 600 people might be employed by new Members and computer equipment worth hundreds of thousands of pounds—perhaps even £1 million—might legitimately be bought under the old system and transferred to them. However, we are planning to provide that equipment directly and centrally from public funds. Even if the right hon. Lady does not deal with the salary increases of Members, which is always controversial, I urge her to table a motion for debate next week or the week after so that the necessary arrangement is in place in case the Prime Minister decides to go to the country.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. He has long taken a great interest in the work of the Information Committee, which has given evidence several times to the review body. I must admit that I had forgotten that important aspect of the report. The body suggested, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gives, that the decisions should, if possible, be taken before a general election. He is right to make it public that hon. Members should take account of the possibility that there might be some changes in the structure of IT provision. I cannot undertake to do what
490
he asks, but I shall consider his request. In general, I am reluctant to separate aspects of a review body report, but he makes an important point.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that residents in tower blocks, such as my constituents in Little London, who regularly find drug dealers in the doorways and strangers on the stairwells, feel insecure in their homes? Will it be possible to find time for a debate en ways in which targeted help from Government might support local residents, housing managers, local authorities and the police in trying to tackle that serious problem?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I think that we are all conscious of the difficulties faced by people in the circumstances that he describes, and concern for those who find themselves so placed is widely shared throughout the House. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who, as he will know, is doing what he can with Ministers in other Departments to promote imaginative and cross-departmental programmes to produce exactly the kind of practical help to which he refers.
Mr. Michael Howard: The right hon. Lady may be aware that some three weeks ago I was fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment debate on the state of the national health service in east Kent, to which the Minister concerned gave a characteristically complacent reply. Yesterday, it became known that East Kent Hospitals NHS trust had commissioned its own report, which concluded, in respect of accident and emergency facilities:
"It is remarkable that no major clinical catastrophe has occurred in recent times arising directly out of the clinical environment within which staff are operating."
In view of that direct rebuttal of the Minister's response, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and make a statement on the current state of crisis in east Kent's hospitals?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern on behalf of his constituents. I was not aware of the report to which he referred, but clearly it makes serious points. I am aware that there is long-standing concern about hospital provision in east Kent because I used to get letters about it before the general' election. I fear that I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to make a statement or to find time for a debate in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw the report to his attention.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Leader of the House has already been asked twice about the need for the Government to make an early response to the Senior Salaries Review Body, but I want to press her on the matter. Apart from anything else, arranging for the House of Commons to put in place new systems during a dissolution would be a massive advantage, enabling the new Parliament to start in an efficient, professional and organised way. Will the

491
Government be able to make a public response to the package of measures in the near future, and how long does the right hon. Lady think it will be before they decide whether to bring those measures to the House before the election?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot add anything further to what I have already said about timing, but I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. From my understanding of the report, I do not think that we should nurture the illusion that implementing the proposals would be easy and speedy, and that if there were a general election the whole IT system in the House would be transformed during the dissolution. The SSRB makes the point that there is a lot of work to be done and a new framework to be established, but of course I accept the point that Members elected to a new Parliament would need to know that a new system might be introduced.
Mr. John Bercow: May we please have an urgent debate in Government time. on the conditions at Winson Green jail in Birmingham, which have been described by the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, as some of the worst that he has ever seen? Given that the inspection of the prison found soiled mattresses, unemptied buckets and prisoners who were allowed out on association for only five hours a week, does the right hon. Lady agree that the fact of a £860,000 budget cut at the prison and no fewer than 300 recommendations for urgent reform makes it essential that we should have a proper debate on conditions that by any standard should be regarded as totally unacceptable in a civilised society?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am aware of the chief inspector's report, although from memory I believe that changes were made to the demands that were initially made of the prison for reductions in the budget. I seem to recall having seen a response from the Director-General of the Prison Service that made points about the way in which resources could be better used at the prison. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but I undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the fact that concern about the matter has been expressed in the House.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Barnsley. West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) about Iron Trades Holdings Ltd. and Chester Street Holdings Ltd.? I have a constituent, Mr. Donald McCreery, who is dying of asbestos-induced lung cancer: his prognosis is desperate—he will be dead within a very few months. He was awarded more than £100,000 in court as a result of contracting his illness following his employment, yet those two organisations have behaved in what I would describe as a fraudulent, dishonest and disgraceful fashion—maladministration is an understatement. Could the appropriate Minister come to the House to make a statement about what action the House can take in respect of the insurance industry, which is suffering as a result of that dreadful case, and what it can do to help those who deserve compensation?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. The whole House will sympathise with his
492
constituent and the concern the hon. Gentleman expresses on his constituent's behalf. He asks what the House can do to draw attention to the issue, but, in a sense, he has already done that by raising it with me. I certainly undertake to draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who I am sure are as anxious as he is to bring such matters to a speedy resolution.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): May we please have an urgent debate on the quality of the advice available to the Prime Minister? I saw the Prime Minister on television yesterday saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had been "cleared" by the Standards and Privileges Committee in the matter of the complaints made against the hon. Gentleman, yet my reading of the report tells me that while eight complaints were indeed "Not upheld", eight were "Not completed" and one was "Upheld." The report also states:
"we have not found answers to all outstanding questions"
It strikes me that, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that his hon. Friend had been cleared, either he is receiving extremely poor advice from people who have read the report, or he somehow failed to understand the report himself. One way or another, we need a debate to winkle out whether the Prime Minister is badly advised or dyslexic.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was not here last week when some of those issues were raised. I can only repeat what I said on that occasion. It is extremely important that the House has proper systems to ensure that there is no corruption, or that if there is, it is discovered and stamped out. However, it is also important to remember that every Member of Parliament is vulnerable to frivolous accusations, whether made for reasons of personal spite or political advantage. The House should treat such matters with great seriousness and care.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I welcome the debate that we are to have on Monday on the Adoption and Children Bill? The measure will command support throughout the House. Why have the Government changed their mind? I understood that the Bill was to have been produced in draft form for pre-legislative scrutiny. What has led to the change in the Government's plan?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome for the Bill. I do not think that there was any recent decision to publish the Bill specifically in draft. As I have said before, the Government are mindful of the fact that this area of legislation is complex and in need of thorough overhaul, and that it involves difficult and sensitive issues on which there is no right answer, so the balance of decisions and the handling of legislation will always be important. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a recent change of approach to the matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the fourth anniversary, more or less, of the publication of the Labour party's manifesto to modernise the London underground by means of a public-private partnership is to be celebrated by a strike, which will cause still further inconvenience to many long-suffering users of the service? Is she further aware that on 1 February she promised that she would make it

493
known as soon as a constructive end had been reached to the dialogue on the public-private partnership? What has gone wrong? Was the pledge fraudulent, or was there a glitch between the mayoralty, the Government and Mr. Kiley? The travelling public need to know.
Mrs. Beckett: I wish that Members would be more cautious about the way in which they fling around words such as "fraudulent".
Serious and detailed negotiations are continuing between the Government, Mr. Kiley and the mayor. I understand that the mayor has said recently that he is optimistic about progress. The Government are more than keen to see a resolution of the matter.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady will have heard the Prime Minister say yesterday that he is willing to consider representations on the propriety of holding local and other elections on 3 May. Would it not be a good way to inform the Prime Minister to have a debate on the subject next week? It would enable us to express our anxieties about, for example, farmers who are candidates or who wish to work in support of individual candidates, but are either confined to their farms or are in exclusion zones, and will thus be denied the opportunity to participate? All those affected should have the right to receive an application for a postal vote, so that they will not be deprived of the franchise?
Mrs. Beckett: Under legislation that the Government recently put on the statute book, everyone has the right to a postal vote. Although that is not why the change was made, undoubtedly the right to such a vote is beneficial in present circumstances. I can only repeat what I said earlier. Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is considering extremely carefully the representations that he is receiving on this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the advice to the farming community, as I understand it, is that provided proper and sensible precautions are taken, people are free to move from their farms. I remind him that the Government are receiving substantial and concerned representations, not least from the tourist industry and other businesses about the impact that the handling of the issue is already having on the economy as a whole. There is great concern in that industry and other businesses that the Government should not postpone local elections. There are weighty arguments on both sides.
Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady may be aware that my constituency resides under the approach flight path of Manchester airport. The airport is a great asset to the area, but many of my constituents suffer from aircraft noise, especially when planes stray from the designated flight path.
The right hon. Lady may also be aware that I have raised this matter throughout this Parliament, in the knowledge that Ministers, in letters to me, have made it clear that they would favour the introduction of regulations to allow airports such as Manchester to have the statutory power to fine airlines whose aircraft stray.
494
Will she explain why the matter has not been brought before the House during this Parliament, despite Government support for the idea?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not armed with an off-the-cuff response. I think that the entire House understands the position facing the public and Members such as the hon. Gentleman whose constituencies contain airports. He will know that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has introduced a substantial amount of business during this Parliament. His proposal might not have found its way to the top of the Department's agenda, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael Jack: Conservative Members know that the nation, is over-taxed. It is sad, therefore, that in the next two weeks of business, the Leader of the House has not been able to announce the Second Reading of a Finance Bill. Has she considered the fact that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, which enables the Government to raise revenue, is time-limited? If we do not have a Finance Bill soon, the Government will lose their power to raise a large amount of wholly unnecessary tax on the nation.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are well aware of the need to introduce the Finance Bill; no doubt, the Treasury will announce when it hopes to be able do so in due course. The right hon. Gentleman may claim that the country is over-taxed, but, within the memory of ever Member, the Government have lowered rates for personal taxation and business taxation.
I understand that the shadow Chancellor made some proposals today whereby, if for some extraordinary reason the Conservatives were elected, they propose to do what they never managed to do during their last period in government—change the way in which the top rate of tax bites. I am also aware that the shadow Chancellor is quoted as having said that he did not choose to specialise in maths at school, and that it was not one of his favourite subjects. All that I can say is that it shows.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The Leader of the House said that Bills are already coming back from the other place. We have one of the lightest legislative programmes in recent history and Bills have been rigidly timetabled. Assuming for a moment that the Government do not hold an election because of the foot and mouth crisis, will the Leader of the House share with us her plans for the Session until next October? The Government are concerned primarily with the good workings of Parliament, not general elections, popularity and things like that. I know that the Leader of the House will have a wallchart in her office showing how Bills will progress through Parliament in the coming months. Will she assure the House that there is work for us to do until next October?
Mrs. Beckett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that with absolute confidence. I try very hard to educate Opposition Members to check their statistics before they repeatedly make assertions. In the previous Session, they asserted that the legislative programme was the heaviest in history, which was rubbish. Now the tune seems to

495
have changed and we have the lightest legislative programme in history, which is also rubbish. We have a perfectly normal and adequate legislative programme, which we believe can be well managed in the House. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have plenty of business to keep us going until next au umn.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill before Easter to amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, thus legitimising millions of pounds worth of Labour election literature that is currently illegal because it has an illegal imprint?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that concerns have been expressed, although my impression is that those who would have the biggest bill if that goes wrong would be the Conservatives.
Mr. Keith SimpsonNo, it would be you.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is being optimistic. I am aware that concerns have been expressed and the Government are looking at the matter to see what, if anything, needs to be done.
Mr. Owen Paterson: It has been estimated that the foot and mouth crisis will cost the economy more than £9 billion in the coming year. That loss will fall disproportionately on rural businesses and country towns. Following yesterday's debate on the disease, it is obvious that things are ping to get worse. Businesses involved in activities outside agriculture such as haulage, equestrianism and consultancy are now experiencing a catastrophic drop in t turnover. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed an imaginative scheme for loans of £10,000 to afflicted businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has kindly been granted a one-and-a-half hour debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday. Could that be upgraded to a full day's debate so that we can discuss the national crisis properly?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that anyone could argue that the House has not discussed the issue properly. We are discussing it repeatedly and at length, and it is right and proper that we should. The hon. Gentleman made a point with which no Member would quarrel: the impact of the crisis will be substantial and expensive. However, he may be slightly in error. I understand why he thinks that, initially, the effect on rural businesses may be disproportionate, but as he may have heard in the House yesterday—I understand that it continues to be the case—there is already a substantial impact in areas where there is no cause whatever for it. I believe that the city of Bath was mentioned; in London, I understand that takings are substantially down at the London Eye, Madame Tussaud's and other such attractions. Although rural businesses are bound to be affected and everyone is conscious of that, the crisis is having an effect on the whole economy.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that we would look at any proposals that are submitted. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will know that issues
496
are being considered along the lines of the Conservative proposals which we hope will be even more effective. The Government have already spent substantial sums—millions of pounds—and continue to expect to do so.
Mr. Graham Brady: Twelve months after the Government were condemned by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for their systematic politicisation of the national health service, the commissioner has now felt it necessary to bring in independent auditors to investigate the fact that that practice has continued unchanged in appointments to primary care trusts. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the Government's failure to observe the Nolan rules on public appointments in the national health service?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government have not failed to follow the rules. We follow the Nolan procedures implemented by the Conservative party. It is a source of slight regret to me that the hon. Gentleman continues to condemn procedures that have ensured the appointment to health boards of far more women and people from minority communities.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: This week, the Environment Sub-Committee published its report on sustainable waste management. In view of the Government's gyrations in their policy on incinerators, which have caused a spate of speculative applications and have been a source of disquiet in many communities, including that in Guildford, may we have an urgent debate on incineration policy? Will the Government consider the Conservative proposal for a moratorium to ensure that the many questions about incinerators can be sorted out?
Mrs. Beckett: Yet again, the Opposition react opportunistically by proposing steps that they would never have thought of taking when they were in government. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special extra debate on the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I do not accept his animadversions on the Government's approach. I announced a Westminster Hall debate on renewable energy. With a little ingenuity—which has occasionally been demonstrated by Opposition Members—the hon. Gentleman might manage to work his concerns into that debate.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady make time next week for a debate to discuss compensation for the consequential loss suffered by farmers who are caught by form D and exclusion zones? As such farmers are unable to move any of their animals, they have not had any income for almost six weeks and are living hand to mouth. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the package that the Government have so far proposed does anything like enough to keep those people in business.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a further special debate on that issue, although I recognise the gravity of case that the hon. Lady makes. However, I can undertake to draw her specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Points of Order
1.22 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In response to comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) about the problem of aircraft deviating from approved take-off and landing paths, the Leader of the House may inadvertently have misled the House. She said that she was not sure why it had been impossible to bring measures before the House, and suggested that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions might have been too busy to do so during the current Session. I tabled an amendment to the Transport Bill that would have ensured such provision, but it was not possible to debate it because of a Government programme motion.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Ms Margaret Moran: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has come to my attention that in the Budget debate on 13 March, column 902 of Hansard, I suffered a slip of the tongue and referred to "all" rather than to "many" schools in my constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity to make any necessary correction.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the hon. Lady said that she had visited all the schools in her constituency twice in the past year. It is a pity that she did not read the daily Hansard and correct the record immediately after the event. I know that her comments have created a lot consternation in her constituency.
Mr. Speaker: I think that it was very nice of the hon. Lady to correct her comments now.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 2001
Capital Allowances Act 2001
Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Act 2001
Colchester Borough Council Act 2001

Orders of the Day

  Election of a Speaker
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, which will continue until 4 o'clock. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I may have to declare an interest in the matter!
  1.24 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
  That

  (1) This House approves the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01, Election of a Speaker (House of Commons Paper No. 40) relating to the election of a Speaker.

  (2) Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker) be amended by leaving out paragraph (4); and the title of the Standing Order shall be 'Election of the Speaker: Member presiding'; and

  (3) The following new Standing Orders No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) and No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot) be made:

  Before I address the motion, I want to do what I think is proper and express publicly our thanks. First, our thanks are due to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who weathered the storms around the recent election of Speaker with such good sense and aplomb that several hon. Members gave substantive evidence to the Procedure Committee in support of the current system, despite the widespread anxiety that was expressed at the time. It is also worth noting the conclusion of the Committee's report, with which I believe all hon. Members will agree. It states
  "that the outcome of the election on 23 October 2000 would have been the same regardless of the particular electoral system employed".
  Secondly, our thanks are due to the Procedure Committee, which examined the procedures for election of Speaker with thoroughness and dispatch, and produced a report which, I believe, provides the basis for a potential new system, which might avoid the anxieties that were expressed about our previous method.
  Let me stress at once that the motion has been tabled in my name simply to allow the House to reach a decision on the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, as has the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall deal with that shortly. The motion and the amendment have been drawn up with the assistance of the Clerks. The detailed process of drafting has, as is often the case, created the need for minor amendment and to expand the Committee's precise recommendations, so that the Standing Orders do, in some places, flesh out the detail of the Committee's recommendations. I believe that the Committee expected that. We have been greatly assisted by the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has been consulted on our detailed interpretation of the recommendations.
  There is no Government position on the issue, just as there was no Government position on the election of a Speaker. It is a House of Commons matter and Labour Members are not subject to any party Whip.
  The first part of the motion simply approves the recommendations that the Procedure Committee made about the election of a Speaker. They include matters that probably cannot adequately be put into Standing Orders, but should nevertheless guide the House in future. For example, the Committee noted that it perceived no need for hustings or manifestos, but did not recommend their formal prohibition. It deprecated strident campaigning and noted that it should be possible to carry out the whole electoral process in a single sitting day. Those are important guidelines, which should be put on the record, but they need not be written into Standing Orders.
  The second paragraph of the motion provides for leaving out paragraph (4) of existing Standing Order No. 1. That paragraph sets out our existing procedures for electing a Speaker. The rules about who should preside over any election, and the powers that they should exercise, are left unchanged
  The meat of the motion is in the two new Standing Orders proposed under paragraph (3). The first, entitled "Re-election of former Speaker", simply provides that if the Speaker in the previous Parliament is re-elected to the Commons, the House should, at the beginning of the Parliament, be given the opportunity to re-elect him or her

  501
  by acclamation. That has been the long-standing tradition of the House, and I would expect it to be maintained in all but the rarest circumstances. That was also the Procedure Committee's view. The Standing Order provides that the question on re-election should be put forthwith. It is my view, and I understand that it is shared by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, that that should emphasise the formality of the procedure.
  However, it is conceivable, although always extremely unlikely, that a previous Speaker might no longer be acceptable to the House. In that rare case, and in all other cases when a new Speaker is elected, the procedure in the second proposed Standing Order for the election of a Speaker would come into play. I want to highlight one or two details in it.
  The report recommends that each nomination should be accompanied by 12 signatures. It does not suggest what should happen if an hon. Member signs two candidates' nominations. It seems to have been intended that the signature of any hon. Member who signed twice should properly be disregarded. Again, that was confirmed by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. However, there was no wish for candidates to be disqualified through no fault of their own but as a result of a duplication of signatures. The draft Standing Order therefore specifies that nominations may contain up to 15 signatures. That gives some room for manoeuvre. It is the Committee's view that the nominations should not be publicly revealed. That is not written into the Standing Orders, but it would be covered by the House's general endorsement of the Committee's proposals.
  Paragraph (6) provides that the order in which candidates address the House should be determined by lot in the House, to ensure that the process is as transparent as possible. After that draw, each candidate will, as the Procedure Committee recommended, be given the opportunity to address the House before the ballot takes place.
  Paragraph (7) provides that the presiding Member will not have a vote in any ballot, just as at present.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I was very pleased to see the provision in paragraph (6) of the proposed Standing Order, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) had a meeting in Committee Room 14, at which all the candidates were asked to speak, albeit only briefly, the proceedings were criticised for perhaps providing a hostage to fortune in trying to get votes for the candidature. I was asked to be the chairman and, having considered the matter, I thought that holding such a meeting was a sensible thing to do, and that if any candidate were to go beyond what was expected of a Speaker, it would be to their disadvantage—and so it proved.
  Mrs. Beckett: I know that my right hon. Friend took part in those procedures. One of the concerns that was expressed—I speak from memory—on at least the previous two occasions of a Speaker's election, was that under our former procedures it was not necessarily the case that every potential candidate was heard. I know that that was part of the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was seeking to
  502
  overcome in the procedure to which my right hon. Friend referred. I think that it is one of the virtues of the proposals of the Procedure Committee that such a procedure would now allow all potential candidates to address the House without any being excluded.
  The concern is for transparency and fairness in these procedures. Paragraphs (8) to (13) set out the provisions for an exhaustive ballot. Paragraph (14) sets out the general principles that the House should meet at 2.30 pm on any day on which it is to elect a Speaker; that the question that a Member becomes Speaker shall be unamendable, as the Procedure Committee suggested; and that, in the unlikely event—one hopes—of the House rejecting the Member who comes top of the ballot, the whole process will be repeated on the following day.
  I turn finally to the amendment tabled separately in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The Procedure Committee recommended that the House should be given the opportunity to decide whether the ballot for the Speaker should be open or secret. The Government have tabled the amendment to ensure that the House has the opportunity to make that decision. I recognise there are strong, genuine arguments on both sides. This is a matter on which there are bound to be legitimate differences of opinion.
  The Committee considered, on balance, that the ballot should be secret and that is why that provision is in the substantive motion However, I stress that it is for the House to decide, and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary enables that choice to be made by giving the House something on which to vote.
  I conclude by repeating that the Procedure Committee has done an excellent job, and done it as speedily and effectively as anybody could possibly have wished. I believe that this has given the House an opportunity to change our system for electing the Speaker if we so choose, but it is for the House to choose. I commend the motion to the House.
  1.33 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the Procedure Committee. Its report is comprehensive and has been put before the House in good time, before the Easter recess. I would like to say how much I appreciated the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. It took wide-ranging evidence, and that has helped to steer the direction in which the report has gone.
  I would like to put on record the fact that the evidence that I gave to the Committee drew on certain themes that were of importance to a broad spectrum of Conservative Members, but I also made it clear when I was giving my own personal opinion. None the less, I am pleased to see that many of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee have focused on issues that were of broad concern to hon. Members. When we debate across the Floor of the House, particularly when the right hon. Lady and I speak from the Dispatch Box, what we mean by modernisation of the House is often misunderstood—but considering the rules for electing a Speaker is a most appropriate subject, and is certainly in line with what I regard as modernisation.

  503
  As the Leader of the House said again today, this debate will focus on House matters. Individual Members of Parliament will be able to have a say in how we shape, form and reform our structures and proceedings—and none of those is more important than the position that you hold, Mr. Speaker. I hope that later we will engage in further discussions about the powers of the Speaker. Personally, I would like the Speaker to be able to support us even more in holding the Executive to account. Perhaps the Procedure Committee will consider that in due course, as the next stage.
  The debate is important and timely. I do not intend to go through the detail again, as the right hon. Lady has given a good summary of the report, which also contains the record of all the oral evidence we gave. This is a matter for individual Members. It should be appreciated that what was once considered to be the province of what are euphemistically called the usual channels, which held so much power, is being challenged That is what the report does. It has been put on the record that we should look into many aspects of our procedures, particularly how we decide who should be brought forward as a suitable candidate for Speaker.
  I suppose that I now have to regard myself as part of the usual channels, but I have been doing the job for only six or seven months, and I still find it a strange job in some respects. Indeed, it took me about four months before I stopped calling the usual channels "the other channels".
  The more transparency there is, and the more Members can challenge what happens, the more I welcome it. It is important that there be a clear record of decision making, especially in important matters such .is the election of a Speaker, and that Members should be able to participate rather than leaving things up to the usual channels. I respect and recognise that as modernisation, even if I am critical of some other aspects of modernisation that are brought before the House.
  1.37 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I begin by thanking the Leader of the House very much for her kind remarks about the Procedure Committee's report. Indeed, I would go further and thank her for her tremendous helpfulness throughout the inquiry. She gave excellent evidence to the Procedure Committee, and I appreciate personally, as does my Committee, the speed with which she has arranged today's debate.
  The right hon. Lady was courteous enough to let me, on behalf of my Committee, see a draft of the new Standing Orders, and to adopt some of the changes that I suggested, also on behalf of the Committee. I am happy with the text of the Standing Orders, which embodies the Committee's recommendations well.
  I thank my colleagues on the Committee, some of whom are here today, for their work and support, and for the dedication that they put into producing the report. I say openly that we worked very well as a team on the inquiry; such an inquiry shows hoot Members from all parties can work well together to produce a report that will improve the procedures of the House.
  The subject was sensitive and complex, and we were working to a tight schedule. None the less, we reached consensus on almost all our conclusions, and agreed the report at a single meeting. The Leader of the House has
  504
  given a very fair summary of the contents of our report, and I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating that. The report sets out its arguments clearly, and I shall simply make a few comments arising from the inquiry.
  The Procedure Committee carried out the inquiry because it was the clear wish of the House that we should do so. As we say in the report, there was a lot of unhappiness among Members about the way in which our procedures operated last October. A review was obviously necessary and it was important that we consult as widely as possible within the House.
  As the Chairman of the Committee, I wrote to all hon. Members and received 130 replies. Within the constraints of our timetable, the Committee also took oral evidence from as wide a cross-section of hon. Members as possible. A number of the hon. Members who gave that evidence are in the House today, hoping to participate in the debate—and I hope that they do.
  We went into the inquiry with an open mind. The report sets out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the existing system. We certainly did not feel that all the criticisms of that system were justified. Many of the comments made in the press were simply what I would describe as the product of sloppy and malicious journalism of a kind that is now regrettably all to common in the field of parliamentary reporting.
  In particular, we concluded that it was wrong to criticise the procedures because of the length of time that it took to choose a Speaker. The decision is a very important one. It is made only once every seven or eight years. It matters more to get it right than to do it quickly. Many Parliaments around the world take an equivalent amount of time to choose their presiding officers. In fact, only some seven weeks ago, our sister House of Commons in Canada took four and half hours to elect its new Speaker, using a system based on a secret ballot.
  We also supported the decision of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), not to accept the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although that was not a popular decision—and we say in the report that we understand the frustration that it caused—it was right in procedural terms. My right hon. Friend had no alternative.
  However, we conclude that the existing procedures are unsatisfactory. That is not because they were wrong when they were drafted, which was as recently as the 1970s, but because the House has changed since then. For many years, the House was content to let the usual channels referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—and in particular the Government—make the running in choosing a Speaker. Even if the leaderships of the Government and Opposition parties disagreed over the choice, as happened occasionally, the House was still presented with a choice between only two candidates.
  We should be careful not to be too scathing about that arrangement. The report describes it as being based on "benevolent paternalism"—a phrase that I use carefully. It is striking that, when the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party gave evidence to the Procedure Committee in 1971, he was content that the Government should put forward a candidate for the Chair—even though the Government of the time were Conservative. Under the old

  505
  system, there was usually a genuine attempt by Government to pick a candidate who would be broadly acceptable to the House
  We can also judge the system by its results. Over the years, the House has had many fine and distinguished Speakers, so the system by which they were chosen cannot have been all that bad. However, Governments have not always been successful in reading the mood of the House, or in predicting what Back-Bench Members would find acceptable.
  In the report, we show that there is another tradition that runs back through the centuries—a healthy suspicion by the House of candidates whose links with Government are too strong. That attitude has grown in strength in the past 20 or 30 years. We have now reached a situation where not one of our witnesses was prepared to support any involvement at all by the usual channels—the party machines—in the process of choosing a Speaker. It follows that the traditional system of sifting out candidates to leave the House with a choice of only one or two has broken down.
  That became obvious last October when 12 candidates, myself included, stood for election. The current voting system was not devised or designed for such a situation. We do not mince our words about this in the report. We say that in a multi-candidate election, the current rules are unfair because the order in which the names are put forward before the House may help to determine the outcome. The election last October disguised that because the size of the winning candidate's majority—your own, Mr. Speaker—meant that all other candidates were easily beaten. So the order in which the House decided upon them was, in that instance, irrelevant. In other circumstances, that might not be the case.
  The Committee gave serious consideration to the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former chairman of the Procedure Committee, to modify the existing system. However, we decided that although it was a valiant attempt, it ultimately failed to address the criticisms that had been levelled at the system, and that root-and-branch reform was therefore necessary.
  We agreed that the existing system, in the circumstances of a multi-candidate election, was unfair, at least potentially, and should be replaced. We had no difficulty in concluding that its replacement should be a ballot-based system. That was the logical, obvious alternative. We did, however, have divided views on two questions relating to the operation of the ballot.
  The question of whether the ballot should be open or secret raises important issues of principle. A majority on the Committee concluded that the ballot should be secret, as is the case in similar elections in most of the major Parliaments in the Westminster tradition. A minority of colleagues, I have to confess, dissented, and although they did not formally divide the Committee, we felt that it was right to recommend that the House should have an opportunity to make a separate decision on that point. The amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will enable the House to do that, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House and her ministerial colleague for allowing that to happen.
  506
  The other issue on which there was a difference of views within the Committee was the voting system itself. The choice was between the exhaustive ballot and the alternative vote. Both were recommended by the Electoral Reform Society as suitable systems by which to elect a Speaker. The arguments for and against each are well set out in the report, and even more fully in the evidence from the Electoral Reform Society, printed with the report. My preference—which was shared, I am pleased to say, by a majority of the Committee—was for the exhaustive ballot.
  Mr. John Bercow: Hear, hear. Quite right.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support from a sedentary position.
  Sir Peter Emery: Noise does not carry the day.
  Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend rightly says that noise does not carry the day. Despite my preference, I think that both systems—the exhaustive ballot and the alternative vote—would function satisfactorily.
  We considered whether there should be a run-off, according to the existing rules, after the ballot. We decided that there was little point. The ballot would give a decisive result, while a run-off would add nothing and might lead to confusion or an erosion of the legitimacy of the ballot.
  Even with this radical proposal, some of the elements of the existing system will be retained. For instance—and I address this remark specifically to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon—the Father of the House will normally preside over the proceedings.
  Sir Peter Emery: Is that in the Standing Order, or is it just my hon. Friend's wish?
  Mr. Winterton: It is the wish of the Committee on whose behalf I am speaking today. I am outlining and stressing that wish in my remarks. I repeat that the Father of the House will normally preside over the proceedings. There will still be an opportunity for congratulatory speeches after the election and for some of the ceremonial surrounding the election to be retained.
  We recommend that there is one set of special circumstances in which there should not be an automatic ballot. That is when a sitting Speaker seeks re-election to the Chair after a general election. As we show in the historical section of the report—which is a valuable part of it—there has been a strong convention for many years that in those circumstances, a sitting Speaker is not challenged.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on that section of the report in particular in the following respect. It is clear that, for the election of a new Speaker, the nomination system that the Committee has proposed requires a degree of cross-party support. One could envisage circumstances—this may have happened although it may riot have been clear because no nomination system existed—in which such support did not exist. Should the House fetter the rights of a majority

  507
  of Members of Parliament to elect whom they want, and why does that not apply to the re-election of a former Speaker?
  Mr. Winterton: As I develop my argument I think that my hon. Friend will realise that it is possible for the re-election of a sitting Speaker to be challenged, but the Committee and I, as its Chairman, do not believe that that is desirable. I will highlight that in a moment. We show in the historical section of the report that there is a strong convention that in such circumstances a sitting Speaker is not challenged. We support that convention and I hope that the House will also support it today.
  I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that that convention helps to safeguard the office of Speaker against the politicisation that might follow if it were felt that a change in the composition of the House following a general election might lead to a change of Speaker. The new Standing Order provides that in those circumstances a single Question should be put to the House, "That the former Speaker do take the Chair." In theory, it would be possible to vote the motion down and to hold a ballot the following day, thus preserving the House's right to change its Speaker, but we think that that is highly unlikely to happen and that it would be undesirable if it did. I speak on behalf of the Committee as a whole in making those comments.
  Among other issues, we considered the desirability of candidates campaigning, issuing manifestos or speaking at hustings meetings. Here, I must mention the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), whom I commend for his initiative at the last election, which enabled a number of the candidates, including me, to present themselves to a large number of Back Benchers and to be assessed on their suitability for this vital job. I found the experience exhilarating and the initiative taken by the hon. Gentleman served the House well.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I recall the hon. Gentleman at the hustings describing himself as a "traditionalist moderniser" and then correcting himself and saying that he was a "modernising traditionalist". Which is he?
  Mr. Winterton: I think that I am the latter—a modernising traditionalist. I believe that many people in this Parliament have found me to be so and I am happy with that.
  The broad conclusion of the Procedure Committee was that a limited amount of campaigning is only to be expected and, indeed, is healthy, bat that it should be regulated by what we describe as the hallmark of this House, common sense. At the start of a Parliament, with many new Members in the House who will not know the candidates personally, it would be helpful to have some way of judging differences between candidates. We provided for candidates to make speeches in the Chamber before the ballot. That is probably the most effective form of hustings. However, we came to the conclusion that speeches by proposers and seconders—however good they may have been or might be—do not serve much useful purpose and should be discontinued.
  There would be a danger if personal manifestos set out a detailed platform of policy commitments. The nature of the Speaker's office is such that he or she has to
  508
  implement the policies decided by the House and its Committees. A new Speaker could be in an awkward position if it were known that he or she was personally opposed or dedicated to changing any of those policies which had been decided on by the House. That is not to say that candidates should not indicate their broad sympathy with certain policies, such as the modernisation of the House, which is widely talked about today, as the Leader of the House knows. My feeling is that any candidate who went too far down that road or indulged in over-frenetic campaigning would probably find it counter-productive. I think that that was the purport of the earlier intervention of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
  We provide for a system of nomination, including the requirement that each candidate should have the support of at least 12 Members, three of whom do not belong to his or her party. We did not want to go too far in the direction of discouraging Members from standing, but we thought it reasonable that there should be a minimum threshold of eligibility. We set out a step-by-step proposal for a new system, but we have not attempted to prescribe every last detail.
  Mr. Grieve: If I may, I will pick up on my previous point, the thrust of which I think my hon. Friend misunderstood. Will he clarify why he regards it as necessary to have cross-party support for the nomination for the speakership, when the decision must ultimately be taken in accordance with the majority view of the House? Could that not lead to a situation where there is a clear majority view of the House about who it wants as Speaker, but where, because of that mechanism, it is deprived of having the opportunity of that choice?
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend asks a hypothetical question. I do not believe that that situation will arise. Any serious candidate for the highest office of this House, that of Speaker, will always attract cross-party support. In my view and from 30 years' experience in this House, if appropriate representations are made by the individual concerned or those representing the interests of that individual, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever that such a candidate will receive cross-party support. To have merely three out of 12 Members not belonging to the candidate's party is modest indeed. It will be for the House authorities to work out the operational details of conducting a ballot within the clear framework established by the new Standing Orders.
  Finally, the Committee comments on matters relating to tradition and ceremonial. We say that it should be up to the successful candidate whether he or she wishes to continue with the tradition of being dragged to the Chair. My view is that it is a pleasing piece of theatre with a serious message. It reminds us, as you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, that the new Speaker is taking over a heavy responsibility and may be called on to show courage in standing up to the Executive—perhaps not the physical courage that was needed in the past when after the Speaker's Chair could come the executioner's block, but certainly moral courage.
  The Leader of the House said in evidence to us that the outcome was more important than the process. She was right. By that she meant that what mattered was that we continue to elect good, able, impartial Speakers who will defend the rights of this House and the people. Voting systems and Standing Orders are only a means to that end.

  509
  I pay tribute again to my Committee for its work. Although it is somewhat unusual, I also wish to express appreciation on behalf of my Committee of the staff who helped us throughout this important inquiry. They undertook valuable work and were much appreciated by all the Committee's members. I hope that my Committee has put together a sensible package of proposals that will enable the right outcomes to be reached and so strengthen the speakership and the House of Commons. I hope that the House will support the proposals.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I ask the indulgence of the House. This may be my last speech, so if I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to range widely.
  I support the report of the Procedure Committee and the motion proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The report is scholarly and historical; it considers all the arguments. My only difference with it is over the question of a secret ballot. I have always understood that if one votes as oneself, it must be secret. Years ago, when I was canvassing in Bristol, I asked a woman to support me and she replied, "Mr. Benn, the ballet is secret". I thought of her dancing alone in the bedroom, where no candidate was allowed to know about it. However, when we vote in a representative capacity, people must know what we have done, so I shall vote for the amendment. The Committee has done very well. I hope that the House accepts the report.
  The old system had serious difficulties. Although I disagreed strongly with the Father of the House, he carried out his duties with exceptional skill—with panache! I felt that he was the only Member of the House who could have turned the Beefeaters into a fighting force—he showed such passion and commitment to the rules. We got the Speaker we wanted and I hope that, as a result of today's proceedings, we shall get the system we want—the one that I advocated, as the House will recall.
  As I have done on previous occasions—when we were electing a Speaker—I want to look a little more broadly at the role of the Speaker. Often, we tend to think of the Speaker in relation only to the Chamber, but the Speaker's role is of much wider importance. Relations between the legislature and the Executive go through the Speaker of the House.
  We live in a strange country: we do not elect our head of state; we do not elect the second Chamber. We elect only this House, and even in this House enormous power is vested in the prerogatives. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting us, sign treaties without consulting us, agree to laws in Brussels without consulting us and appoint bishops, peers and judges without consulting us. The role of the Speaker today compared with that of Mr. Speaker Lenthall is that you, Mr. Speaker, are protecting us from the triple powers of Buckingham palace, the Millbank tower and central office, which, in combination, represent as serious a challenge to our role.
  Then there is the link between the Commons and the people. I have seen many schoolchildren taken around the House, and have talked to some of them about how it has been a home of democracy for hundreds of years. In 1832, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote. That may
  510
  seem a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born. When I was born, women were not allowed the vote until they were 30. Democracy—input from the people—is very, very new. The link between popular consent and the decisions of the House can be tenuous.
  Furthermore, nowadays, Parliament representing the will of the people has to cope with many extra-parliamentary forces—very threatening extra-parliamentary forces. I refer not to demonstrations, but to the power of the media, the power of the multinationals, the power of Brussels and the power of the World Trade Organisation—all wholly unelected people.
  The House will forgive me for quoting myself, but in the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person—Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates—ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
  The role of the Speaker has another importance. When the political manifestos are yellowing in the public libraries, a good ruling from the Speaker in a footnote in "Erskine May" might turn out to be one of the guarantees of our liberty.
  There are two ways of looking at Parliament. I have always thought that, from the beginning—from the model Parliament—the establishment has seen Parliament as a means of management: if there is a Parliament, people will not cause trouble, whereas, of course, the people see it as a means of representation. Those are two quite different concepts of what Parliament is about. The establishment wants to defuse opposition through Parliament; the people want to infuse Parliament with their hopes and aspirations.
  I have put up several plaques—quite illegally, without permission; I screwed them up myself. One was in the broom cupboard to commemorate Emily Wilding Davison, and another celebrated the people who fought for democracy and those who run the House. If one walks around this place, one sees statues of people, not one of whom believed in democracy, votes for women or anything else. We have to be sure that we are a workshop and not a museum.
  My next point, if I am not out of order, is that all progress comes, in my judgment, from outside the House. I am in no way an academic, but if I look back over history, I see many advances first advocated outside the House, denounced by people in power and then emerging. Let me use a couple of non-controversial examples. Twenty years ago, Swampy would have been denounced as a bearded weirdy; he will probably be in the next honours list, because the environmental movement has won. Similarly, when that madman, Hamilton, killed the children at Dunblane, the then Conservative Home Secretary banned handguns within six months, because public opinion had shifted. So we are the last place to get the message, and it is important that we should be connected effectively to public will.
  There is a lot of talk about apathy, and it is a problem, but it is two sided. Governments can be apathetic about the people, as well as people being apathetic about Governments. For me, the test of an effective, democratic

  511
  Parliament is that we respond to what people feel in a way that makes us true representatives. The real danger to democracy is not that someone will burn Buckingham palace and run up the red flag, but that people will not vote. If people do not vote, they destroy, by neglect, the legitimacy of the Government who have been elected.
  May I finish with a couple personal points? I first sat in the Gallery 64 years ago, and my family have been here since 1892—five of us in four generations, in three centuries—and I love the place. I am grateful to my constituents who have elected me. I am grateful to the Labour party, of which I am proud to be a member. I am grateful to the socialists, who have helped me to understand the world in which we live and who give me hope. I am also deeply grateful to the staff of the House—the Clerks, the policemen, the security staff, the Doorkeepers, librarians, Hansard and catering staff—who have made us welcome here.
  May I finish, in order, by saying something about yourself, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, you are the first Speaker who has remained a Back Bencher. You have moved the Speaker's Chair on to the Back Benches. You sit in the Tea Room with us. You are wholly impartial, but your roots are in the movement that sent you here, and you have given me one of the greatest privileges that I have ever had—the right to use the Tea Room and the Library after the election. Unless someone is a Member or a peer, he or she cannot use the Tea Room or the Library, but you have extended the rules by creating the title of "Freedom of the House", so that the Father of the House and I will be able to use the Tea Room. You will not be shot of us yet. I hope in paying you a warm tribute, Mr. Speaker, that you do not think that I am currying favour in the hope that I might he called to speak again because, I fear, that will not be possible.
  2.7 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: It is great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the debate. This is not the first occasion on which I have found myself, rather unexpectedly, agreeing with him. Indeed, the first time that I did so was when I canvassed for him, as a young Liberal, as did many of my colleagues, in that famous by-election in Bristol, when he demonstrated a commitment to democracy which we all admire.
  I want to take up just one word from his very eloquent speech—"infusion". I am not referring to his favourite beverage, although I am sure that we will all welcome him back in the Tea Room after the general election. He has been an infusion of real-life democracy in the Chamber, which has not been as evident with many hon. Members in our own work here.
  I, too, pay tribute to the Committee and, indeed, to its Chairman for the balanced way in which he has presented its report this afternoon. I particularly want to underline the fact that, throughout the report and the debate, it has been recognised that times have changed and that, whatever else we do, we must prevent A such matters from slipping back into the hands of the usual channels. The election of a Speaker is a matter for the whole House.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may recall that, on a previous occasion, I moved a motion stating that the power of the parties has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. That is, of course, a reflection of the
  512
  famous Dunning motion, moved in the House in the 1780s, which referred to the Crown. It is extremely important that the House owns the system by which the Speaker is elected and, thereby, shows that the speakership is in its ownership and under the control and influence of nobody else. That is why I take a slightly different view from the right hon. Gentleman about the ballot.
  The election of the Speaker is an unusual ballot; it is not like a normal Division, when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are here in a representative capacity. However, on a matter of this sort, we do not act in that capacity; we are here as members of an institution saying how we as individual Members—and not the parties or external bodies—want it to be run. We all take part on a completely equal basis—none higher and none lower—and according to exactly the same terms. That is why, as I shall explain in a moment, I strongly support the proposal for a secret ballot.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is a past master at getting things right, but his amendment appears to be somewhat defective. It refers only to line 28, when the word "secret" also appears in lines 24 and 25. No doubt, that can be corrected by the usual channels.
  We are all here as individual Members and I am speaking in a personal capacity. However, I have undertaken extensive consultation with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the parliamentary party, so I may refer to the fact that, on some matters I have the unanimous support of my colleagues.
  First, I want to make a point of principle. The fact that an outcome is satisfactory and something that we all applaud and recognise as right does not necessarily mean that the route by which we reached that outcome was satisfactory. The fact that the successful candidate on 23 October was broadly welcomed in the House and is very acceptable—I am sure that, with the passage of time, more people have come to that view even if they did not take it at the time—does not mean that the process by which we came to that conclusion was satisfactory. I am grateful to those who gave evidence to the Committee and to the Committee itself for making that point so clearly in the report.
  Nevertheless, it is also true that if we had had more time, it might have been possible to have made the inquiry more effective. It is curious to decide who one wants for a job before one writes the job specification. We would never interview someone without deciding what the job was for which we were interviewing him. I therefore regret the fact that it is not been possible, within the time constraints, for the Procedure Committee or any other Select Committee to examine the role of Speaker. I was grateful for the support that was given to that view by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
  In a memorandum to the Committee and to the Modernisation Committee, we made suggestions for the modernisation of the role of Speaker as well of the process by which we choose from the candidates.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Procedure Committee is very keen to undertake an inquiry into the role of Speaker. No doubt it will consider the subject in the next Parliament.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for that assurance. When the time comes, I hope that we shall be given an opportunity

  513
  to expand on the memorandum that already appears on pages 34 to 39 of the report. There is unfinished business, but I put it no more strongly than that. None the less, I pay tribute to the Committee for producing a report to enable the House to come to a decision before any possible election.
  The Committee's report contains a persuasive argument for a secret ballot. The only possible argument against it—I have already referred to it—is that of precedent. However, this place is evolutionary and it would be a useful precedent to establish that there may, in exceptional circumstance, be a good case for a secret ballot—the exception proving the rule.
  The point is not that the Speaker will examine the Division lists and think, "Ah, well, the hon. Member for Bolsover did not vote for me, so I'll make sure that he does not get in at business questions again." That is not the issue. I have complete faith in the integrity of the Chair; the problem is perception.
  Mr. Speaker: Never hold a grudge against the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  Mr. Tyler: I am sure that is true, and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great affection, will not hold a grudge against me.
  The point that I was about to make is not that the Speaker might examine the Division list, but that the Whips might. I am a member of the usual channels club, so I think that, on a matter of such importance, we should not know whether our colleagues have voted in one way or another. It might be very damaging to publish the list.
  On the electoral system, the Chairman of the Committee very fairly set out the arguments for and against exhaustive ballots and the alternative vote. I regret that it is not been possible to put that choice before the House today. As the Chairman said, there was a balanced argument in Committee.
  I am particularly disturbed by a paragraph in the report that compares the two systems. Paragraph 66 states:
  "The Exhaustive Ballot has the advantage over AV that Members can amend their preferences in each round after the results of the previous round are known."
  I do not regard that as an advantage. It is a disadvantage, because Members might run with the herd—we have all seen that happen. Indeed, those Members who are worried about tactical voting should examine very carefully that recommendation, because it is a recipe for tactical voting. Members might see which way the wind is blowing and vote tactically. One of the great advantages of the alternative vote is that it makes unnecessary any form of tactical voting.
  It is true that the Committee tended to dilute the argument that one disadvantage of the exhaustive ballot is that it takes a long time. I accept that. I do not think that it is necessarily a disadvantage that the House should take its time in reaching a conclusion. Therefore, I take the Committee Chairman's advice on that.
  I want to draw attention to the letter that the Bishop of Woolwich sent to the Committee. Although it did not
  514
  appear in the report, it was circulated to Committee members and in it he spells out in full the advantages of the alternative vote. He writes:

  "1. It does not matter how many candidates stand;

  2. No candidate can 'split' a vote, or come under pressure not to stand because he or she might do so;

  3. It does not matter if several candidates of the same view or outlook stand;

  4. There is no possibility or need of the compromise known as 'tactical' voting;

  5. It is possible to express all sorts of different kinds of preference within the preferential voting—e.g. party political ones, gender ones, geographical ones, individual personality ones;

  6. No recrimination of any sort is possible afterwards as justice has been done and has been seen to he done, and can be checked out in the various stages of the counting."

  The bishop then refers to the fact that not only the Church of England—quite a respectable body—but many political parties use the alternative vote for their internal elections. I regret, therefore, that we shall not have an opportunity to vote on that issue. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would all support the alternative vote.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument for the alternative vote, but why did he not table an amendment to that effect?
  Mr. Tyler: That is a fair point. I stand reprimanded by the hon. Gentleman. I felt that it was important this afternoon to deal with the big issue of the secret ballot. I did not want to complicate matters by tabling an amendment. However I draw the House's attention to the figures on page xxvii of the report, which show how many Members support the different types of voting. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I said that all Liberal Democrat Members should be included in the figures, but they have not been. Therefore the figures and the percentages in the report are wrong.
  I am determined—I hope that the House will be—to get away from first past the post. It clearly is totally inadequate for the decision that we had to take last October and that we might need to take in future.
  Page 34 of the report refers to Deputy Speakers. I hope that the Committee will move on to consider that issue, because the present arrangement is not satisfactory. It is no reflection on the current occupants of the post of Deputy Speaker—no complaint has been made against them—but the arrangement by which they emerge like a butterfly from a chrysalis without anyone knowing why, how or who made the decision is unsatisfactory. Not even a motion that is amendable or debatable is put before the House. I hope that that will change.
  I return to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The flummery that follows the election of Speaker gives the impression that the decision is conditional on approval from up there in the other place or up there at the other end of the Mall. That must go; it is not right. It is proper for us to ask the other parts of the tripartite constitutional arrangement to acknowledge that we have taken a decision, but we do not want their approval. After the last election of Speaker, I was dumbfounded by the extraordinary way in which the British constitution finds it difficult to catch up.

  515
  On a personal note, I have no problem with the hustings and manifestos. I recognise that they have a purpose, but I have a substantial plea. It is in this Chamber that we make the decision: candidates make their case by addressing Members on equal terms. I hope that we will not move the centre of gravity to another part of the Palace where the manifesto is published or issued, or where people make hustings speeches. I have great pleasure in supporting the report's main recommendations because it brings the centre of gravity back to this place, where it belongs.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move, in line 28, to leave out the word 'secret'.
  May I say a word or two about the fine speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? I hope that it was not his last. As on so many occasions, he dwelt on the way in which democracy evolved in this country. Some illusions can be held about the fact that we lacked freedom and democracy for centuries. I have two responses to that. First, with all its imperfections, our democracy and House of Commons survived when many Parliaments in the last century did not because they gave up to fascism and tyranny.
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend mentioned his family's long tradition of serving as Members of Parliament, and I am glad that his son will continue that for many years. However, those of us who come from a different background also recognise that this democracy attracted many people, including my ancestors In the early years of the 20th century, when my grandparents wanted to live in a country where they could have security and safety, it was to this island that they came. Perhaps they did not see the imperfections in the same light as I did, because many years later I began to have left-wing views and have held them since. We need to make it clear that often over the centuries, long before my grandparents came here, this island provided safety and security for those who wanted to live their lives without tyranny.
  I, too, congratulate the Procedure Committee on its inquiry, which was held after the election of the Speaker. It was conducted promptly and efficiently. I am glad that paragraph 42 rightly states that the criticism about the proceedings on 23 October was not justified. We did take seven hours, but that probably displeased the sketch writers because they like to be in the Gallery for only half an hour on a Wednesday. I see no reason why we should apologise for taking our time in doing the important job of electing a Speaker. There is no reason why anyone who stood for the job, including the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, should apologise. It is an honour to be in the Chair, as you have explained several times, Mr. Speaker, and we hold those hon. Members who wanted to occupy that position in no less respect.
  I accept the thrust of the report. Even though I do not believe that the procedure was especially defective on 23 October, I have no illusions about the fact that the majority of hon. Members want to adopt a different system, much along the lines recommended by the Committee. On ballots, I am usually in favour of first past the post, but I accept that some processes, including the selection of Labour candidates, use other forms of balloting. Given the two choices, I believe that the exhaustive ballot should be used even though it will take more time. I do not think that we need to hurry things up unnecessarily.
  516
  I oppose, however, a secret ballot, but I do not want to exaggerate the problems associated with it. One Conservative Member who gave evidence to the Committee argued that if we have a secret ballot for the election of Speaker—which may well be the wish of the House—we might end up having them for other purposes. I do not accept that a secret ballot means that one, two or three years down the road we would be arguing for a secret ballot on policy matters.
  I object to the principle of secret ballots, even for the election of the Speaker. Like other hon. Members, I take school parties around the House. In the No Lobby, I point out what was said in 1642 by the Speaker to the King. I also show them copies of Hansard and tell them that every word we utter in the House and every vote we cast is duly recorded. If they are primary school children, I usually get them to go through the procedure of voting. I also explain that if their parents write to me to ask how I voted and I want to mislead them for opportunistic reasons—which I would not dream of doing—all they need to do is go to the local library and check. We carry out our business in public.
  I do not accept that a Speaker calls people on the basis of who voted for him or her. If the Speaker decides that that is a criterion for calling Members at Question Time or in debates, we have chosen the wrong person. In giving evidence, Lady Boothroyd said that she did not look at the voting list for her election for a year. Had she been so biased, I would have been safe because I voted for her in 1992.
  Mr. Grieve: Would the hon. Gentleman have a different view if, in addition to the secret ballot, we had the Canadian system in which there is no announcement of the votes cast in the ballots? That removes tactical voting in the next round because people are simply told that the last person has dropped off the list.
  Mr. Winnick: It is the principle of a secret ballot in the House of Commons to which I am opposed. If there are enough troops, I shall press my amendment to a vote and let us see how far we get.
  I do not accept that pressure is put on Members to vote. Paragraph 55 explains that such pressure has often proved counter-productive. I am glad to hear it. If Members are subject to pressure when there is a free vote, then it is likely that the wrong people have been elected here. It is the principle that matters. All our votes need to be duly recorded even when we vote on an internal matter that is of little concern to constituents. Perhaps other hon. Members have received letters about what happened last October, but I have not. I want everything to be above board. Our votes on major and minor issues are recorded. That should be the case for all our actions, including the election of the Speaker.
  My last point concerns the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I hope that this will not be seen as in any way disrespectful to Her Majesty, but I find it distasteful and odd that in this day and age we require consent for the election of the Speaker. In many respects, it contradicts all that we say about 1642. I hope also that I will not be misunderstood when I say that I would be much happier if Black Rod, when he comes here, used the word "request", instead of "command", because that would demonstrate the authority of this

  517
  House. I am concerned about other matters, although I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would not want me to stray from the subject of the debate. In this day and age, it is not necessary for someone to come here with a stick to give us a message from the Queen. Earlier today, you announced measures to which Her Majesty had given her Royal Assent, and there is no reason why you could not inform the House that a message had been duly received from the Queen.
  Whichever party is in office, it is always keen to say that the country should modernise and restrictive practices should be stopped, but so many of our own restrictive practices continue. I know that some people say that it is not necessary to object to them, but they give an impression of the way in which we conduct our business. I refer to pantomime performances, such as my colleague coming in with a stick. At one time, the Whip concerned had to walk backwards and wear morning dress.
  If we are to modernise—if one likes that term—the method for electing a Speaker, we should not be afraid, at the beginning of the 21st century, to bring our practices up to date so that those who look on do not say, "That's odd. What has it got to do with the way in which business should be conducted?" This is a serious place and we should conduct ourselves in a serious manner.
  2.32 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I have been here together for many years. Indeed, we started together at the Oxford Union way back just after the war, and the fact that we are both leaving at the next election brings back certain memories. I can think of no Member during that time who has won for himself as wide a reputation outside the House as he has done, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has achieved that. Much of the time, I disagree with him—I did so way back at Oxford and I do so even today. None the less, the reputation that he has been able to obtain deserves immense applause from hon. Members of all parties.
  I will return to the right hon. Gentleman and the fact that he has stirred up this matter unnecessarily, but first I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which I had the pleasure of chairing for 14 years. He has produced a thorough report, as we would expect of him, and made specific recommendations, most of which I disagree with.
  As for the role of the Speaker, once a man or woman has been brought to the big Chair as Speaker of the House, they have the right to expect to be able to continue in that role irrespective of a general election, unless they commit some unforgivable nonsense. The Speaker can stand for re-election in their constituency, which they usually do as Speaker, and they are not normally properly opposed. It would be wrong if they could then arrive back in the House to find themselves knocked out of the Speaker's Chair, perhaps for no other reason than politics. What would happen then? Would that person sit on the Back Benches? That would be quite impossible. Presumably, they would have to go immediately to the House of Lords, but they may well not want to do that. That person will have given a great part of their life to being Speaker, and
  518
  they have the right to expect the House to allow them to continue in office unless, as I said, they have made a remarkable error or committed a semi-criminal offence.
  As Labour Members have said, the role of the Speaker has changed and continues to change. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and I first came to the House, the Speaker was like a High Court judge. One did not speak to him or see him socially. No one was ever invited to Speaker's House, and his role had no social aspect. The person who changed all that was Lord Thomas of Tonypandy, formerly George Thomas. He said that he could retain the respect of the House while being friendly with Members of Parliament on social occasions in Speaker's House, and he proved that that was true. The role of the Speaker in entertaining members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and visiting delegations enhances the role of the House itself. That should be encouraged, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you are moving in that direction most admirably.
  Finally, I turn to an aspect of the Speaker's role which will become more important. It is becoming more difficult to hold the Executive to account in the House. In the past three or four years, developments have moved against the House, and that process needs to be stopped. We have to ensure that the power of Parliament is moved from No. 10 Downing street back into the Chamber. We will have to rely on the Speaker in different ways to try to ensure that that is brought about. You have the power, Mr. Speaker, to direct the Executive in certain ways and to ensure that the House is not done down or put to one side. We will have to rely on the person sitting in the big Chair to help the House to perform its role. The next Parliament will have to consider that matter most carefully.
  On the proposals themselves, the idea that there is a general opinion among Members of Parliament that the current method of electing a Speaker is wrong was brought about by the excellent publicity that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was able to obtain for the motion that the tabled and the lack of understanding of many of the newer Members who had never gone through the process of electing a Speaker. That had not happened for two Parliaments, so their incomprehension is hardly surprising. There was also a lack of understanding about the opaqueness that could exist in other systems, whereas the present system is absolutely open and could not be thought to be more democratic.
  Every candidate has a supporter and a seconder who make a speech in their favour and the candidates themselves can make a speech. The House then votes on the candidates. How much more democratic can one get? To sweep that away for a system that is not proven is very strange indeed.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I believe that my right hon. Friend is inadvertently misleading the House. In fact, the old system—the system that we currently have—could result in a number of candidates for the office of Speaker not having an opportunity to speak as individuals and be heard by the House, and their proposers and seconders not having an opportunity to put their name forward. Uniquely, on the occasion of the last election of a Speaker, through the skill of our right hon. Friend the

  519
  Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), every candidate had that opportunity, but that has not been the case in the past.
  Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend makes a procedural point. As he knows, I put to his Committee certain suggestions for simple alterations to the Standing Orders governing the proceedings of the House. If, under the old system, an amendment to the original motion is carried, that becomes a substantive motion and must be put to the House immediately, so that no further amendments can be made to the already amended motion. However, it is the simplest thing in the world to take the amended motion not as a substantive motion, but as an ordinary motion to which further amendment can be made. The resulting system could not be more democratic or more open.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Under our current system, a different test is applied to each candidate, depending where he or she appears in the order. That is why I think that the conclusion drawn by the Procedure Committee is a good one.
  Sir Peter Emery: I have heard that argument and read it in the Committee report, but I see no proof that it is right. I see no reason why someone who wanted my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to be Speaker could not have voted for another candidate and then returned to vote for my hon. Friend when his turn came. There is no proof that the order altered the result, as people have argued it did. Lady Boothroyd was not the first nominee, but the second; her name was carried and no one wished to stand against her, with the result that her name was carried unanimously from then on.
  It is proposed that we change our system and adopt a voting structure whereby the House will make a decision using a method that we have never used before. I am concerned that if we go down that road there is a risk that in future, in respect of other amendments, we shall be tempted to drift towards the use of a similar system—a poll, rather than a vote—which would do great damage to the rules and procedures of the House. I am sorry that the Committee has decided to cast away the system that resulted in the election of the man whom the House wanted. No one disagrees with that statement. When we have a system that is so transparent and democratic, I am dubious about making change merely for its own sake.
  I certainly oppose any vote being kept secret. The moment we have secret votes, a terrifying scenario arises wherein Members tell every candidate that he or she has their support. We have all seen that happen in Committees or heard it from people who have stood for office. They say, "I counted heads and was certain of the majority that I needed to get elected—but I didn't get elected! Isn't that strange?" In fact, the moment a secret vote is in the offing, people cease to be directly honest and are friendly to all the candidates, and when the results of a secret vote are made known, no one knows who has been telling the truth and who has not.
  I am massively in favour of retaining the open vote. Every vote in the House of Commons is open. No vote is secret. Why should we adopt a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker? It is right that Members should be able to stand and say which candidate they support—on the most recent occasion, the candidates included my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, my right hon.
  520
  Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who was eventually elected to the office of Speaker. The process should be as open to public gaze as every other aspect of the House's business.
  Mr. Winnick: It is a principle.
  Sir Peter Emery: I agree absolutely.
  The remarks made by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) hark back to a Procedure Committee report that was published when I was the Chairman and the hon. Member for Walsall, North was a member of that Committee. In that report, we stated specifically that the first thing that a Parliament should do on assembling is elect a Speaker. That is not meant as any criticism of the monarch—no one is a greater royalist than I. However, one can, while remaining a royalist, want the House to be what it is: the independent voice of the people, who have a right to elect who will be their Chairman or their Speaker.
  Once we have done that, I do not mind traipsing down to the other place to tell them what we have done. That is fine—it is announcing what we have done, not asking permission to do it. I urge the current Leader of the House to point out to her successor, whoever that may be, that in future we must take the role of the Speaker into our own hands: it must be we who elect the Speaker, without needing any permission so to do.
  2.47 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I read in the newspapers that it is quite likely that a few weeks from now we shall be campaigning in a general election. I look forward to doing so. When we campaign, we tell all the voters whom we encounter, whether by canvassing or in other ways, that they are sovereign, that they are wise and that their decision will determine the future of the country; yet in the report and in the debate, the electorate have no place. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the debate was about how we want this place to be run. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we are debating an internal matter. That, in my view, is precisely what is wrong with the debate.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for almost 31 years and I hope to continue for a good deal longer, but if there is anything that I dislike about the House, it is the smug club atmosphere that is cultivated here—the notion that this place is a gentleman's club and that debates such as this one, as distinct from party political debates, are conducted within some sort of cosy consensus. So far today, we have heard a very cosy debate—even when people have disagreed with each other, they have done so on a cosy basis. If this were not a Chamber televised throughout the nation for those who want to watch it, we might well this afternoon not be discussing how a great Parliament—the second oldest Parliament in the world—should be presided over. We might as well be discussing how a private club elects its president, because it is all about what goes on in this club. That is what the debate has been about so far.
  There have been references to the electorate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the people. That was the sole reference to them. When my

  521
  right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to what goes on outside this place, so far as I could tell he was not referring to the views of the 45 million or so members of the electorate. Instead, he was referring to small pressure groups that make their wishes felt and attempt in various ways to persuade the House to veer away from the decisions that it makes as a political assembly.
  I disagree strongly with the tenor of the report and its proposals. Most of all, I disagree with the motivations that lie behind it. Some members of the Procedure Committee have been in this place for a long time. They have been sucked into the club atmosphere, which can smother the place. I thought that many of the new members of the Committee had come to the House because they wanted to change things a great deal and make them absolutely different. I am dismayed that somehow they have been sucked into the vacuum of smug consensus. As I have said, that is one of the things that I dislike intensely about this place.
  I do not mean that we cannot have good personal relationships with one another across the Floor and even, on occasions, within our parties. However, that is different from believing that we must not speak up and that we must not in any way disrupt the atmosphere when the House is at its best—which I suppose is what the debate so far will be described as—and on display. For me, it is not the House at its best; it is the House at its most deterring.
  If there were two reasons why I would not seek re-election to this place, the first would be Virgin trains, which make my travelling to and from Manchester such an utter nightmare. The second would be the idea that the House is still some sort of gentlemen's organisation which reluctantly had to admit women and was smothered when a sixth of Members were part of the majority within the electorate.
  I shall say why I do not like the report and why I wish that the Government were not presenting it to the House for adoption. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North declares himself with pride as a socialist. I, too, declare myself as a socialist. However, that does not mean that we change things for the sake of changing them. As a socialist, I want to change things where they matter. I want to change things so that my constituents have a greater voice in the way their lives go. However, when things are working perfectly well in the House, I do not see why we should have a huge disruption of the sort that is proposed.
  The report states that if the system that is proposed for adoption had existed earlier, our present Speaker would still have been Speaker. That is despite the fact that what might be called the establishment did not want the present Speaker to be elected. Newspapers jeered, and continued jeering a good deal after his election. There was the uncouthness of the fact that he had a Scottish accent. There was the fact that he came from the working class. Even my good friends on the Government Front Bench were reluctant to see him adopted. That was because of the inferiority complex that had grown in the Labour party that somehow Labour Governments should not allow a Labour Member to be elected when a Labour Government were in power.
  522
  I did what I could—
  Mrs. Beckett: I suppose that it is a dangerous game to remind Mr. Speaker that one did not vote for him.
  With great respect to my right hon. Friend, who is advancing a legitimate argument, there was no Front-Bench view. There was no cosy conspiracy on the Front Benches. I began rather to regret that there had not been a conspiracy. I took the view, which I think others took—although obviously not in sufficient numbers—that the speakership should alternate between the two sides of the House. I have held that view for about 20 years. I held it especially strongly when the Conservative Government tried to breach what I thought was an important principle. That was the basis on which I made my decision.
  Mr. Kaufman: I always accept what my right hon. Friend says. However, I felt obliged to write what I regarded as a decisive letter to The Times to point out that the principle of alternation was bogus and had never been observed when Conservative Governments had been in power. I made the point in all friendliness to the principal candidate who emerged from the Conservative party that he had not accepted any such system of alternation, as he voted against Betty Boothroyd and for the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) when Speaker Weatherill went on his way.
  Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall continue. I do not want to take up too much time.
  The report says that although matters turned out all right in the case of Speaker Martin, in other circumstances that might not have been the case, depending on who was proposed first. However, in the only other contested election under the system that is now being got rid of, the person who was proposed first—the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—was decisively defeated. The House knows what it is doing. It may make stupid decisions from time to time, but that is done on the basis of rationality. Stupidity can be based on rationality. Good decisions can be based on rationality, too.
  I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North says about the secret ballot. This is a House where we are rightly held to account by our constituents. We cannot deceive our constituents about how we vote. My hon. Friend is old-fashioned and says that they can go to a library to see how we have voted, but now they can use the Internet as well to obtain the information speedily. If the amendment is carried, that will alleviate the situation to some extent, but not entirely. Those who nominate the candidates for Speaker will be part of a secret cabal and 1 do not see why they should be.
  It is not as though crossing the Speaker is the end of the world. When I was elected in 1970, there was an election for Speaker Selwyn Lloyd. I voted against him because I did not believe that an ex-Cabinet Minister should be Speaker. Not too long afterwards he threw me out of the Chamber. I am convinced that he did so because

  523
  I was disorderly rather than because I voted against him. The House was brought to a standstill by protesting Members until I was brought back again, in great triumph.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?
  Mr. Kaufman: I will, but I do not want to give way too often. I have already been speaking for quite a long time.
  Mr. Bercow: I, for one, am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I note what he says about being strongly opposed as a matter of principle to a former Cabinet Minister becoming Speaker. I agree with him on that. Does his opposition to such a person becoming Speaker extend to opposition to his or her not being nominated?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I believe that every Member has the right to put herself or himself forward. Who is chosen depends on the wisdom of the House On the whole, the House makes quite wise decisions. If we look back, many Speakers in the post-war period emerged from the Front Benches rather than the Back Benches. That is one of the reasons why I believe it is a good thing that we have a Speaker who has never been a Front Bencher of any sort or for any party.
  I believe that the method of election that we use has worked perfectly well. I am always suspicious of any system proposed by the Electoral Reform Society; I am surprised that Charter 88 did not poke its nose into this, as it does into everything that it possibly can. We are all hon. Members—although no doubt some will try to change that before long and we shall have to call one another by name—and I wish that we were not taking this decision in an atmosphere of cosy mutual self-congratulation. I wish that there had been a bit of nastiness in our debate.
  Mr. Winnick: We can always rely on you.
  Mr. Kaufman: With his customary bitterness, my hon. Friend has misrepresented me; there is not a better-natured person in the House than me
  If I felt that I had sufficient support, I would divide the House on the adoption of the report, and the Government motion. Since that is not so, the least that I can do is vote against the secret ballot, which I shall do.
  3.1 pm
  Sir George Young: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) although I do not agree with what he said about our debate or the report. We have had a serious, high-quality debate on a serious, high-quality report, marked by what may turn out to be swan songs from two distinguished parliamentarians: my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), whose work on the select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of commons has made him an outstanding servant of the House, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). There is simply no other right hon. Member like him I have never heard him make a bad speech, and this afternoon he made a
  524
  glorious speech on the House, a subject about which he feels strongly. For consistency, passion, eloquence, originality and sincerity, he is impossible to beat.
  I want to make a brief contribution, and shall begin by complimenting the Select Committee, which made a thorough analysis of the problem, saw a wide range of witnesses, many of whom are in the Chamber, and produced a well-argued report. As Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has done a service to the House. I compliment him on performing a post mortem on his own candidacy as well as that of many others.
  I agree with the Committee that change is necessary; the previous system was simply not designed for the circumstances that confronted us five months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, it ran the risk of placing premiums on tactical voting and the order in which candidates were presented. What happened in October was not a shambles. In some ways, it was no more unusual than other quaint procedures in the House, but it was certainly not ideal and the system needs an overhaul.
  I agree that the outcome would have been the same regardless. There was a certain inevitability as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) dragged the tumbrels to the guillotine and candidate after candidate was dismissed. However, the conclusion that the outcome would have been the same sits uneasily with the report's subsequent recommendation of a secret vote in future. I shall return to that in a moment. Personally, I am against the hustings for the reasons set out in your memorandum, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it runs the risk of an auction for the speakership.
  I am sure that all those who stood were grateful to their proposers and seconders, but I do not think that they influenced the outcome. I do not think that the candidates' speeches influenced the outcome either. Again, that is not unprecedented in the Chamber. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon that all candidates should speak and formally present themselves to the House; that is important and symbolic.
  The controversy is about the proposition that there should be a secret vote in future which, if I may use an economist's phrase, hits me right on my indifference curve. I do not go along with the argument that Speakers will discriminate against those who do not vote for them. The risk that the opposite will happen is more likely. Speakers will over-compensate, as home referees often do regarding the other side. I understand the arguments for a secret vote, but my view is that while a secret vote is as valid as an open vote, it is not as valuable. The argument for a secret ballot rests on the proposition that people will vote differently in secret from how they vote in public. It may make life more difficult for the Speaker if there is subsequently a perceived loss of confidence in him. Support for the Speaker and his authority may be greater if the ballot is open, not closed.
  If there are valid arguments for a secret ballot, why is the Division to re-elect the Speaker at the beginning of a Parliament—when a Division can be called—open and not secret? Exactly the same arguments could be applied to that. What is to happen if there is a censure motion? I assume that there will be an open vote, as there is at the moment. Having conceded the argument on electing the Speaker in private in the report, the Committee may not

  525
  have followed the logic through to other circumstances in which the authority of the Speaker may come into question.
  I hope that we can dispense with delay after the election, and therefore agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I am not sure why we had to hang around for three hours while the Great Seal was dusted down. I hope that we can streamline that process and make it clearer that the authority of the House is supreme.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about continuity of office and having a different procedure for re-electing a sitting Speaker. It is not right that the Speaker's position should be put into play every time that there is a general election. I therefore accept the argument for a different, streamlined procedure when a sitting Speaker is re-elected.
  Mr. Bercow: At the beginning of his speech, my right hon. Friend said how strongly he approved of the speech of our right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). Did he agree with our right hon. Friend, as I did, that it is one thing to notify the sovereign of our decision, but another to seek approval for it?
  Sir George Young: I agree with the consensus in the House that one needs to remove ambiguity about who is charge of the process.
  My final point is about paragraph 86, which I regard as the most important paragraph in the whole report. It states:
  "Had time allowed we would have wished to consider a number of connected matters as a follow-up … for instance. the role and functions of the Speaker".
  That is expressed as a hope, rather than a recommendation, but I hope that it will be followed up.
  The House may be aware that the Hansard Society will soon produce a report on parliamentary scrutiny. There is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the role of the House. Indeed, that was part of the context in which the debate on the speakership took place last year. I understand all the difficulties involved in an inquiry into the role and functions of the Speaker, who is both the servant of the House and, in many ways, its master. As several hon. Members have said, if the terms of trade are to tilt back to Parliament from the Executive—as many of us believe they should—the Speaker is going to be involved. I am sure that the Speaker would want to be assisted by an inquiry by the House into that important subject.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for referring to paragraph 86, which deals with future inquiries. May I repeat the Committee's strong view that, had there been time in this Parliament, we would have undertaken an inquiry into the Speaker's role and functions? However, it was clear that the House wished us to reach a decision on the procedure governing the election, which is why we have a rather short-circuited inquiry. We cannot bind our successors, but we hope that they will take that up.
  Sir George Young: On a consensual note, I conclude by expressing the strong hope that that will be the first task of a new Parliament. It could set the context for the on-going debate about the terms of trade.
  3.9 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I rise as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure to speak in support of the motion. I have been a member of the Committee throughout the current Parliament. In my view, the report to which the motion relates is the most memorable that it has published during that time. That is not to say that the Committee has not conducted a number of other important inquiries. Indeed, It has done very good work, but the second report is memorable for a number of reasons not least of which are the evidence taken from hon. Members and the depth in which we investigated the subject.
  I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for the way in which he has chaired the Committee during this Parliament and while the report was being produced. Furthermore, it is a privilege to speak in this debate while standing next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whose speeches in the House I have always admired. His words just now recalled to my mind a visit that he made some 30 years ago—he will probably not remember it—to a Labour party function in my constituency. When we spoke after the event, I could not have imagined standing beside him now, and I shall remember today if for no other reason than that.
  I am convinced of the need for change, which is clearly set out in the report. To that extent, I disagree with the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The investigation was thorough, and the written and oral evidence submitted to us reflected the different views expressed in the House—not only during the inquiry itself, but as points of order and during our discussions following Madam Speaker's announcement.
  What struck me most clearly while those views were being expressed way that the election of the Speaker had become more important to Back Benchers during the past 30 years. That is a sound reason for us to examine the procedure that it involves. Notwithstanding the contribution made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and others, the need for us to do so emerges clearly from detailed analysis of the report. In my view, the proposed changes will strengthen the role of Speaker, as its authority will derive from Members of Parliament. I believe that there is little support for returning to the system that prevailed early last century, when the influence of the usual channels and the political parties manifested itself in the way in which candidates were dealt with. I would be surprised if Back Benchers ever wanted to return to that position. It is a good thing that that important view is entrenched in the Procedure Committee's proposals.
  Two controversial matters have been dwelt on this afternoon. First, many important issues were raised about nominations and the way in which the debate on the candidates should be conducted in the House. The views that were expressed will help to develop a procedure that ensures that the election will be a little more streamlined. I am not suggesting that we should cut short the time spent on the election, but I hope that the debate about it will be focused and that all candidates will be able to speak. Other hon Members have mentioned the importance of the occasion, but the fact remains that last time the House was not as packed at the end of the debate as it was at the beginning. I believe that there should be

  527
  greater interest during the whole debate. If it continues for four or five hours, that will be all to the good. I think that it will still be a most important occasion.
  The question that was going through my mind was whether the ballot should be secret or open. The issue is finely balanced and there are good reasons both for and against. That became clear during the Procedure Committee's deliberations, in which two arguments were advanced in favour of keeping the open ballot. The slippery slope argument was advanced in the evidence given by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who suggested that there would be pressure for other matters to be dealt with secretly once the principle of a secret ballot had bean conceded. I reject that argument, as I do not think that hon. Members would want to extend such secrecy. Indeed, there would rightly be an outcry outside this place if we ever did so. Little evidence was given in support of that argument, other than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Another argument was advanced on the basis of historical convention. As Members of Parliament are representatives of constituents and constituencies, any decision that we take should be recorded so that those who elect us can see how we vote. I believe that that is a stronger argument. If we are to move away from that principle, there must be strong arguments for doing so. That is why I should like to summarise the arguments that were advanced in favour of a secret ballot. The decision on electing a Speaker is unique because the role does not relate to any particular policy decisions that will affect our constituents. It has been argued that the choice of Speaker is therefore a decision that relates only to how we organise our affairs.
  It has also been suggested that the current system allows hon. Members to be pressurised. There are arguments for and against that view, with regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave some interesting evidence. He said that he was in favour of a secret ballot because he did not want to vote against anybody. In other words, he said that we are all friends in the House and that he voted for individuals on that basis. Of course, there might be pressures in both directions, which is why I believe that there is a sound argument for adopting the principle of secret ballot in this particular case, although I appreciate that the matter is finely balanced. Indeed, the Committee recognised that, which is why it said in its report that the matter should be one for the House.
  The second controversial issue that has been dealt with relates to the voting system and the question whether to introduce an alternative system or to conduct an exhaustive ballot. The Committee favoured two particular views about the exhaustive ballot. First, it accepted that such a ballot would enable candidates who obtained a small number of votes to exit the process at the first stage. Although candidates can take soundings, they will not necessarily be aware of how much support they have until the first round is completed. An exhaustive ballot would ensure that such candidates could withdraw their nominations immediately. Secondly, an exhaustive ballot would enable hon. Members to assess support for candidates and adjust their preferences accordingly in the second round. I believe that that would be of some help, although I acknowledge that the two views are finely balanced. The Electoral Reform Society gave evidence in
  528
  support of the exhaustive ballot, which is contained in an annexe to the report. For those reasons, the Procedure Committee accepted the balance of those arguments.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke about the need for deep consideration of the future role of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. The evidence given by Liberal Democrats supported that view, for which there was much backing in the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that the Committee should consider the matter, and the suggestion that it should be a future priority has my full support
  3.19 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It has been an afternoon for farewell speeches, some perhaps more voluntary than others. It is therefore a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), who is defending a majority of 2,770, and who may discover in a few days' or weeks' time that he, too, made a farewell speech this afternoon. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the debate lacked edge, and I am trying to provide it.
  On a more serious note, I concur with the point of the hon. Member for Upminster that the subject of our debate has become more important to Back Benchers over the past 30 years. That is a sign of hope in the institution. The Liaison Committee report on "Shifting the Balance" and the Procedure Committee's report on electing a Speaker are signs of a change in Back Benchers' attitude towards how much they will take from the Executive.
  People look back to a golden age. but let us consider what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, which some hon. Members experienced in this place, when the usual channels sorted things out. The procedures used in 1972 exemplified the way in which the House was run in those days. I therefore congratulate the Procedure Committee on the report and support the broad thrust of its recommendations.
  I should perhaps apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary. We held a debate a few weeks ago about the timetable. At some ungodly hour, I said that the time allowed for today's debate was insufficient. It appears that the hon. Gentleman will be proved right and I will be proved wrong. That may have something to do with the scheduling of a debate on free-vote business on a Thursday afternoon, but it is up to hon. Members who care about this place to attend and speak up for it. There is no more important decision in this institution than the election of a Speaker.
  I take slight issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about secret ballots at various stages in the cycle of electing a Speaker. There is a difference between the election of a new Speaker, the re-election of a sitting Speaker and a censure motion on a sitting Speaker. I want to use myself as an example.
  I rose when the Father of the House sought to put the question on electing our current Speaker. I believed that there should be a Division. I felt strongly that as far as possible every candidate should be subjected to the same test under the rules that pertained then. I wanted to apply the test that I applied to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to every other candidate, to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn. Ultimately, I could not do that

  529
  because by the time every other candidate had been eliminated, the choice was between voting for the right hon. Gentleman and voting for nobody.
  It has been stated with certainty in the report and the debate that the current Speaker would have been elected under different arrangements. That is wrong; such an assumption should be tested. We cannot know what would have happened if your name, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had appeared not in the first amendment but in the main motion, and if the current Speaker's name had appeared in an amendment rather than the motion. We shall never know because hon. Members made different judgments according to the candidates lower down the list whom they supported. I welcome the report's recommendations on the voting procedure because it is now palpably fair.
  Our main consideration is whether we should hold a secret or an open ballot. I strongly believe that it should be secret. As I rose at the crucial moment and triggered the vote on that occasion, I suppose that I should be most paranoid about influence from the Chair. I want to put it clearly on the record that I have been treated fairly by the Speaker. I do not believe that he has over-corrected and called me more often than he should, or that he has called me less often than he should. As hon. Members have said, one would expect those who hold the office of Speaker to be blind to the opinions of hon. Members about their candidacy. However, we cannot know whether that is the case.
  I cannot know whether being called last on several occasions to ask questions about a statement is a reflection of my lack of seniority in the House or of the occupant of the Chair's bias against me. On several other occasions, I have been called extremely early to ask questions on statements. That is simply part of the cut and thrust in the House, and I do not believe that I have been discriminated against.
  Paragraph 55 of the report states:
  "The Clerk of the House told us that there was a concern that 'a vote cast against the Speaker is remembered', although he added that he did not know whether this was 'paranoia' or had a foundation in fact."
  Ultimately, we shall never know. It would therefore be better to conduct a secret ballot simply to avoid such a suspicion.
  A secret ballot is preferable also because of the influence of the usual channels. It has been reported to me that a Labour Member, who was elected in 1997, was overheard having a conversation with a Whip on the election of the Speaker. The hon. Member asked for guidance and the Whip reportedly said, "Well, it's a free vote; we can vote for anybody as long as it's not Gwyneth." Such influence is unwelcome, but it exists.
  On the point about setting a precedent and establishing a secret ballot for the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the election of Speaker is an issue for the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we should be accountable to our electorate in this matter. I disagree. Hon. Members should be able to exercise their
  530
  judgment free from influence from the usual channels, and from fear about the attitude of the occupant of the Chair as a consequence of their actions.
  Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that a decision that he makes as an elected Member of Parliament is no business of the people who sent him here?
  Mr. Blunt: I do not say that it is no business of theirs. We must make a judgment, and I believe that it is important that I am able to make the most important decision on House of Commons business free from influence.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend invite the House to consider carefully the fact that Australia, Canada, South Africa. France, Italy, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales hold secret ballots when electing their Presiding Officers? The Committee took evidence from other Commonwealth countries and other democracies.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. When people examine the case carefully and have the opportunity to restructure systems, they will favour secret ballots. Decisions about the chairmanship of an assembly are for its members This is the one occasion on which I believe that there should be a secret ballot. There is a distinction between this and other occasions, such as those on which the Speaker is to be re-elected, or on which there is a vote of censure against the Speaker.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend argues for a secret ballot. If he were to get his way, and one of his constituents were to write to him after the election of a Speaker and ask him which way he had voted, would he tell them? If so, why is he arguing for a secret ballot?
  Mr. Blunt: The answer is no, I would not tell them. I would tell them that this was a secret ballot and that I had exercised my judgment as to a matter concerning the House. The reason why it should be secret is precisely that I would not then be accountable for it to the electorate.
  In the end, this is a question of judgment. Other hon. Members will come to a different judgment, saying that we should not break with precedent and that we have to be accountable for absolutely everything that we do. I believe that, in this one respect, we owe it to ourselves to be able to take the power to ourselves to make this decision free from the influence from the usual channels, and without being influenced by what the consequences might be for the future occupants of the Chair. That is why I hope that the amendment in the name of the Minister, which would delete the word "secret", will not be carried.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I was prompted to rise to my feet by the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He said that when the House was at its clubbiest, it was at its worst, as if every speech that we make must drip with

  531
  vitriol. It is not like that. I think that this has been a very good debate, and I completely disagree with almost everything that I heard from my right hon. Friend.
  I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the influence of the Whips. He said that he had heard one of the Whips say to a Member who came into the House in the new intake, "It's a free vote, but don't vote for Gwyneth." The Whips have an influence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, as a member of the Liaison Committee, put his name to a report that made it perfectly clear that hon. Members were kept off Select Committees because of their views. That must, therefore, be my right hon. Friend's view.
  Mr. Kaufman: I did not put my name to that report.
  Mr. Prentice: I was under the impression that the report of the Liaison Committee was a unanimous report, agreed by all the Committee members. From the documentation that I read, I was quite sure that that was the case, but perhaps other hon. Members will intervene to correct me.
  Mr. Kaufman: I honestly know what I did, and I know what I think. I did not put my name to that report.
  Mr. Prentice: Well, there you go. I have been going round telling people that if an old Labour warhorse such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton could put his name to the report, it must carry some weight.
  Mr. Sheldon: May I clarify the position? The report was on the agenda of the House, but my right hon. Friend did not attend.
  Mr. Kaufman: What is more, I did not sign the motion. There was nothing to sign.
  Mr. Prentice: Of course I give way to my right hon. Friend!
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) had a copy of the report. The fact that he was unable to, or saw fit not to, attend the meeting when it was agreed was his decision, but he did not send any amendment or objection to the report to the Chairman of the Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that that is not the report that we are debating.
  Mr. Prentice: I am not taking any more interventions on this point, Mr. Speaker. I want to get to my main point, but I was distracted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and his colleagues on the Procedure Committee on producing this excellent report. I agree with it all, and I think that the House ought to endorse it and support it. Exhaustive ballots are not new: they are part of the Labour party's internal election mechanism, and I feel wholly comfortable with them.
  532
  The question of the secret ballot seems to be exercising Members' minds. I agree, not for the first time, with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrats, that the election of the Speaker is unique. A secret ballot need not be seen as a slippery slope that would lead to secret ballots on other policy issues. If that were the case, I would speak out against the proposal. The election of the Speaker is unique and the ballot should be secret.
  I do not want to sound prissy, but if the message were passed down that the Prime Minister or leading members of the Cabinet were hostile to a particular candidate and did not want to see that person elected Speaker, an hon. Member looking for preferment or a job in the Government—perhaps if he or she were ambitious and wanted to become a Minister—might think twice about voting against the perceived preference of, say, the Prime Minister.
  When the Leader of the House made it clear that she was in favour of candidates alternating between the political parties, alarm bells rang. Many Labour Members thought that that was the Leader of the House speaking by proxy for the Government, and were, I am sure, determined not to be caught up in the notion that we should alternate between parties. They may have been persuaded by the letter in, I think, The Times, penned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. Alternatively—I am not being personal when I say this—they may have been persuaded by the fact that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did not vote for the Labour candidate, Betty Boothroyd, in the 1992 election. I do not know.
  The Government are generally anything but neutral. In my experience, the Government of the day have a view on everything. Matters come before the Modernisation Committee on which the Government are supposedly neutral: the Government are not neutral on them. If someone were to propose—as I did, to the Modernisation Committee—that private Members' Bills should be moved from the ghetto of Fridays to Wednesday mornings, when the Chamber is empty, the Government might say that they were neutral on the issue. Like hell they are. They have a position on everything. I am sure the Government would also have a position on who should occupy your Chair, Mr. Speaker.
  The report touches on the hustings that I organised. There was a tremendous pressure for change. When the number of candidates ballooned from five to seven, eight, 11 and 12, I asked myself why we were getting so many candidates. The speakership brings instant celebrity, nationwide recognition, a nice house and probably quite a big salary, but something has happened recently. It might have something to do with the way in which Betty Boothroyd carried out her role as Speaker, but no one envisaged that so many candidates would compete for the speakership. Within a few hours, down on the Terrace, I had more than 100 names of Members—more than one sixth of the membership of the House of Commons—calling for the system to be changed and for an opportunity to quiz the individual candidates.
  Under the old system—the present system, until we change it—we could never hear from the candidates, which was an absurdity. I also found it an absurdity that only nine of the 12 candidates for Speaker participated in the hustings, which were conducted in a very comradely, collegiate way. Nothing that was said embarrassed

  533
  anyone; nothing that was written in any of the nine so-called manifestos that were sent out would have embarrassed anyone. I thought that the hustings were a worthwhile exercise. We shall not need hustings in future, because the proposals made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield include the opportunity for every candidate to speak here in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
  I would like to underline to my colleagues on this side of the House who have not quite made up their minds the fact that we need not fear the secret ballot. It is not the beginning of a slippery slope, and I hope that the House will endorse the Procedure Committee's report.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be called in this important debate. Indeed, there is nothing more important in this House than who is elected Speaker. One of my forebears was Speaker, from 1943 to 1952. When he was elected Speaker, it was through the usual channels, and he was unopposed. He had a very difficult time because this Chamber had been bombed and the sittings were transferred to the House of Lords, and then in 1945 the Labour party had a huge majority, largely consisting of new Members who did not respect the authority of the Speaker. In 1950 a Labour Government were elected with a majority of six, and in 1951 the Conservatives had a majority of 65. Throughout that time Mr. Churchill thought that he was still Prime Minister, and behaved with disdain towards my forebear in his role as Speaker.
  Whoever is elected Speaker is the guardian not only of the House but of Back-Bench rights. That is the most important thing to bear in mind. It is important that we select and vote on the best possible candidates, and I argue as strongly as I can that we should have an exhaustive and open ballot.
  If we are honourable Members, as we all purport to be, there should be no difference between the way we vote in secret and the way we vote when the vote is open and recorded. My intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) got to the kernel of the matter. I am quite prepared to look anybody—including you, Mr. Speaker—in the eye and tell them how I voted and why I voted as I did. As it happens, I did not vote for you in the final vote; I abstained. But it does not matter how I voted; even if I had voted against you, I would expect you to treat me in the same way, and I would have exactly the same regard for you, whether I had voted in an open ballot or a secret ballot. That is the way things ought to be.
  In this Parliament, the Executive are getting more and more power. The standard and stature of the Speaker is therefore critical. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you will be Speaker for a long time, and that you will have to make landmark judgments against this Government, or any other colour of Government, to ensure that the House and its traditions are fully upheld, and that Back-Bench Members of Parliament have a full say in how they control the Executive.
  We need to examine the rules about how we elect our Speaker very carefully. Those who argue for a secret ballot are arguing for something that they would not be prepared to uphold in public to their constituents. That is the nub and kernel of the matter
  3.43 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I am delighted to be able to contribute to the debate, to welcome the report and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  As usual, I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I do not agree with him. This has been a good and constructive debate, with worthwhile contributions from both sides of the House, and it is singularly appropriate that it should have been graced with what might prove to be the valedictory address to the House by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
  I first read the right hon. Gentleman's writings when I was 17. I recall reading "Arguments for Socialism", and subsequently "Arguments for Democracy". Both those tomes are on my bookshelves at home. I was not particularly persuaded by either of them, although I was rather more impressed by the latter than by the former. There is a widely held view that the right hon. Gentleman is both the greatest living socialist, and the greatest living parliamentarian, in this country. When we hear him contribute to our debates we all, whatever our views, realise how much the House will lose when he ceases to be a Member of it.
  My second point is that, having reflected carefully on the arguments, I have—not for the first time, and probably not for the last—changed my mind. I had some sympathy for the idea of the secret ballot, but the more I have listened to the arguments deployed, the less persuaded of the case for it I have become.
  It is always a joy to listen to the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), but I strongly disagree with him. His invocation of the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was singularly unpersuasive. I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but the argument seems to me to come down to this: if it were a matter of "he more effective operation of the House, or the more satisfactory service of our constituents—although I know not how that could result from a closed ballot—there might be a good case for a secret ballot. However, if, in the final analysis, we are merely anxious to protect ourselves and to devise a mechanism to appease our own sensitivities, that is not a good argument for a closed ballot.
  I am in a similar category to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Indeed, I voted against two rather prominent candidates for the speakership. First, I voted against you Mr. Speaker. I make no apology for that; I was perfectly entitled to do so. You have been scrupulously fair ever since, and the matter has never been discussed. I also voted against the candidature of one of the Deputy Speakers, Sir Alan Haselhurst. I make no apology for that, either; I was perfectly entitled to do it.
  I would not seek to cloak my decisions, or the reasons for them, either from my colleagues or from the electorate. There is a powerful case for stating what we believe and being prepared to defend it.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. What is it about us as hon. Members that means that we do not

  535
  need the protection, in respect of the vote for an individual, that we give our electors when they choose whether to send us here?
  Mr. Bercow: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman, because he has raised an important point. When the electorate vote they are deciding who they want to represent them. They are not the custodians of public office, so their entitlement to vote in secret, and not to be obliged to reveal their decision or to defend it, should be absolute. In that respect, we are in a different position: we are custodians of public office.
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I shall not give way, simply because the Front Benchers are about to respond to the debate. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman.
  We do not have the right to protect ourselves in that way. I go for an open vote. We should explain our decisions and defend them, and then be prepared to be judged by them.
  3.48 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a fascinating debate, and I found myself quite troubled by it. I certainly found myself disagreeing with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said about the authority of the House being supreme—a matter that I hope to be able to pursue in the Tea Room.
  Also rather dangerously, I found myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when he said that what we were called upon to decide today was not a private matter. I entirely agree with him about that; this goes well beyond the bounds of this House, and beyond questions about being clubbable.
  We have had a varied debate, and in the time available it would be difficult to do justice to all the contributors. In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said about the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I may add that it has been customary in this House to say that the right hon. Gentleman has usually been wrong about some of the great issues facing the country. That is a bit unfair to him, and I hope that on this occasion he was wrong when he said that this was likely to be the last time that he would speak in the House. His contributions will be greatly missed.
  There are several small points and several themes that can be picked out of the debate. The themes have crossed parties. Anybody coming into the House and listening to the debate would find it impossible to see a particular line, or a majority view, emerging in any part of the House—except, perhaps, on the Liberal Benches, where the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has, I think, been the only representative of his party to speak.
  I have a few small points to make. The key issue is about simplifying the procedures by which the Speaker is chosen. In that respect, I find a great deal to commend in the report presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), as the procedures used in your election, Mr. Speaker, were unnecessarily ponderous
  536
  and did the House little credit. I wish to draw attention to some of the elements in the motion that caused me concern.
  First, there is the question of nominations. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield made the powerful point that the selection of the Speaker is, in part, a matter of democracy in action. However, although the intention that Speakers should be elected with a consensus of support across the House is entirely commendable, the requirement that there be a cross-party nomination procedure before a candidate can stand introduces a fetter on democracy.
  I hope that any hon. Member putting his or her name forward—or who is asked to do so—would command cross-party support, but what would happen if 450 members of a party with a huge majority in the House wanted a specific person as Speaker, and the other parties did not? Would those 450 hon. Members be prevented from having that choice? That is the potential effect of the relevant provision in the motion.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield accepts that I fully understand the intention behind the report, but I find the conclusion slightly strange. I draw attention to it, as I think that it may cause problems in the future, and that the House may need to look at it again at some time in the future.
  It is notable that the procedure is not used in the re-election of a former Speaker. I have no difficulty with that, but I am worried that the nomination proposals would be a fetter on the democratic procedures of the House.
  The other matter that has exercised the House is whether the ballot should be secret. I have discussed the matter with some of my hon. Friends, and I have been impressed by the Canadian system. There, the ballot is secret, and the voting numbers in each vote while the decision is being reached are not revealed. That has the advantage that it prevents tactical voting, as it invites people to make a choice and stick to it. It also means that people do not run around between ballots trying to decide who has the advantage.
  Without such a provision, I find it difficult to see the advantage of secrecy. I shall therefore vote against the proposal for holding secret ballots, as I believe that the people who vote for me would be entitled to know what I decided to do. If they asked me, I would feel constrained to tell them.
  I end on the question of flummery: we are lucky that we have not had to discuss that today, as I am sure that hon. Members would have differing views. Some of the ceremonial in the House is very important, and if we ever came to consider it, I hope that the views of all hon. Members would be heard.
  With that caveat, I welcome the report. I shall be interested to discover what the House decides
  3.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The clearest thing to have emerged from the debate is that the Committee and its members have done the House a great service in providing a very thorough, thoughtful and excellent report. It has given the House a good framework for discussion.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Committee, spoke of the support given by his team, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member

  537
  for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) will win many more elections and be in the House for many years to come. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has been very involved in the Committee's work, although he did not have the opportunity to speak today.
  When I first read the report, I was struck by the questionnaire in appendix 1. There were 130 responses to the Committee's canvass of opinion, and they differed greatly. However, despite a very tight schedule, the report has provided an excellent framework for discussion.
  The tone of the debate, which involved hon. Members of all parties, has been that change is necessary and that there is broad support for the report. Two caveats need to be entered, however. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) warned us to take change cautiously and slowly, and said that we should not rush into it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the report was clubbish and cosy. However, I think that my right hon. Friend realised that his objections were shared by too few hon. Members to warrant pressing the matter to a vote.
  A number of small questions were posed. The right hon. Member for East Devon asked who would chair the election proceedings. I can tell him that the existing Standing Orders specify the Father of the House.
  A number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), pointed out the importance of paragraph 86 of the report, which is headed "Future Inquiries". In that paragraph, the Committee recommends that the role of the Speaker, and of the Deputy Speakers, should be examined at some point in the future.
  A number of hon. Members said that the rights of the House against the legislature were being eroded. I have read the history books, and I know that that is a persistent argument that has run throughout the ages. However, the report makes it clear that a subsequent Committee may well revisit the matter.
  I remind the House of the importance of the Speaker, and of what the Duke of Wellington said about the fear inspired by his men—that they may not have frightened the enemy but that, by God, they frightened him. As a member of the Government Front Bench, I can tell the House that my colleagues and I are frightened of the Speaker, and that we take what he says very seriously indeed. A good deal of discussion takes place to ensure that the procedures of the House are followed properly.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about flummery, and I confess that, like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I am a reluctant moderniser. I, too, would be sad to see some of our ceremonies go.
  Two major issues came before the House today, and the first was the question of exhaustive as opposed to alternative voting. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on behalf of his party colleagues, argued the point strongly. The matter was discussed in Committee, and was voted on. I am in favour of an exhaustive ballot, and I think that that was the tone of the debate today.
  The second major issue had to do with open as opposed to secret ballots. The hon. Member for North Cornwall chided me that my amendment was not in order. I think
  538
  that it is, as it is the first appearance of the word "secret" in the text of the Standing Order which the amendment would change. If the amendment is agreed, the titles would change automatically.
  However, the substance of the argument is the question whether the ballot should be open or secret. Again, the Committee considered the matter and it has asked the House as a whole to do the same. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I take a very principled position on the matter. I do not want us to go down what has been described as a slippery slope, and I hope that my hon. Friend presses the matter to a vote, as I believe that the House will give good support to the proposal for open ballots.
  It is possible that two farewell speeches have been made this afternoon. The right hon. Member for East Devon did not call his contribution that, but he is nonpareil in the work that he has done with regard to the procedures of the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has got himself a good redundancy deal. He is going outside the House to take part in active politics, because that is where the real change occurs. Along with my right hon. Friend, I know that the green movement is stronger outside the House. However, he told us that he is coming back to use the Library, so he has got the best of both worlds.
  This report is the best of both worlds. Its recommendations ensure that our long tradition of independent Speakers will continue.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 84.

  Division No. 165]

  [4 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Goggins, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Beggs, Roy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Bercow, John

  Jamieson, David

  Betts, Clive

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Brady, Graham

  Khabra, Piara S

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Browne, Desmond

  Leigh, Edward

  Burnett, John

  Levitt, Tom

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Linton, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Clelland, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown,Geoffrey

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Clwyd, Ann

  McNulty, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Cranston, Ross

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dismore, Andrew

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Miller, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Olner, Bill

  Faber, David

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Foulkes, George

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pearson, Ian

  Galloway, George

  Pike, Peter L

  Garnier, Edward

  Pond, Chris

  539

  Rapson, Syd

  Touhiq, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wells, Bowen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  White Brian

  Spellar,John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)

  Swayne,Desmond

  Wyatt Derek

  Syms,Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. David Winnick.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Anderson. Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Jenkin, Be nard

  Johnson Smith,

  Austin, John

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Beard, Nigel

  King, Ms ona (Bethnal Green)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Laxton, Bo

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Loughton, im

  Boswell, Tim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Bruce,Ian(S Dorset)

  McWalter Tony

  Butterfill,John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Caplin,Ivor

  Maxton, John

  Chapman. Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Michie, Mrs. Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Moore, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Ottaway, Richard

  Connarty, Michael

  Pollard, Kerry

  Cotter, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Cox, Tom

  Prentice, N s Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Darvill,Keith

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Rendel, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Robathan, Andrew

  Dawson Hilton

  Robathan, Andrew (Faversham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Rowe, Andrew(Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruddock,Joan

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Shephered, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stevenson George

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Tyler, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Wilkinson, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Wintelon, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Heppell, John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Horam, John

  Hutton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mr. Crispin Blunt and

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) This House approves the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01, Election of a Speaker (House of Commons Paper No. 40) relating to the election of a Speaker.
  (2) Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker) be amended by leaving out paragraph (4); and the title of the Standing Order shall be 'Election of the Speaker: Member presiding'; and
  (3) The following new Standing Orders No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) and No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot) be made:

  Election of a Speaker

    Re-election of former Speaker
    1A. (1) If at the commencement of a Parliament the Member who was Speaker at the dissolution of the previous Parliament is returned to the House, the Member presiding in accordance with Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker: Member presiding) shall, when the House meets to proceed with the choice of a Speaker, ascertain whether the former Speaker is willing to be chosen as Speaker, and, the former Speaker having submitted himself to the House, shall call upon a Member to move that he do take the Chair of this House as Speaker; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

    (2) If the question is agreed to, the former Speaker shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.

    (3) If the question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following day at half-past Two o'clock, and the House shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot).

    Election of Speaker by secret ballot
    1B. (1) If the question put in accordance with Standing Order No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) has been negatived, and on any other occasion when it is necessary to proceed with the choice of a new Speaker, the election shall be by secret ballot.
    (2) Preparatory arrangements for a ballot shall be made under the supervision of the Clerk of the House.
    (3) (a) Nominations of candidates shall be in writing and shall be received by the Clerk of the House between half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock in the morning on the day on which the House is to elect a Speaker.
    (b) Each nomination shall consist of a signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election accompanied by the signatures of not fewer than twelve nor more than fifteen Members, of whom not fewer than three shall he Members elected to the House as members of any party other than that to which the candidate belongs or members of no party. No Member shall sign more than one such statement and if any Member does so, his signature shall no longer be valid.
    (c) As soon as practicable following the close of nominations, lists of the candidates shall be placed in the Members' lobby and published.
    (4) If only one Member is nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above, the Member presiding shall, when the House meets to elect a Speaker, invite the Member so nominated to submit himself to the House, and shall then put ford with the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (5) Paragraphs (6) to (13) of this Order shall apply if two or more Members are nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above.
    (6) When the House meets, the order in which candidates may address the House shall be determined by lot; the Member presiding shall then invite each candidate to address the House; and after all candidates have been given an opportunity to speak, the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed to a ballot.
    (7) The Member presiding may not vote in any ballot.
    (8) (a) A ballot shall take place in the lobbies unless the Member presiding directs otherwise.
    (b) Each Member intending to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper bearing the names of the candidates listed in alphabetical order.
    (c) Each such Member may vote for only one candidate on the ballot paper.
    (d) A ballot shall be declared closed after the expiration of half an hour and counting shall take place under arrangements made by the Clerk of the House.
    (e) The Member presiding shall have discretion to vary the timings given in this Order and power to give final directions on any matter of doubt arising from the conduct of a ballot or from an individual ballot paper.
    (9) As soon as practicable after the votes have been counted the Member presiding shall announce to the House the numbers of votes cast for each candidate.
    (10) If a candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (11) If no candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed forthwith to a further ballot to which paragraph (12) below shall apply.
    (12) In any further ballot no new nominations may be received and the names of—
    (a) the candidate who received the fewest votes in the previous ballot;
    (b) any candidate who received less than five per cent. of the votes cast in the previous ballot; and
    (c) any candidate who, within ten minutes of the announcement in the House of the result of the previous ballot, shall have notified the Member presiding of his intention to withdraw,
    shall be removed from the ballot paper, except that where two or more candidates received the same number of votes, their names shall remain on the ballot paper unless paragraph (b) applies.
    (13) If the effect of paragraph (12) above is to remove from the ballot paper the name of every candidate except one, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (14) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 10 (Wednesday sittings) and 11 (Friday sittings), on any day on which the House meets to elect a Speaker, it shall meet at half-past Two o'clock.
    (b) No amendment may be offered to the question that a Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (c) If that question is agreed to, that Member shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.
    (d) If that question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following clay at half-past Two o'clock, and the provisions of paragraph (3) above shall apply in respect of a fresh ballot.

    Re-election of former Speaker
    1A.(1) If at the commencement of a parliament the Member who was Speaker at the dissolution of the previous parliament is returned to the House, the Member presiding in accordance with Standing Order No.1 (Election of the Speaker: Member presiding) shall,when the House meets to proceed with the choice of a Speaker,ascertain whether the former Speaker is willing to be chosen as Speaker,and,the former Speaker having submitted himself to the House,shall call upon a Member to move that he do take the chair of this House as Speaker: and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
    (2) If the question is agreed to, the former Speaker shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.
    (3) If the question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following day at half-past Two o'clock, and the House shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot).

    Election of Speaker by secret ballot
    1B. (1) If the question put in accordance with Standing Order No. 1A (Re-election of former Speaker) has been negatived, and on any other occasion when it is necessary to proceed with the choice of a new Speaker, the election shall be by secret ballot.
    (2) Preparatory arrangements for a ballot shall be made under the supervision of the Clerk of the House.
    (3) (a) Nominations of candidates shall be in writing and shall be received by the Clerk of the House between half-past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock in the morning on the day on which the House is to elect a Speaker.
    (b) Each nomination shall consist of a signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election accompanied by the signatures of not fewer than twelve nor more than fifteen Members, of whom not fewer than three shall be Members elected to the House as members of any party other than that to which the candidate belongs or members of no party. No Member shall sign more than one such statement and if any Member does so, his signature shall no longer be valid.
    (c) As soon as practicable following the close of nominations, lists of the candidates shall be placed in the Members' lobby and published.
    (4) If only one Member is nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above, the Member presiding shall, when the House meets to elect a Speaker, invite the Member so nominated to submit himself to the House, and shall then put forthwith the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (5) Paragraphs (6) to (13) of this Order shall apply if two or more Members are nominated in accordance with paragraph (3) above.
    (6) When the House meets, the order in which candidates may address the House shall be determined by lot; the Member presiding shall then invite each candidate to address the House; and after all candidates have been given an opportunity to speak, the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed to a ballot.
    (7) The Member presiding may not vote in any ballot.
    (8) (a) A ballot shall take place in the lobbies unless the Member presiding directs otherwise.
    (b) Each Member intending to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper bearing the names of the candidates listed in alphabetical order.
    (c) Each such Member may vote for only one candidate on the ballot paper.
    (d) A ballot shall be declared closed after the expiration of half an hour and counting shall take place under arrangements made by the Clerk of the House.
    (e) The Member presiding shall have discretion to vary the timings given in this Order and power to give final directions on any matter of doubt arising from the conduct of a ballot or from an individual ballot paper.
    (9) As soon as practicable after the votes have been counted the Member presiding shall announce to the House the numbers of votes cast for each candidate.
    (10) If a candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (11) If no candidate has received more than half the votes cast in a ballot the Member presiding shall direct the House to proceed forthwith to a further ballot to which paragraph (12) below shall apply.
    (12) In any further ballot no new nominations may be received and the names of—
    (a) the candidate who received the fewest votes in the previous ballot;
    (b) any candidate who received less than five per cent. of the votes cast in the previous ballot;and
    (c) any candidate who, within ten minutes of the announcement in the House of the result of the previous ballot, shall have notified the Member presiding of his intention to withdraw,
    shall be removed from the ballot paper, except that where two or more candidates received the same number of votes, their names shall remain on the ballot paper unless paragraph (b) applies.
    (13) If the effect of paragraph (12) above is to remove from the ballot paper the name of every candidate except one, the Member presiding shall forthwith put the question that that Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (14) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 10 (Wednesday sittings) and 11 (Friday sittings), on any day on which the House meets to elect a Speaker, it shall meet at half-past Two o'clock.
    (b) No amendment may be offered to the question that a Member do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
    (c) If that question is agreed to, that Member shall thereupon take the Chair as Speaker-elect.
    (d) If that question is negatived, the Member presiding shall forthwith adjourn the House to the following day at half-past Two o'clock, and the provisions of paragraph (3) above shall apply in respect of a fresh ballot.

  Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
  As amended, considered.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Speaker: The House is to consider the Kent County Council Bill followed by the Medway Council Bill. It may be helpful if I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the two Bills and the amendments thereto are virtually identical. The Chair will allow reference to the Medway Council Bill while we are debating the Kent County Council Bill, but thereafter any debate on the Medway Council Bill should be limited to matters peculiar to that Bill

  Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
    Clause 2

      APPOINTED DAY
      Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) to move amendment No. 15, which is grouped with amendments Nos. 18 and 16.
      Mr. Derek Wyatt: I seek clarification, Mr. Speaker. I have been told that the amendments are acceptable to the promoters of the Bill. Is that true?
      Mr. Paul Clark: As the sponsor of the Bill, I inform the House that the promoters are willing to accept this group of amendments.
      Mr. Wyatt: Do I need to move the amendment, Mr. Speaker? I am unsure of the form.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman needs to move the amendment. Other Members may wish to speak to it.
      Mr. Wyatt: I wish to move the amendment formally, Mr. Speaker.
      Amendments made: No. 15 in page 2, line 6 leave out
      'a newspaper circulating in the county'
      and insert—
      'at least two newspapers circulating in the county and at least one national art and antiques trade periodica'.
      No. 18, in page 2, line 11 leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 16, in page 2, line 15, after 'newspaper', insert—
      'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

    Clause 4

      INTERPRETATION OF PART 2
      Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move promoters amendment No.1, in page 3, leave out line 42.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: promoters amendment No. 2, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out 'his business' and insert—
      'the business in respect of which he is registered'.

      543
      Promoters amendment No. 3, in clause 8, page 7, line 18, at end insert—
      '(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or
      (f) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or'.
      Amendment No. 41, in clause 11, page 8, line 11, after 'trading', insert 'in the county'.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Clark: I shall be brief, as the three promoters amendments are all linked and will rectify a problem with book dealers. The intention of the Bill was to exempt such dealers from legislation, in so far as the business is related to books. As drafted, the effect of the Bills on dealers who sell other goods, for example, maps or prints, would be to require records of the transactions relating to books also to be kept.
      These promoters amendments would make it clear that no record-keeping would be required for books, even if the dealer is registered to sell other types of second-hand goods. The information held by Kent police did not reveal that there was a problem with stolen books. In fact, only five thefts of valuable books were recorded in a 12-month period. In addition, no consumer complaints about second-hand books can be found on the records, so there does not seem to be a problem with that side of the trade.
      Mr. Wyatt: I seek clarification about the wording. I am confused as to whether the "squat trading" referred to in clause 11(1)(c) refers to trading in the county. We hope that it does and, if so, I am happy to a accept that.
      Mr. Clark: The promoters are willing to accept amendment No. 41 as they have no problems with it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      REGISTRATION OF DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS
      Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 4, line 19, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 26, in page 4, line 20, at end insert—
      '(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.
      Amendment No. 45, in clause 12, page 10, line 33, leave out first 'business address' and insert—
      'his business address or business telephone number'.
      Amendment No. 46, in clause 12, page 10, line 33, leave out second 'business address' and insert—
      'the business address or business telephone number'.
      Amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 10, line 39, leave out 'business address' and insert—
      'his business address or business telephone number'.
      Mr. Wyatt: My only concern is that we do not want the antiques trade to be charged for registration. We want
      544
      to ensure that there will be no charge to traders and that the council will pay the charge. I understand that that is acceptable to the promoters.
      Mr. Paul Clark: After some consideration, the promoters have decided that the amendments in the group are acceptable.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 4 line 20, at end insert—
      '(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

    Clause 6

      INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY REGISTERED DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS
      Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move promoters amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 26, leave out (7) and insert (8).
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: amendment No. 28, in page 4, line 42, leave out from 'entry' to 'by' in line 43.
      Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 17, leave out '£10' and insert '£100'.
      Promoters amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 17, leave out from 'than' to end of line 19 and insert—
      'the relevant amount'.
      Promoters amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 23, at end insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—
      (a) £10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and
      (b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies;
      or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'
      Promoters amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 9, in line 36, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Amendment No. 33, line 36, leave out from 'amount' to end of line 44 and insert—
      'is £500 or such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine'.
      Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 38, leave out 'jewellery, watches'.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 38, leave out 'photographic equipment'.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 40, leave out musical instruments'.
      Promoters amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 2, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 3, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.

      545
      Promoters amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 21, clause 7, leave out '(4), (8) or (9)' and insert '(5), (9) or (10)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 39, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 42, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 10, line 5, clause 12, leave out from 'him' to end of line 6.
      Amendment No. 43, in page 10, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 10.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 10, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 13.
      Mr. Clark: Amendments Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are drafting amendments as a consequence of various small issues that relate to changes elsewhere.
      Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the levels and items required to be recorded by those involved in the second-hand trade. The Select Committee heard detailed evidence and arguments from the promoters, petitioners and their counsel, and witnesses over some 11 days, so detailed consideration was given. The Committee decided that the Bill should continue but with certain amendments, the most significant of which relates to the records which must be kept by registered dealers in second-hand goods. These two amendments relate to that.
      Dealers are required to obtain the name and address of the person from whom the articles were acquired. An exemption is provided for articles which, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, will be sold or offered for sale at a price of less than £10. However, that is not to apply to any electrical or battery-powered goods or to any medium on or by which sound, images and other data may be stored and recorded. This is intended to reduce the bureaucracy, but will not exempt those low value items frequently sold, such as audiocassettes and CDs. It may appear to hon. Members that those are relatively insignificant items, but the recovery of smaller items often leads police to those involved in thefts of more valuable items.
      The petitioners argued that antiques should be exempt or that the threshold for record-keeping should be raised to £50. The problem is that antique dealers also trade in works of art and collectors' items, and the existing legal definitions to be found in VAT legislation are too complex and would make the legislation unworkable. Since then, the promoters have introduced an amendment which tackles the problem differently, but will raise the threshold for most antiques to £50. Therefore, the proposals in amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are that the £10 threshold be retained for specified items similar to those requiring records when the dealer sells items for £100 or more. Again, the law of thresholds must be maintained for those items identified by the police as most frequently stolen.
      Consequently, as the Bill stands, all electrical and battery-powered items will need to be recorded, together with items for use with electrical items such as CDs and computer games. That will remain the case for the reasons that I have outlined. All other items will need to be recorded if, in the view of the dealer when purchasing
      546
      them, they would be sold on for more than £10. The effect of our amendment is to raise the financial limit in respect of those goods.
      The £10 limit will still apply to goods listed in the amendment, namely vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographical equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, firearms and gardening equipment. All other items, including most antiques, would not need to be recorded if their onward sale is believed to be at less than £50.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: If, as can happen, on closer inspection the article appears later to be worth a great deal more than £10, does it become an offence for the dealer to sell it for more than £10 if he or she has allowed the vendor to disappear without registering the provenance?
      Mr. Clark: That is a valid question. Obviously, a judgment could be made and subsequently the item bought could be found to be more valuable than at first thought. The Bill Provides for that not to be a criminal offence. Clearly, if someone consistently undertook that line of defence, one would take the necessary action. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Wyatt: This is the trickiest part for antique traders, the group whom I represent. My comments relate specifically to page 5, lines 36 to 40.
      When a house is cleared there are often between 3,000 and 4,000 objects. Their worth will vary from nothing to thousands and thousands of pounds. We are looking for an upper threshold. I wonder whether the sponsor will give some thought to that.
      In the antiques trade it is unusual for jewellery, watches and musical instruments to be worth less than £100; the price tends to be much higher—so we are putting in the same bracket objects with different values. It is incredibly bureaucratic for dealers to have to list 4,000 or 5,000 objects, or even fewer, from a house. Will the hon. Gentleman consider raising the £100 threshold to £500?
      Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend's amendments are opposed for the simple reason that the effect of raising that limit to £500 would be virtually to annihilate the basis of the Bill. As for excluding specifics, such as jewellery or watches, they are the very items that the police will say are stolen and passed on and that they want to follow through. We must remember that at the end of the day about £110 million worth of goods are stolen every year in Kent. That is last year's figure and it may well have gone up. Only about 25 per cent. is returned.
      My hon. Friend's amendments would undermine the main provisions of the Bill, which are to put in place a paper trail that is useful to the police and trading standards officers, and will enable them to return the goods, bring to justice those who have stolen them, and provide some compensation to victims.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Wyatt: If the figure cited by my hon. Friend is correct, I guess that, it must be for recorded crime and that it must be a valuation. I do not know who carries out such valuations, but let us accept the figure. Less than

      547
      2 per cent. of that relates to the antiques trade. The provisions would increase bureaucracy and red tape for a fine profession. That will cause real damage to communities in Kent and Medway. The easiest solution would be to exempt the antiques trade. Will my hon. Friend consider that? The provision seems incredibly unfair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: promoters amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'his business' and insert—
      'the business in respect of which he is registered'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]
      Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 29, leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 30.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient take the following amendments: No. 34, in page 6, line 3, after 'shall', insert 'not'.
      No. 35, in page 6, line 4, leave out from 'county' to end of line 12.
      Mr. Wyatt: My concern is that the provision applies to non-Kent crime. It is hard enough that it should apply even to Kent. Will the sponsor consider adding the word "not" to subsection (7), so that it reads:
      "Subsections (1) and (4) above shall not apply to transactions which take place outside the county."
      That would seem to me to be an extension of the principle of the law. Will the sponsor reflect on that?
      Mr. Paul Clark: We do not accept that. The simple reason is that if one takes away the requirement that purchases outside the county of Kent be recorded, a rogue trader could argue—when questioned about a certain item—that he or she had bought it outside the county. That excuse could be used by people who did not want to assist in providing the information required under the Bill. The claim that items were bought outside the county would be a simple way of overcoming the requirement to record the purchase. We cannot accept the amendment—to do so would negate the Bill and undermine its provisions.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 17, leave out from 'than' to end of line 19 and insert—
      'the relevant amount'.
      Promoters amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 23, at end insert—
      (4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—
      (a) £10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and
      (b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies;
      or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'
      Promoters amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 36, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 2, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 3, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 21, leave out '(4), (8) or (9)' and insert '(5), (9) or (10)'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

    Clause 7

      OFFENCES UNDER PART 2
      Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 39, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 42, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

    Clause 8

      EXEMPTIONS UNDER PART 2
      Amendment made: promoters amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
      '(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or
      (f) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

    Clause 11
      NOTICE OF OCCASIONAL SALES AND SQUAT TRADING
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 8, line 11, after 'trading', insert 'in the county'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]
    Clause 12

      INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY HOLDER OF CERTAIN OCCASIONAL SALES
      Amendments made:
      No. 45, page 10, line 33, leave out first 'business address' and insert—
      'his business address or business telephone number'.
      No. 46, in page 10, line 33, leave out second 'business address' and insert—
      'the business address or business telephone number'.
      No. 47, in page 10, line 39, leave out 'business address' and insert—
      'his business address or business telephone number'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

    Clause 17

      DEFENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE
      Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 12, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 13.

      549
      This provision relates to another tough matter for the antique dealers. There is an implication that dealers will be penalised if they do not know or cannot be certain of the information that they were given. For example, if the information is from a stolen credit card or a false driving licence, the dealer will be penalised. With the best will in the world, how is a dealer to know whether such documents have been stolen? It is a tough call to ask dealers to be responsible for that. Will the sponsor consider my amendment?
      Mr. Paul Clark: The defence provided under the clause is extremely well precedented in national as well as local legislation—for example, in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Video Recordings Act 1984 and many other Acts, and all other private Bills would contain such a provision. The amendment could result in courts wasting time and it would allow the person charged with an offence to pass the blame on to a third party, without allowing the council or the police to check the circumstances before going to court. So court time would be wasted and the circumstances could not be checked thereafter.
      The provisions are well documented elsewhere. People are not criminally liable if they have in place a generally good system and can prove that fact. The clause, as drafted, will not resolve the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt).
      Mr. Michael Fallon: If a group of dealers operates in a centre, one dealer may not be in the centre, or shop, on a particular day and may have to rely on the actions of another dealer. That is almost akin to a co-operative, and the dealers may watch one another's stalls and some of them may not go to the centre for two or three days, or two or three weeks. Will the clause on due diligence cover such eventualities?
      Mr. Clark: The Select Committee considered in detail the case of someone who owns a permanent antiques fair or market that includes different traders. Obviously, the individual traders will be responsible for recording information and so on, and the provisions allow for those circumstances. Having said that, as I told the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), there will come a time when the number of times that provision is used becomes an issue further down the line. That scenario was discussed at length by the Committee, and it was satisfied that it will ultimately be covered.
      Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend puts forward a good argument, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
      Order for Third Reading read.
      4.43 pm
      Mr. Paul Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I do not wish to take too much of the House's time, bearing in mind Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling. The Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill are
      550
      identical and, therefore, the provisions cover the whole county of Kent. We had an interesting debate on Second Reading. I congratulate the Select Committee on its work and its members on their determination—they considered the Bill very carefully for 11 days.
      The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the second-hand trade, with the aim of reducing the amount of acquisitive crime, such as burglary, by making it harder to dispose of stolen goods and turn them into cash. Home Office research, supported by police intelligence, shows that a large proportion of stolen property passes through unregulated second- hand dealers.
      Hon. Members w ill know that the provisions will deal with second-hand Dealers, occasional sales and squat trading. The provisions will enable the paper trail—the evidence and information required—to be set up to support genuine traders, the vast majority of whom have been involved, through various associations, in consultations with the promoters. That is why several amendments have been drafted by the promoters and considered by the Select Committee. Those amendments reflect the genuine concerns of the trade and the way in which second-hand antique dealers operate. We did not want unduly to increase the burden on businesses.
      I honestly believe that the Bills will not increase that burden because many of the records that we want are included in codes of practice that operate in the trade, or have to be kept for VAT purposes. The Bills will reinforce the hard work that has been undertaken by Kent police and the trading standards agencies to reduce the amount of theft and crime.
      The Bills are good examples of inter-agency working, and adopt many of the principles that were laid down in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Without taking any more time, I wish to commend the Bills to the House because they will help us to defeat those criminals who wish to cause misery for many residents of Kent.
      4.46 pm
      Mr. Wyatt: It is fair to say that these Bills have faced greater and more intense scrutiny, debate and amendment than any private legislation that has come before the House in recent years. The reason for that is simple: the Bills are ill-conceived and wrong in principle. The list of amendments tabled by the promoters alone is testament to the fact that the Bills were originally drafted without proper consultation with those affected. The result is that legislation is being created on the hoof, which is not ideal.
      Mr. Paul Clark: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wyatt: I shall give way in due course; I am sure that my hon. Friend will try to intervene again.
      The Bills have faced opposition inside and outside the House for many reasons. Although they are aimed at dealers in second-hand goods in Kent and Medway, the United Kingdom antiques trade as a whole has been in the vanguard of opposition. We should be grateful to a small band of organisations and hard-pressed self-employed antiques dealers, especially one from Newington in my constituency and another from Tenham, just outside it.
      The Bills have been subject to close examination by an Opposed Private Bill Committee. That is not to say that such actions are not supported and endorsed nationally.

      551
      A petition has been presented to the House today that carries the signatures of more than 2,300 antique dealers and members of the public who
      "believe that the Kent County Council Bill should be withdrawn and any future legislation aimed at regulating the sale of second-hand goods be created on a national scale and preceded by full and proper consultation of those likely to be affected."
      I think that it speaks for itself that the Committee was sufficiently moved by what it heard to publish a special report in which it said:
      "We think it appropriate to report the substance of our concerns—which go wider than the bills we were tasked with scrutinising—to the House."
      Indeed, such was the level of concern that one member of the Committee—I see my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) in his place—felt moved consistently to block the Bill's return to the House.
      The Committee's report succinctly sums up the tenor of opposition to the Bills, and its key, findings echo my concerns and those of my constituents and the second-hand goods trade as a whole, but especially the antiques trade. It will be appropriate if I quote the Committee's report further:
      "Erskine May tells us that private legislation is 'legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons—including individuals, local authorities, companies, or corporations—in excess of or in conflict with the general law. As such it is to be distinguished from the public general legislation, which is applicable to the general community."
      The local and particular nature of private Bills is reflected not only in the way in which they are dealt with on the Floor of the House, but in the powers of, and constraints upon, Committees charged with their close scrutiny.
      Committees on opposed private Bills must weigh up the arguments presented by interested parties and determine whether the balance of interest lies with the promoters or the petitioners, as they are directly and specifically affected by the provisions of the Bills The Committees may not consider the cases of those who have not petitioned and, having no power to summon witnesses other than those presented by the parties, they have only a limited ability to compare the proposals with others previously made.
      None the less, our attention was drawn by all parties to the precedent Acts. Although the provisions in the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill were precedented, they differed in a number of respects from the earlier Acts, which were not themselves entirely uniform. For example, only one Act provided for the recording by registered dealers of sales as well as purchases.
      We have heard from the petitioners that, although the provisions of these Bills are local, they will affect dealers who trade on a national basis. Consequently, there is a concern that, if provisions akin to those in the Bills were introduced in further such Bills, dealers would find themselves grappling with a number of subtly different regulatory regimes as they travelled around the country. We were told that the likelihood of dealers unwittingly committing offences against local legislation was strong. To me, that was a powerful argument in favour of introducing a single national regulatory structure. I do not think I disagree that such provisions will have a crime reduction impact, but I wish them to be fair and equitable across the country.
      552
      The promoters told us that national legislation to regulate the second-hand market was desirable but that they understood that there was little prospect of its being introduced in the near future. They therefore argued that the Bills were necessary to deal locally with the markets in stolen goods. It was put to Kent's deputy chief constable, Robert Ayling, that the introduction of such provisions on a local basis would have a displacement effect on criminal activity. He accepted that that might be the result. Sergeant Dan Murphy and Mr. Mark Dalrymple went further in suggesting that, as a consequence of the Bills' being enacted, the adjoining counties might in turn resort to local legislation as a means of tackling illegal trade.
      Speculation as to the future activities of other authorities cannot form part of our deliberations today. None the less, we consider that, should an increasing number of local authorities seek equivalent powers, it would be profoundly undesirable in terms of enforcement and the burden on what I consider to be a very honest trade.
      Mr. Paul Clark: I recognise the report to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. He will recognise that the Select Committee allowed the Bills to go forward. Although I accept that national legislation may well be preferable, does he agree that it is not on the horizon? Eight other measures, including the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000, contain similar provisions, so does he not agree that the people of Kent deserve that protection as well?
      Mr. Wyatt: As my hon. Friend knows, it is a question of philosophy. I am not sure that we actually fundamentally disagree but, in philosophical terms, I think that the legislation should be introduced nationally and not locally. The antiques trade operates in a national and international marketplace and these Bills penalise it in an unreasonable manner.
      The Opposed Private Bill Committee is not the only body in the House to identify a strong need for public legislation. I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and our report, "Cultural Property Return and Illicit Trade" stated:
      "We recommend that the Home Office make a public commitment in the course of this year to establishing a national database of stolen cultural property and cultural property exported against the laws of countries concerned under national police control."
      The issue has been debated elsewhere. A national database is a good idea because it would strengthen our hand in the fight against crime and disorder. I gather that inquiries have been made to the Home Office and that some legislation may be forthcoming; perhaps the Minister will enlighten us later.
      The question is whether the subject of the Bills—the regulation of the antiques trade in Kent—is appropriate for local legislation. The answer to that question is emphatically no, and the objection that this is not a suitable topic for local legislation underlies my every objection to the principle of the Bills.
      In a unified country with one Parliament, which is not a federal united states, it is a powerful argument that the criminal law should be the same in every county. A local Bill creates criminal offences that are unlikely to be

      553
      known of by a substantial number of people whom it will affect. It creates anomalies that lead to uncertainty, complexity and injustice. In addition, it enables the promoters not to carry out a cost benefit analysis and even some consultation, which makes it impossible to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public and the police in reducing crime and the interests of the antiques trade. It is disappointing not to have a cost benefit analysis. I find it hard to accept that the measure will not require additional policing.
      The Bill creates criminal offences with fines of up to £1,000 which are unlikely to be known by a substantial number of the people whom they will affect. Dealers in the antiques trade who carry on business in Kent are from all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad. Inevitably, some people will carry on businesses in Kent without knowing the local law, will commit criminal offences and will be liable to prosecution.
      It is not a sound and satisfactory basis for legislation to create criminal offences that might not be known to a substantial number of people whom they affect. The Bill is not making local byelaws that are published locally for everyone to see, such as the regulation of the use of a park or a library, with a fine of £25 or £50 attached for anyone who disobeys. It is doing nothing of that nature. Instead, it creates serious criminal offences with fines of up to £1,000 that will not be known generally throughout the trade. The Bill traps honest and decent citizens who are unaware that they have committed an offence that is susceptible to criminal prosecution, with all the humiliation that that can imply.
      The Bill's principles are not underpinned by a moral consideration, unlike the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which applies nationally. Everyone is deemed to know national legislation. Anyone who does not and is in business should know that, under the terms of that Act, they must not mislead their customers by the way in which they represent their goods for sale. There is a strong underlying moral theme to the 1968 Act, which is not the case with these Bills. Obligation to register is not underpinned by a moral consideration. The dealer who comes from outside Kent is genuinely an unwary individual, without a reason to suspect or know that the Bill exists.
      The Bills' principles are not even part of the culture of the antiques trade. That would change, however, if there were national legislation, which is where I stand on the matter. The Bill, will not become part of the culture of the trade because they will affect only those who come to Kent from time to time.
      Mr. Fallon: If there were national legislation on those grounds, would the hon. Gentleman support it?
      Mr. Wyatt: I would definitely support it. I am arguing philosophically that it is wrong for just some citizens of the United Kingdom to be covered by legislation.
      The promoters are easily content with the notion that Parliament should enact a Bill to create absolute offences that have an impact on innocent and responsible people who will have no defence if prosecution is brought. That is wholly unprincipled and exceptional in our legal system, although I am mindful of similar Bills in other counties.
      554
      The civil liberty issues cannot be ignored. They arise because we are dealing with local legislation that purports to regulate a trade that operates nationwide. The issue would not arise so acutely if the exponents of the trade operated wholly within the county of Kent, because such dealers could be targeted and informed about the law with comparative ease. That is not the case with the antiques trade because of the national and international marketplace.
      Mr. Paul Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that similar Acts exist in other parts of the country? He seems to be making the case that the Bill will be detrimental to people who come to Kent. Does he accept that of all the registrations under the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, sources outside Kent confirm that about 51 per cent. are of traders who run their business outside the county and go into it to operate? There is a 50:50 split between those inside and those outside the county.
      Mr. Wyatt: That Act was passed 10 years ago, but crime figures have only just started to fall. Other counties have introduced their own Bills, so the antiques business is regulated differently in seven or eight counties. That does not assist our attempts to deregulate, to help young entrepreneurs to prosper and to enable those who want to trade to do so. We are obfuscating the issue by increasing bureaucracy.
      A witness to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, Mr. Tripp, stated that principle succinctly, when he said:
      "I would like to see the Bill scrapped because I really do believe that crime is a national problem and it should be dealt with in a national Bill. If I was sitting here today proposing that we have one Bill for Kent for drugs and another one for Sussex, so you could smoke cocaine on one side of the road and not on the other, you would all laugh me out of court and I cannot see that this is any different."
      He is absolutely right. The criminal law should be the same throughout the country.
      Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend accept that every police force has the right to operate differently and that styles of policing vary? Measures should be available, therefore, that may be particularly appropriate for one force, but not for all the others.
      Mr. Wyatt: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We are trying to encourage best practice in police forces to be used nationally. The fundamental point is that we do not yet have best practice in the culture of policing, but we hope that we will achieve it. My question, which I dwelt on before, is whether we are equal citizens under the law or only under some laws.
      I mentioned the Worcester City Council Act 1985. There is also the County of Lancashire Act 1984 and the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000. I will not read out the whole list of such Acts, but if other local authorities with similar legislation decide to enforce it, dealers will be required to cope with numerous Acts, all of them different. If other local authorities follow suit, as Newcastle upon Tyne has, the position will get worse. The position of antiques dealers in this country will become completely untenable. Do we want that business here or not? It is a massive revenue earner within UK plc and outside the country. The promoters hope and expect that other local authorities will follow suit. That is the wrong way round. Philosophically, if the proposal is right, the Home Office should introduce it nationally.

      555
      As many hon. Members know, a local Bill enables the promoter to avoid carrying out a cost benefit analysis and, in some cases, to avoid consulting the trade. The absence of a cost benefit analysis makes it impossible to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public and the police in reducing crime on the one hand, and the interests of the antiques trade in carrying out its business without undue interference on the other.
      If national legislation were introduced, a proper scientific study would be carried out with the assistance of trade associations and others to ascertain the effects of regulating the antiques trade in various ways and the benefit in terms of reducing the market in stolen goods. There would be full consultation, initiated by a Green Paper and followed by a Government proposal set out in a White Paper. We all know how that system works. Such a study would inevitably involve the investigation of different types of dealers, their income and expenditure, different methods of business and the nature and extent of the problem—the market in stolen goods. It would investigate traffic in stolen goods at each level of the trade and different ways to prevent it. There would be consultation not only of Kent police but of other police forces.
      Mr. Paul Clark: This is not national legislation and there is no requirement for a cost benefit analysis, but does my hon. Friend accept that consultation on the ideas behind the Bill has been extensive and began even before the first draft was started two and a half years ago? Does he accept also that the proposals have seen part and parcel of Operation Radium in Kent and Medway, so it is not as though the legislation has suddenly been introduced to the House without any discussion taking place? Do not the amendments show that the promoters have listened to members of the trade?
      Mr. Wyatt: I agree in part, but I have attended public meetings and received letters and e-mails from hundreds of people saying that they were not consulted or asked for their opinion. That is a genuine grievance held especially by those in the antiques trade.
      A suggestion has been made in some quarters that the opposition to the Bill of the London and Provincial Antique Dealers Association and DMG Antiques Fairs Ltd. implies that they are willing to tolerate trafficking in stolen goods. That is not true. They want properly thought out national legislation that serves the interests of the public as well as the trade—LAPADA has campaigned for that. They strongly oppose the Bill's clumsy sledgehammer approach, which will require dealers to record thousands of transactions involving articles ranging from 18th-century dining tables to tie pins, most of which will be of no value to the police.
      Anyone who has visited Detling, which is one of the great antiques fairs, will realise that the Bill carries serious implications for the way in which such fairs operate. Its framing will ensure that Kent dealers have to register transactions whereas non-Kent people will not. That is a disappointment to me and those who share my views.
      Many of the records will have nothing to do with reducing trafficking or tracing stolen goods in Kent. In his evidence to the Committee, Mr. Scott, representing Kent county council's trading standards department, conceded as much. His department does not even intend
      556
      to range outside Kent to inspect the records of registered dealers outside the county. Such records will be inspected only if the dealer brings them to Kent and a trading standards officer happens to run into him. Why impose a requirement to keep such records if it is not going to be enforced? That is yet another anomaly arising from this local Bill. From their evidence to the Committee, it was apparent that the Bill's promoters hoped that if the local Bill was a success, the Government would intervene with national legislation; however, the Bill's enactment will not encourage the Executive to intervene.
      I ask the Minister to think again. One might as well give a drink to an alcoholic. The only way to encourage an alcoholic to seek a cure is to withhold drink. If the Government see local authorities enacting local legislation around the country, they will be satisfied that there is no need for them to intervene, but the harm done to the antiques trade in the intervening period will be dramatic.
      In their evidence to the Committee, the promoters accepted that if the police case for the Bill could not be proved, there would be no basis for enacting the Bill to serve the interests of the trading standards department. Mr. Scott's evidence made it clear that any benefit to the trading standards department would be purely incidental and that the Bill must stand or fall according to whether the police have made out their case. However, last year, the value of stolen antiquities in the county of Kent constituted only 2.4 per cent. of the total value of stolen goods in Kent. That statistic was thoroughly tested in Committee.
      Furthermore, in their evidence, Kent police accepted that the more organised burglar—as opposed to the burglar who is driven by addictive drugs—will transport antiques a great distance to dispose of them. If antiques are taken outside the county before disposal, they will not be affected by the Bill and will fall outside its recording provisions. Antiques that are taken outside the county will have been stolen by the more organised and trained burglar and are likely to be more valuable.
      As I have said, the out-and-out rogue dealer is unlikely to register under the Bill, and the Bill will not impinge on goods disposed by those who remain unregistered. If a dealer remains unregistered, the powers of recording conferred by the Bill will be inapplicable to him; equally, the powers of entry and inspection afforded to the police by the Bill will not apply to him. The local unorganised burglar who has stolen an antique will not generally have gone out of his way to steal antiques. He will steal the more usual items, such as video recorders and the latest PlayStation. The Bill deals with an extremely small proportion of the stolen goods in Kent.
      The gain to the police to be derived from the Bill in relation to the antiques trade is wholly unproven. The measure of assistance that they can reasonably hope to gain from it, whether in reducing the market in stolen antiques or in tracing such goods, will be very small indeed. In contrast, the Bill will cause dealers in the antiques trade to prepare thousands of different sets of records. Some of those records will cover thousands of transactions. As I explained, a house clearance can involve between 3,000 and 4,000 items. Trying to use such records to trace stolen goods will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
      In the Committee, Kent police were asked how they would know where to start looking if somebody reported a Lowestoft jug stolen. With a list of thousands of names,

      557
      where would they start to look? The police response was, "Well, our intelligence-led policing will target certain dealers." From that answer, it follows that the ordinary honest dealer, who has no wish to accept stolen goods, is not going to be targeted by the police unless, by pure chance, the police are tipped off and told that the Lowestoft jug has regrettably ended up with an honest dealer. The out-and-out rogue dealer, on the other hand, will get by without registering. The dishonest antiques dealer will register, but he is unlikely to oblige by recording correct names, addresses and descriptions of articles. Inventive means can be used by the rogue dealer to avoid the provisions of the Bill.
      Some individuals may be caught, but they will be liable to fines of only £1,000. The inference is that the burden of the Bill will be borne by the honest dealer—not by the crook or the dodgy dealer—for little gain.
      We know from the North Yorkshire experience that for the first three or four years the Act that applied to that area was never enforced. It was then enforced for a period, and resources were diverted and re-prioritised elsewhere. The same will happen in Kent. The police change their tactics to meet the changing tactics of the criminal and resources are reapplied elsewhere. In Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the crime rate has gone down. What happens? We lose five police officers.
      Kali Mountford: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that tactics used by the police and burglars change. Burglars who are now taking certain items may be finding it difficult to dispose of them. If antiques were exempted, would burglars not find themselves a new market?
      Mr. Wyatt: There is some logic in what my hon. Friend says.
      Kent-registered dealers at antiques fairs will lose business, whether in Kent or elsewhere, in the important period at the beginning of the fair when dealers are operating at close quarters and in hectic competition. In such circumstances, a dealer will not stop to provide his name and address or other forms of identification to the Kent-registered dealer, who will therefore lose out on the best available deals. Although in theory the purchaser can take the badge number of the seller, by no means all fairs issue badges.
      I shall give the example of an Act that relates to the registration of adults who work with children. The sum involved was £10. The Scottish Parliament said that it would pay that sum. I tabled a question asking whether it would be all right for scouts, football teams and guides in my constituency to register as a PO Box in Edinburgh. As the House will know, there is now no charge in England. Antique dealers and others will find ways of getting round the Bill's provisions. That is why the issue is national and not local.
      It is clear from the evidence that business will be lost by dealers at antique fairs, and not merely in the first few hours of trade. Similarly, it will be lost outside antique fairs in the normal course of business, because people will refuse to give their names and addresses. It is equally clear that alternative methods of identification will not be the answer. Not everyone has a driving licence, and not everyone who has a licence carries it. Not many people
      558
      will produce a credit card to identify themselves. They may pay by credit card, but that is their chosen method of payment, assuming that the dealer will accept one. The dealer will not necessarily have credit card facilities. Most people cannot remember their national insurance number, and who walks around with a passport?
      Dealers who buy from abroad or from tourists will, in many instances, be unable to get the names and addresses of the vendors, as a result of which business will be lost. A witness to the Committee, whose plight is by no means unusual, described graphically the difficulties experienced in buying at brocantes and fairs in France, and in buying from Japanese tourists. It is difficult to see how a Kent dealer could continue in business if the Bill were enacted, including the provisions relating to antiques.
      The requirement of the Bill to record a description sufficient to identify the article was amended in Committee. If an antiques dealer is asked to describe an antique, he will naturally resort to the method that has been used since time immemorial. We will not change the animal by requiring the dealer to describe the article in another way. It is common to find that one dealer backs his hunch or judgment against another when it comes to the date of an article, who made it and so forth. Such differing views, it is suggested, would be converted into criminal offences.
      That is the cause of anxiety to the dealer. Of course, a mis-description could blot out the tracing facility of the records. That could give rise to annoyance on the part of the police or the trading standards officer, for example. No one can predict the extent to which a dealer will be criticised if he makes a mistake in his description of an article.
      Some antiques dealers buy goods in lots, whether it be at a house clearance or otherwise; they then sell on in lots. The lots can include 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or more articles. Sometimes they do not even look at them. They do not want them. They are not interested in the overwhelming majority of the contents of a house, but they notice the odd clock or the odd piece of furniture. That is what attracts them. The dealer will now have to log everything. He will have to make up his mind whether it is worth logging each article and whether an article can go to sale for less than £10. He will have to consider whether he is under an obligation to enter a description of each and every article. That is becoming ridiculous for those in the trade.
      Is it right to impose the burden of more book-keeping on the trade, as those people are busy? We have reached the stage in our history where we do not think it justifiable to impose regulations on individuals without real justification. The Bill indiscriminately imposes regulation, regardless of the level of turnover or the number of transactions, which is a grievous imposition. It is not valid to argue that people are required to enter such records under the VAT margin scheme, as the global accounting scheme has been specially provided by Customs and Excise to meet the particular requirements of businesses with a high turnover of low-value articles. They do not have to enter such records in relation to transactions of £500 or less
      If the Bill becomes law, the prospects are bad for antiques fairs in Kent, which will be driven out of the county altogether. The Bill will have a considerable effect on many businesses that attend those fairs. We do not

      559
      know to what extent dealers will say, "I am not going to bother with Kent any more; I am going to go elsewhere." No study has been carried out to determine that. A drop of only 20 per cent. in the number of stall holders at Detling, the largest fair in Kent, will turn it into a loss-making enterprise. If it closes, the effect on the local economy will be devastating.
      The question of how to exclude the antiques trade from the Bill is a natural progression from my earlier statements. It merely becomes a question of definition; the VAT regulations are an excellent starting point because a great deal of thought has been given to the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, S.I. 1268, as amended by the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1999, S.I. 3120. I venture to suggest that those regulations contain concise, simple definitions that have been well thought through by those advising Customs and Excise. While not a perfect fit, they require little modification and provide the comfort of being based on a substantial amount of research and consultation. I shall therefore oppose the Bill.
      5.16pm
      Mr. Michael Howard: I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) was right that, despite our somewhat attenuated proceedings this afternoon, it has received a good deal of parliamentary scrutiny. On Second Reading, we had a good debate on its principles, and the Committee that considered it extremely conscientiously paid close attention to each of its provisions.
      I have consistently supported the Bill but not, it is fair to say, without many misgivings. It is true that the Bill imposes significant additional regulation on the traders whose activities it covers. My hon. Friends and I are philosophically predisposed to object to further regulation; there is too much regulation, which ought to be diminished. That is a powerful argument against the Bill, as is the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about consistency. I agree that national legislation would have been preferable, but we know that that it is not on the cards and is unlikely to be introduced in the near future.
      Those of us who represent the people of Kent therefore have to face up to the question. We all want to do everything that we can to reduce crime in Kent. The question boils down to this: are we prepared to will the means as well as the end? I believe that the Bill will contribute to the reduction of crime in Kent. At least equally importantly. the chief constable, to whom I paid tribute on Second Reading and in whose judgment I have considerable confidence, is strongly of that view as well.
      Despite the cogent points made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and the misgivings to which I referred, I believe that the Bill—which, I deeply regret, will impose difficulties on many traders, including many of my constituents—will make a significant contribution to making Kent a place with less property crime. That is an objective of considerable importance, which is why I have consistently supported the legislation.
      5.19pm
      Mr. Rowe: I shall be brief. Many of my constituents have, like those of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), taken a leading role in opposing the legislation and have written and spoken to me about it. I share a number of their anxieties. Their principal concern is that the Bill should be national legislation. The Government came to power on a pledge to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but it is a shame that when they are confronted with an opportunity to introduce relatively modest legislation nationwide, they allow it to grow up piecemeal through a series of private Bills.
      It is a poor argument to suggest that there is no room to deal with a measure that controls crime, which impinges on every person in the country, in a legislative timetable that has given so much time to irrelevancies such as hunting with dogs. I would have supported the Bill with fervour if it had been national legislation, but I do not feel fervent about it. Instead, I feel anxious for constituents of mine who work in the trade, as there may be a small transfer of trade—I think it will be smaller than they fear—to other places, where people do not have to keep records.
      In an increasingly international world, trade goes to the places where it is best regulated and organised. Most antique dealers in Kent have a justifiably high reputation for honesty and probity. I hope that the Bill will increase that impression, as a good reputation brings trade in its wake. It is for the police to prove that the Bill diminishes crime, however, and I look forward to considering their records during the next two or three years to find out whether it does so.
      The other reason why I am keen to support the Bill is that I am outraged to know that there are shops in my constituency that send out thieves to steal to order. They are well known to the police and to some local people, but it is so difficult to catch them in the act that they continue to commit their crimes with apparent impunity. The sending out of youngsters to steal to order was a well-known feature of 19th-century London, but I am outraged by the idea that dealers in my constituency are doing the same thing now. Such crime is a significant way of increasing the drugs trade, as it is drug addicts who are most likely to do the stealing. Any measure that will diminish such activities is to be commended, which is why I support the Bill.
      5.23 pm
      Mr. Fallon: I, too, support the Bill, for the reasons that I outlined on Second Reading, which now seems a very long time ago. I do not do so with wild enthusiasm, however, as there are issues of bureaucracy and the central question of local or national legislation. As I made clear on Second Reading, a price may have to be paid for the Bill in terms of bureaucracy, as it could bear down heavily on people who are not involved in criminal activity of any sort, but who will now have to put up with some of the red tape to which the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) referred. Those issues have been explored both in Committee and in the House today, and the promoters' original proposals have been substantially amended during the Bill's passage through both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the bureaucratic burden will be less than it might otherwise have been.

      561
      The only other argument about the Bill is whether it should have been a national measure. I made my position clear on Second Reading. I am not opposed to local innovation in developing the law. It is now for other counties and for police forces to see how Kent gets on and to decide whether to promote their own legislation.
      The Bill is slightly different and it builds on experience from elsewhere. That is useful. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey may be right to say that a Bill that applies nationally is preferable. In response to my intervention he said that, despite his misgivings about the lack of a moral framework, he would support it if it applied nationally.
      The Bill does not apply nationally, and there is no prospect of such a measure. I do not know what the position will be on 4 May, but there is little prospect of a national Bill in the next few days or weeks. We must therefore deal with the measure as it stands.
      The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was right when he said that Kent police's case was unproven. That is the nature of such measures; the police cannot prove to Parliament that the Bill will work and make a substantial difference. It is for us to make a judgment. We must assess the likely impact, the bureaucratic cost and the red tape. We must set our judgment against that of those who are in the front line.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) expressed such a judgment today. He has been in the front line as one of the more successful Home Secretaries of recent times. Crime decreased during his term of office. We have also heard the judgment of the chief constable of Kent. The Government acknowledge that he is one of the more successful chief constables in the fight against crime. I am prepared to accept at least those two judgments.
      The police believe that the Bill strengthens the instruments at their disposal, and that it will make a difference. Such measures have made a difference in other areas and to other trades—for example, scrap metal. A measure on that was introduced much earlier. It is important to remember that the Bill will apply to trades other than antiques. That is why the police support it.
      None the less, we should not forget antiques, which are being stolen. If they could not be cashed in so easily, they would not be stolen. The ease with which antiques can be translated into cash lies behind the extraordinarily high rates of burglary.
      If there is a Division, I shall support the Bill, albeit without huge enthusiasm. Its effect may be modest, but at least it will be modest on the right side. I suspect that Kent police will be proved right and the Bill will have a significant, but not huge, impact on the operation of criminals in Kent.
      5.28 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I do not wish to say much; I simply want to deal briefly with the issue of local and national legislation. It is the convention that the Government are neutral on private Bills, and we intend to maintain that. However, Project Radium is already examining ways to reduce supply and demand of stolen
      562
      goods in Kent. The Home Office is closely associated with the project; indeed, we are providing £462,000 for it and are paying for its evaluation. We are therefore keen to ensure that it is considered with great care. Without wishing to anticipate the results of the evaluation, I understand and sympathise with the view of the promoters of such Bills that voluntary action is not enough.
      If the Bill is passed today, the Government must consider whether some of the rules for which it provides need to be introduced nationally. If Parliament decides to enact the Bill, we intend to discuss with Kent county police the best way in which its benefits can be evaluated in a reasonable time If the Government can demonstrate through experience that the benefits of the measure outweigh the cost that it will impose on second-hand dealers, we will consider carefully whether the Bill and those like it that have already been passed should form the basis for national legislation.
      I hope that those points will assist the House without compromising the Government's neutrality on the Bill.
      5.29 pm
      Mr. Paul Clark: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate on Third Reading.
      I welcome the comments by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), about looking carefully at the provisions of the Bill if it is passed tonight. He is absolutely right about Project Radium, which, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), has consistently contributed to the reduction in burglaries and associated crimes in the Medway area. It has been operating on a voluntary basis, but it has rightly been pointed out that that is not enough, which is why we are debating the Bill today.
      The records that are being sought are not substantially more than those that would be required under the good practice guidance notes of various associations, the requirements for VAT, and so on. As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) recognised, we have caught the mood in terms of the requirements and the cash-up limits required for record-keeping. That provision was introduced purely to ensure that we eased the burdens on traders as much as possible, and to ensure that we continue to have a healthy operation in Kent.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey referred to removing antique dealers from the scope of the Bill. It is impossible to do that, and I hope that we covered that when we considered the amendments. Antique dealers trade not only in antiques but in many items, some of which—jewellery and watches, for example—have been identified by Kent police as items that ire frequently stolen and traded.
      Let me add, for the benefit of hon. Members who have expressed concern, that new clause 20, which was added in Committee, provides a requirement for the promoters and the police to report to the Secretary of State on the benefits or otherwise of the Bill, no more than three years after the appointed day.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the burden of the regulatory effect of the Bill, and to the need to strike a balance between the interests of local businesses involved

      563
      in this trade and helping and protecting residents. This is a question of balance, and we have taken steps to try to ease that burden.
      The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to the process of funding the purchase of drugs, and suggested that drugs might lead to much of this type of crime. He is absolutely right. It is believed that when burglaries are committed to fund drug-related habits, the problem is not exported over the boundary into neighbouring counties, because people want to sell the stolen goods quickly in order to get the cash, and they are not going to travel to another county to do that.
      We have had a substantial debate on Third Reading that has aired a number of concerns that are shared by all Members of the House. We shall watch closely the effects of the Bill, which I am pleased to support.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Medway Council Bill [Lords] [By Order]
  As amended, considered.
  Medway Council Bill [Lords] [By Order]
    Clause 2

      APPOINTED DAY
      Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 2, line 9, leave out,
      'a newspaper circulating in the borough'
      and insert—
      'at least two newspapers circulating in the borough and at least one national art and antiques trade periodical'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]
      5.34 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 19, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No. 17, in page 2, line 18, after 'newspaper', insert
      'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.
      Mr. Derek Wyatt: In view of the fact that our proceedings on this Bill will be a copy of what we have just done with the Kent County Council Bill, can we do it all formally, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, but we shall proceed gently.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 1 line 14, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
      No 17, in page 2, line 18, after 'newspaper', insert
      'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

    Clause 4
      INTERPRETATION OF PART 2
      Amendment made: promoters amendment No. 1, in page 4, leave out line 5.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]
    Clause 5

      REGISTRATION OF DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 4, line 25, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
      No. 27, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—
      '(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

    Clause 6

      INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY REGISTERED DEALERS IN SECOND-HAND GOODS
      Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 15, in page 4, line 32, leave out '(4)' and insert '(8)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 35, leave out 'his business' and insert—
      'the business in respect of which he is registered'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]
      Amendment made: No. 28, in page 4, line 35, leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 36.—[Mr. Wyatt.]
      Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'than' to end of line 29 and insert—'the relevant amount'.
      Promoters amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—
      (a)£10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and
      (b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies;
      or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'
      Promoters amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 34, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 1, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 14, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 15, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)' .—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

    Clause 7

      OFFENCES UNDER PART 2
      Amendments made: promoters amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 33, leave out '(4), (8) or (9)' and insert '(5), (9) or (10).'
      Promoters amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 6, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      Promoters amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 9, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

    Clause 8

      EXEMPTIONS UNDER PART 2
      Promoters amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 31, at end insert—
      '(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or
      (f) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or'.
      —[Mr. Paul Clark.]

    Clause 12

      INFORMATION TO BE KEPT BY HOLDER OF CERTAIN OCCASIONAL SALES
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 10, line 44, leave out first 'business address' and insert—
      'his business address or business telephone number'.
      No. 47, in page 10, line 44, leave out second 'business address' and insert—
      'the business address or business telephone number'.
      No. 48, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'business address' and insert—
      'his business address or business telephone number'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

    Clause 17

      DEFENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE
      Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 13, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.—[Mr. Wyatt.]
      Question put: That the amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We opposed the same idea when we were dealing with the Kent County council Bill. May I withdraw the amendment, so that there need not be a Division?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may get to that stage, but we shall have to ask for Tellers first.
      KALI MOUNTFORD and MR. MICHAEL HOWARD were appointed Tellers for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    PETITIONS

      Public Houses (Portsmouth)
      5.41 pm
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Carol and Mick Frewing, the tenants of the Connaught Arms in Fratton, Portsmouth, and of more than 1,000 local people who want a fair deal for local pubs and landlords. The petition states:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
      The Humble Petition of Carol and Mick Frewing, tenants of the Connaught Arms, Fratton, Portsmouth.
      That Whitbread Plc has decided to sell all its 3,000 pubs to a sole bidder, thereby denying its 1,700 pub licensees the right to buy the Freehold of their premises. The Petitioners believe that this action may seriously jeopardise one's choice and the future of small pubs everywhere, especially in Portsmouth.
      The Petitioners pray that your honourable House support the signatories of Early-Day Motion 177 in deploring this decision by Whitbread Plc. The Petitioners further pray that the House note that Many Licensees have invested considerable sums in their pubs and have in the process contributed substantially to Whitbread's profit; recognise also that these licensees now feel betrayed by the company's actions and ask the Honourable House to support their right to buy campaign.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray
      To lie upon the Table

  Miners' Compensation
  5.42 pm
  [The following petition was presented on behalf of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig).]
  The Petition of the residents of South Wales,
  Declares that the existing evidence of respiratory disease contracted by miners is sufficient to meet the requirement for immediate payment of personal injury compensation without further testing or administrative delay; and that more than 25,000 readers
  of the South Wales Argus have called on the Government to make immediate substantial payments to all chronically ill ex-miners and to the widows of men who have died as a result of such illnesses.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to speed up payments to claimants and bring justice to ex-miners and miners' widows.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Illegal Immigrants (Eurotunnel)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: The United Kingdom terminal of the Eurotunnel service through the Channel tunnel lies in my constituency. For some time now, I have been disturbed by numerous reports of the frequency with which illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom are being apprehended in my constituency, both within the United Kingdom terminal and elsewhere. I have also been concerned about the increasing frequency of the reports which I read about the ways in which illegal entrants have gained access to Eurotunnel at the French terminal at Coquelles.
  Last week, I decided to go through the tunnel to France, to see for myself what things were like on the French side. I travelled through the tunnel in the company of Bill Dix, the managing director of Eurotunnel, and I am very grateful to him and his colleagues for their co-operation.
  I looked at the security arrangements at the terminal in Coquelles, and I visited the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. I applied for this debate so that I could report on what I found to the House and, indeed, to the Minister, for, as far as I am aware—no doubt she will correct me if I am wrong—neither she nor any of her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office have yet made a similar trip.
  I hope that no one is in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation. I was told, for example, that the number of illegal immigrants apprehended within the United Kingdom terminal was running at a rate that would mean that as many would be apprehended in this month of March as were apprehended in the whole of last year. The number apprehended in the French terminal in the first 12 days of March was no fewer than 1,082. I am sorry that, through a misunderstanding, I gave that figure for the United Kingdom terminal on the radio this morning, but the true number affords no grounds for complacency, and is a matter of grave concern.
  At the Red Cross centre in Sangatte, about which I shall say more in a moment, the number of people passing through during the past 18 months was no fewer than 25,000. I do not know whether the Minister was previously aware of that astonishing figure. It certainly brings home the scale of the problem that I want to discuss this evening.
  The Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles is a big place. I was told that it covers roughly the same area as Heathrow airport. It is obviously a very difficult area to make secure. I think that Eurotunnel has made a genuine attempt to do what it can to make it difficult for unauthorised entry to its trains, or the lorries that use its trains, to be obtained. It has not, however, been wholly successful in this endeavour—far from it.
  When I talked to Eurotunnel about its problems, it identified two ways in which matters could be improved. First, the fencing of a part of the area is the responsibility of SNCF, the French national railways. SNCF has, I was told, been promising since last June to put up in respect of the area for which it is responsible the same kind of high security fencing that Eurotunnel is in the process of erecting—and, indeed, has now largely erected—in

  569
  respect of the area for which it is responsible. Despite these assurances, no such action has yet been taken by SNCF.
  SNCF is a nationalised concern. If there were any political will on the part of the French Government to take action on these matters, they could ensure that SNCF took the necessary action. If relations between the United Kingdom Government and the French Government are anything like as good as we are constantly told they are, it should be an easy matter for the United Kingdom Government to make representations to the French Government to ensure that this is done. I hope that the Minister will tell us during her reply to what representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the French Government on this issue and what response they have received.
  I should mention that if this action were taken, it would have a positive effect not only on those who abuse Eurotunnel's services but on those who use the rail freight services through the tunnel. I am aware of the many difficulties faced by the operators of that service, largely caused by SNCF, although they lie somewhat outside the scope of the issue on which I want to concentrate this evening.
  The second step that could be taken to improve security at the Coquelles terminal relates to the personnel who are employed on security duties at the terminal. As a result of the combined effect of the agreement under which the terminal is policed and French law, Eurotunnel's own security personnel have, as I was told last week, very limited powers. They are unable to use force in respect of those who seek unauthorised entry to the terminal and they are unable to detain any who are apprehended there. However, British police officers, including the Ministry of Defence police, would, as I understand it, have such powers. Eurotunnel therefore believes that personnel with those powers should be made available to undertake security duties at the terminal. The most obvious candidates seem to Eurotunnel and to me to be Ministry of Defence police. I understand that that option is currently being considered by the United Kingdom Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what progress, if any, has been made in considering that option.
  The Red Cross centre at Sangatte is a remarkable place. It is evidently well run, and I entirely accept that the provision of the facilities that are available and the work that is carried out are motivated by the highest principles. However, the inescapable—and astonishing—fact is that this large facility exists solely for the purpose of providing food and shelter for those who are seeking illegal entry into the United Kingdom. Those who use the facilities are there only because of the proximity to the terminal at Coquelles. If they were able to obtain legal entry into the United Kingdom, there would be no need for them to stop off at Sangatte in the first place.
  I can quite see why no one in France has any incentive to do anything to change the present situation. They are only too happy for these people to leave France, gain entry to the United Kingdom and apply for asylum in this country. They make little secret of that fact. The Minister will know, however, as everyone who pays any attention to this subject will know, that the international convention on refugees, which is the fundamental source of our
  570
  obligations on this matter, provides that asylum seekers should seek sanctury in the first safe country in which they find themselves. Self-evidently, for those arriving from continental Europe into this country by any method of transport other than air, that first safe country is never the United Kingdom.
  The obvious question that arises is why those who congregate at Sangatte and elsewhere are so determined to seek asylum in the United Kingdom, rather than in France or any of the other countries through which they have travelled on their way to the United Kingdom. I asked that question of those whom I met at the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. Their answers were illuminating. They listed three factors—the English language, more money and better accommodation.
  I understand that there is nothing that the Minister can do about the English language, but there is a very great deal that the Government can do to deal with the other factors that attract asylum seekers to this country.
  I repeat that this country is never the first safe country arrived at by asylum seekers who use the channel tunnel. They therefore have a wide choice of countries in which they can apply for asylum. By definition, all those who use the Red Cross centre at Sangatte could apply for asylum in France. No amount of statistical obfuscation on the part of the Government can obscure the extraordinary fact that last year, for the first time, more people applied for asylum in the United Kingdom than in any of the other member states of the European Union, including Germany.
  The Liberal Democrats say that nothing can be done to affect the number of people who apply for asylum in this country, so they do not propose to do anything at all about the problem. The Government's position, however, is different. They accept that measures can and should be taken to deal with that aspect of the problem. That, indeed, was the purpose of the legislation that eventually found its way on to the statute book last year.
  I am on record as wishing the Government well with that legislation. I expressed the hope that it would work. Clearly, if it had worked, that would have been greatly to the benefit of my constituents, but the conclusion is now utterly inescapable that the Government's legislation has not worked. So, far from moderating the number of people who apply for asylum in the United Kingdom, that number has continued to increase.
  The evidence that I discovered during my journey through the channel tunnel last week is that this problem is now completely out of control. What is more, the greater the extent to which it becomes apparent that it is out of control, the greater will be the numbers coming to the Red Cross centre at Sangatte and trying to effect illegal entry into the United Kingdom.
  There are two other aspects of the problem with which I want to deal before I sit down. On both sides of this House, there is unanimity that genuine refugees should be granted asylum, although it is noteworthy that the Home Secretary has recently called for another look at the international conventions that govern our obligations in that respect.
  The residents of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte do not give the appearance of people fleeing from persecution. They were described to me by those who run the centre as, typically, young, single, male and middle class. It costs, on average, £7,000 for them to get to

  571
  northern France from their starting point. That is money not readily available to poor, downtrodden victims of persecution.
  The truth is that the arrangements that exist in this country for asylum seekers are significantly more favourable to them than those that exist in other member states of the European Union. That is something for which the Government are responsible and which, now that the failure of their recent legislation is apparent, they should address. It is clear that action can be taken to deal with this problem. When I was Home Secretary the effect of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the associated benefit changes which we introduced was to reduce the number of asylum seekers to the United Kingdom by 40 per cent. The present Government could have continued with that policy, but chose not to. That is why the number of asylum seekers has increased from 29,000 in 1996—the last full year of the last Government—to more than 76,000 last year. That is why the situation is now out of control.
  There is one final point that I should make before I sit down since it is frequently made but distorted by Government spokesmen. Indeed, the Minister attempted to make it on the "Today" programme this morning. The Dublin convention was agreed in 1990. That was long before I became Home Secretary, but more importantly, long before the asylum problem had reached the dimensions with which we are faced today. The underlying principle of the Dublin convention is that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first member state of the European Union in which they find themselves. It is a principle, to which, at least in theory, all subscribe.
  The convention came into force in the summer of 1997. There is evidence to suggest that it is not working as it was intended to work and that, far from facilitating the application of that fundamental principle to which I have referred, it may in some cases be obstructing it. If that is so, the present Government have had almost four years since the convention came into force to revise it or withdraw from it. They never cease to tell us how warm their relations are with other member states of the European Union. Let this issue be a test of those assertions. If relations are indeed as good as we are always told they are, it should not be a difficult matter for the convention to be applied as it Was always intended to be applied, to ensure that asylum seekers make their application for asylum in the first member state in which they find themselves.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: Yes, of course, I give way to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Howarth: I would have been here at the outset, had the earlier business not broken up sooner than anticipated. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on drawing this extremely important issue to the attention of the House. Will he address himself to a problem that has arisen in respect of the Dublin convention? The United Kingdom courts are now saying that even if the Government wished to return people to some continental countries, those countries are not deemed to be safe in terms of their future handling of
  572
  those asylum seekers whom we wish to return to the continent. Is this not a serious issue? What advice can my right hon. and learned Friend give the Government to address the problem vis-à-vis our own courts?
  Mr. Howard: This is a serious issue. It is an astonishing development on the part of the courts which say that only they can decide whether France or Germany is a safe country, that only they can decide what the proper interpretation of the convention is to be and that they know better than any other courts in any other European country. The answer is simple: the Government should legislate to overrule the decisions of the courts. If the Government say that they may not be able to achieve their objective in that way because of the Human Rights Act 1998, I ask who was responsible for it.
  My constituency is at the sharp end of this problem. The problem is getting worse and must be dealt with. I have made what I believe are constructive proposals to the Minister this evening. The problem is out of control and action must be taken to deal with it.
  5.59 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Perhaps I could deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It refers to an old batch of cases that have now progressed through the courts. My understanding is that the 1999 legislation dealt with that point and that those cases referred to matters that arose before that legislation came into force. If my understanding of the matter is not correct, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members present.
  The United Kingdom has a long tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing oppression. For genuine refugees, we are committed by the international convention to provide protection from persecution, and we shall continue to do so. Indeed, not only are we obliged to do so by our international convention commitments, but I believe strongly that we have a positive moral duty to do so. The right to seek asylum did not just happen in 1951; it is much more ancient and fundamental than that. It is embodied in all the great world religions and I am proud that we, too, discharge our obligations.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister agree that the 1951 convention, which is 50 years old, applied to wholly different circumstances from those that apply at present? Nowadays, someone can get on an aeroplane in Afghanistan, fly to Moscow, hijack the plane to London and, the next thing we know, become the Minister's responsibility at Stansted. What was the Home Secretary saying last year in Lisbon if it was not that the convention was out of date and that the problem of asylum seekers should be dealt with in the nearest safe country to the country where the persecution is occurring? Can the hon. Lady update us on the Home Secretary's comments last year?
  Mrs. Roche: Not only did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary make that speech in Lisbon last year; he spoke on the subject more recently in London. It is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs—of which the

  573
  hon. Gentleman is a member—considered some of these issues recently and produced a report that gives an extremely helpful background to them.
  We continue to abide by the principles of the convention. Indeed, European Union Heads of Government affirmed that commitment at Tampere. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the context in which the framers of the 1951 convention operated was different from present circumstances—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have made similar points. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognised that and has initiated global consultation on the convention. The UNHCR says firmly that the convention is not—and was never intended to be—a migratory instrument. I always make a clear distinction between legal migration—on which I have recently made speeches—and asylum, which I strongly believe must be ring-fenced. Such an important concept cannot be undermined.
  That is the background against which the Government introduced the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to strengthen immigration control and the asylum system, making it fairer, faster and firmer. The aim of the Act was to improve the asylum process across the board and to tackle the problem of illegal immigration to the UK
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will forgive me if I do not quite share his analysis of past history on this matter. By the end of the previous Government's term of office, it was clear that asylum applications were rising—as they were across the whole of Europe. Indeed, according to current figures, some countries are experiencing greater pressure than us; compared with other EU countries, we are in the middle of the table showing numbers per head of population.
  There was also a tremendous problem with support. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that areas such as Kent and London were faced with the difficult responsibilities of support as a result of his own failed legislation, which was struck down by the courts.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady will know that that happened as a result of the intervention of the courts, which said that the duty, which had fallen into disuse, on local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948 was still relevant, and that it was open to the Government to legislate—it would have taken a one-clause Bill—to restore the interpretation that Parliament had always intended under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which led to the 40 per cent. decrease in the number of asylum seekers applying for entry to this country.
  Mrs. Roche: The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts a good gloss on it, but his legislation was absolutely defective because he did not realise what would happen as a result of the 1948 Act, which was prayed in aid by several authorities, including Westminster council. He was prepared to allow in-country applicants for asylum—men, women and children—to be left destitute, with no support whatever.
  Illegal immigration is an international and European problem, which we can solve only through close co-operation with other countries. For that reason, the United Kingdom co-operates within the framework of the EU, as well as bilaterally, to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
  574
  One of the major new measures introduced under the 1999 Act is the imposition of the civil penalty, which the Conservative party has resolutely opposed. The measure was brought into force last year to tackle the problem of clandestine immigration in road vehicles. As a result, those held to be responsible are now faced with fines of £2,000 for every clandestine illegal entrant carried. The legislation encourages hauliers to take responsibility for the security of their vehicles and prevents them from being used to conceal illegal immigrants. It has been successful in encouraging hauliers and ferry operators to introduce better security systems.
  In response to the growing number of immigrants who attempt to enter the United Kingdom illegally every day, P amp; O Stena Line has introduced carbon dioxide checks on all freight vehicles using its ferries. Provisional figures indicate that those checks at Calais have contributed to a 37 per cent. reduction in the number of undocumented arrivals found in Kent in the 12 weeks since checks began. However, the recent increase in security at the port of Calais has had a displacement effect in the area, and that is, of course, the subject of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern. We have seen an increase in clandestine immigration on the rail freight services and on the shuttle as a result. That not only undermines our immigration control but is highly dangerous to those who seek to enter and gives rise to a public safety issue.
  The increased security at Calais has also led to a rise in undocumented arrivals at Cheriton involving people who have boarded open-sided freight shuttle trains. In February, there were more than 400 undocumented arrivals at Cheriton. The Government are co-operating closely with Eurotunnel and the French authorities in sharing intelligence and information to prevent clandestine entry and human trafficking.
  My officials maintain close links with the company. On 8 March, I met the then president of Eurotunnel, and other executives, to identify the weaknesses of the site. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is a very large site indeed. We discussed how to improve security there, and we have looked at ways in which to achieve that aim.
  I am pleased to say that, yesterday, I received a letter from Eurotunnel telling me that it had examined the suggestion that I had made at the meeting on 8 March that the inner cordon at Coquelles should be extended to include the freight reservoir area. We have identified that area as a particular target by those seeking to enter illegally.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is a slightly unusual Adjournment debate and the hon. Lady's willingness to give way is much appreciated. I received a letter today from EWS—English, Welsh and Scottish Railways—saying that, since 1 March 1999, it has been fined no less than £182,000 as a result of illegal immigrants being found when they arrive in the United Kingdom. The letter says that
  "EWS has installed and operates a sophisticated inspection and detection system at our Dollands Moor yard near Folkestone",
  which is, no doubt, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). It points out that that is
  "the first opportunity EWS has to inspect Channel Tunnel international freight trains arriving into Britain."

  575
  At its own expense, EWS has installed the equipment but, as soon as it finds someone, along comes the immigration and nationality directorate and slaps a £2,000 fine on the company. What incentive is there for private sector companies to invest in the detection equipment if, as a result of the success of the equipment, they get a £2,000 fine for each immigrant they discover?
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises the related but different issue of the rail freight that might come from Italy, pass through the tunnel and arrive in the yard. EWS works in partnership with SNCF in bringing the trains through the tunnel, and we are working with EWS; I have had a couple of meetings with the company. I have also spoken to SNCF about the way in which CO2 devices can carry out checks in the freight yards.
  We are grateful for the partnership that we have with EWS in carrying out the checks at Dollands Moor, but the difficulty is that, by the time they are done, it is in a sense too late because people have already come through the tunnel. That is why we are working with the company to see what we can do about the problem.
  We are pleased with the response that we have had from Eurotunnel and it has said that, once the precise details are worked out, it can do as we have suggested to reinforce security. That is to be welcomed.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the use of Ministry of Defence personnel.
  Mr. Howard: Before the Minister moves on to that issue, will she deal specifically with my first point about the importance of SNCF strengthening the security fencing in that part of the Coquelles terminal for which it is responsible?
  Mrs. Roche: I will deal with that point. The issue was raised at my meeting with Eurotunnel on 8 March. We shall certainly see whether we can take the matter forward and we shall work in partnership with SNCF to do that. The issue has been raised, and I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that it is a serious one.
  On the question of military assistance and Ministry of Defence personnel, our clear understanding is that there is no provision in the Sangatte protocol to support the deployment of United Kingdom armed forces at Coquelles. I am afraid that that is the position.
  Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, the Minister has been generous in giving way, but we have some time available. She said that the protocol does not cover the use of United Kingdom military personnel, but is that also the case for the use of UK police officers, including MOD police officers who have been mentioned to me by Eurotunnel and whom I have mentioned to the Minister?
  Mrs. Roche: It is our understanding that the permission applies only to immigration officers.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Red Cross centre at Sangatte, which is effectively a holding centre for people who are seeking to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely to apply for asylum or work illegally. I accept that people who think that they have a well-founded fear of persecution under the convention should apply for asylum in the first safe
  576
  country that they reach. We must reject asylum shopping. However, the key consideration is that if we ring-fence asylum as the ancient, noble and honourable concept that it is—I make no bones about describing it in that way—it must not be undermined.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me for making this point again, but we disagree on it. He will recall that from April 1995, we were able to remove all illegal entrants back to France under the gentleman's agreement. Although that still works for non-asylum cases, it no longer works for asylum cases. That is a problem. The Dublin convention was a long time in its implementation, and was signed and imposed by the previous Government. It was always going to be difficult to prove where a claimant for asylum had first entered the EU. We believe that the Dublin convention is not working properly. That is widely accepted in the EU and the Commission is reviewing it.
  We are determined to continue to work with our European partners to stamp out people smuggling.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has the Minister been to Sangatte?
  Mrs. Roche: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howarth: Well, my right hon. and learned Friend, my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee and I have. If the Minister has read our report, she will know that we were appalled by what we saw. This issue cuts across party lines. Not only are people being kept in less than adequate conditions, but they are being warehoused by the French authorities under the noses of French officials until they manage to make an illegal journey across the channel, where they land on us and become our problem. Those people are the responsibility of the French authorities. If the much-vaunted co-operation that the Government say they have with the French authorities exists, why do they not persuade them that it is their responsibility to deal with those 25,000 people instead of supervising their illegal crossing of the channel?
  Mrs. Roche: That is partly the fault of the abject failure of the Dublin convention. We cannot make someone apply for asylum. The hon. Gentleman's point supports my case. We need to clamp down on the people smugglers and the traffickers, who are taking part in an evil trade. That is why our initiative for action in the western Balkans is making good progress and drawing support from other member states. The aim is twofold: to send operational teams of immigration and police officers to work in support of the authorities in Bosnia and Croatia and to create a wider network of immigration liaison officers to gather information and to target and encourage operational activity by host countries. The objective is to break up the networks involved in people smuggling and to prevent smuggling at source and on transit routes.
  We are working with the French authorities. I am sure that during their visit to Sangatte, hon. Members were told of the number of successful prosecutions in France and England of the facilitators behind the trade. We have supplied intelligence to the French authorities. Successful prosecutions have taken place and people have, rightly, received prison sentences.
  We are determined to do everything that we can to extend that bilateral co-operation. That was confirmed at the successful United Kingdom-France summit on

  577
  9 February, at which the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other Ministers had full discussions with their French counterparts. The summit confirmed the introduction of juxtaposed controls at Eurostar terminals. We recently introduced an order on that subject in the House, and in future, there will be a juxtaposed control at Gare du Nord, which will stop people buying a ticket to Calais, getting on the train and staying on it until they reach the United Kingdom, as some have been doing. We are pleased that the French Government have confirmed that they will introduce domestic legislation to ensure that all passengers will have to pass through juxtaposed controls regardless of whether their stated intention is to travel to the UK or to Calais. That will be a major change in French law, and it is a good illustration of the co-operation that exists.
  This is an important debate. The legislation that we have passed, especially on the civil penalty, enables us to clamp down on the trading and smuggling of people.
  578
  We are using the increased resources that we have given to the immigration service to disrupt criminal gangs. We are also reducing the backlog of cases. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe did not mention the backlog of undecided cases that had been left to us. One of the key factors in encouraging people to make unfounded applications is a system that is mired in delay. We are determined to eradicate that delay. Last year, a record number of decisions, 110,000, were made by the immigration and nationality directorate, and I am grateful to all the staff who have given so much of their time and dedicated effort.
  This has been an interesting debate, which has taken place at an earlier hour than most Adjournment debates. It has exposed several issues, but the key point is that the Government are determined to deter those who would make unfounded applications, but will continue to offer sanctuary to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution.
  Question put and greed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Poverty (Scotland)
[Relevant documents: First Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee of Session 1999–2000, HC 59, and the Government and Scottish Executive's response thereto, Session 2000–01, HC 55.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Marshall: I wish first to say how grateful I am to my colleagues on the Liaison Committee for agreeing to my request that the report be debated, not filed away like so many other reports. As some hon. Members are aware, it was due to be discussed here on Thursday 1 February, but the debate was postponed because of the ministerial reshuffle that took place at the time. The postponement has been advantageous to this debate because much has happened since then and many issues have moved on. A lot has changed.
We have had the statement on the uprating of the national minimum wage, the Budget and a new Secretary of State and Minister of State at the Scotland Office. I am particularly pleased to welcome to the Chamber my hon. Friend the Minister of State who will wind up our debate. Before he became a Member of Parliament, his role as the Scottish representative for Age Concern Scotland gave him a long-standing interest in, and experience of, many of the issues that we shall be discussing today.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I wish to express my gratitude to its members who represent all four major political parties and to the Committee staff for the hard work that went into the inquiry and the compilation of our report. I thank our two specialist advisers, our old friend Professor Alan McGregor of Glasgow university, and David Webster, a chief housing officer at Glasgow city council. Thanks are also due to those who gave oral evidence to the Committee, either formally or informally, and to those individuals and members of organisations who submitted memorandums or participated in our informal visits to many parts of Scotland and in our short visit to Finland.
We announced our inquiry in February 1999 because we were only too well aware of the tragic consequences of poverty and deprivation for society in Scotland and the desperate need to tackle its causes and effects. It was also clear to us that, as the inquiry was our first after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, although we would try our best to stick to reserved matters, there would inevitably be overlaps with issues such as health, housing, transport, the environment, crime, drugs and law and order, all of which are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, that gave us the opportunity to co-operate with the Scottish Parliament and the Executive and to comment on the practice of joint working.
136WH
It was inevitable that there would be some cutting across the remit of other Select Committees and I express our thanks to the Select Committee on Social Security, in particular, and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), for the way in which we were encouraged to conduct our inquiry in respect of social security matters. We took a great deal of evidence in the House and I wish to highlight the input from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), Professor Peter Townsend and Professor Mark Shucksmith, all of whom gave us invaluable evidence. We were especially grateful to Wendy Alexander, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, then Minister for Communities in the Scottish Executive. She was the first Scottish Parliament Minister to appear before a Select Committee, and her evidence was extremely helpful to us. She co-operated fully in every way.
Much can be learned about the theory of poverty sitting talking about it here in the Committee Rooms of Westminster, but we realised that we had to go out into the community, talk to those affected by it and see the situation at first hand to appreciate fully the horrible effects that it has on less fortunate fellow human beings. We talked to people who, in usual circumstances, would not appear before a Select Committee, either formally or informally. For example, we visited the Wayside club in Glasgow, where we met people who were homeless and rough sleepers, who had particular problems. However, they were prepared to talk to us. Many members of the Committee were impressed that some of the people we met cared about the problems of others, although they had problems themselves. For example, one of the first questions asked by The Big Issue sellers in Glasgow was what we were doing for those who were not as fortunate as them and who did not have The Big Issue to sell. That took us all aback, but they are experiences that are remembered with a degree of pleasure.
We had to conduct the inquiry with proper sensitivity and respect for the dignity and feelings of people, and without stigmatising any of the areas that we visited. I hope that we achieved that, and I am grateful to all members of the Committee for the way in which the inquiry was conducted.
It is not a crime to be poor, but it is a crime committed by society if it chooses to do nothing about poverty in this day and age. I congratulate the Government, particularly on bravely setting the target to eradicate child poverty in 20 years. No other Government have had the courage to set such a target, and I sincerely hope that the target will be met several years before the target date.
On a personal note, the inquiry took me back to my roots, which I hope that I have never forgotten. I was unlucky enough to be homeless until I was 23, and I went to 12 or 13 different schools—I cannot remember the exact number. I wore hand-me-down clothes, and sometimes I had to live with friends when my mother went into hospital for treatment, as she frequently did because she was badly crippled. For about six months, I lived in Blinkbonny in Falkirk, which is the local poor house. Believe me, it is not a nice experience to go to school in such a situation.
I left school at the age of 15 and spent some time during the next few years penniless and unemployed. That experience returned to my mind repeatedly during

137WH
the inquiry, especially when we spoke to the young people that we met, such as The Big Issue sellers. I had hoped that the passage of 40 years would have changed the situation. In some ways it has changed, but not necessarily for the better. When I was young, we did not face such problems as drugs, or the other pressures that exist today.
Some commentators refer to poor people as the underclass. I find that a horrid word. Such people are our fellow human beings and citizens, and I hope that the word will disappear rapidly from everybody's vocabulary.
Our report was published on 19 July 2000, just before the summer recess. The response of the Government and the Scottish Executive was received in memorandum on 4 December and published on 18 December as the first special report for the current Session. It is best summed up by quoting from Glasgow city council's development and regeneration service department's analysis of it, which said:
"The Report is to be welcomed as a thorough and authoritative overview of poverty in Scotland, its causes and consequences."
I am grateful to Roger McConnell, the director, for those remarks.
When conducting the inquiry, the Committee made a detailed review of the extent of poverty in Scotland, its causes and consequences. We examined the Government's response to poverty up to that time, including the role of benefits, actions by the Scottish Executive, the role of local government and the voluntary sector, and joint working arrangements. We drew conclusions, or made recommendations and suggestions about the provision of data, or lack thereof; rural and urban poverty; activities of licensed credit brokers; the promotion and expansion of credit unions, money advice centres and projects; the minimum income guarantee for pensioners; linking the state pension to changes in average national earnings; take-up targets for the Department of Social Security to encourage benefit advice and the take-up of benefits; the appointment of a Minister for the elderly; increasing the earnings disregard for disabled people; introducing a proper measure of income adequacy; adjustments to the new deal; job creation schemes; making more information available about the joint ministerial committee on poverty; and a request for formal meetings between Select Committees and Committees of the devolved Assemblies. Those are not all of the issues, and no doubt colleagues will refer to others that I have not mentioned.
The response of the Scottish Executive came as a welcome surprise to us and was warmly received by the Committee. Rather than telling us to mind our own business—which they may have been entitled to do—it was clear that our report had been well received, carefully considered and, even more importantly, acted upon in a positive way. I give the Scottish Parliament and Executive credit for the constructive and helpful response to the numerous suggestions we made, especially on matters such as homelessness; health inequalities; money advice and debt management; transport costs and living allowances for island and remote areas; cold damp homes and fuel poverty, and
138WH
concessionary travel. Anyone reading the response cannot fail to be impressed, and the Executive's action since then shows that they are tackling the problems that have been handed down, and that devolution is working to the benefit of people in Scotland.
Turning from devolved to reserved matters, I need not remind colleagues that the legacy of 18 years of Tory government is that some of the most deprived communities In Europe live in Scotland. The west of Scotland has suffered particularly badly, with approximately 50 per cent. of deprived areas located in the city of Glasgow. Life expectancy is three to four years lower in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The main cause is well-known—massive unemployment resulting from the destruction of our traditional industries and our manufacturing base since 1980, by Mrs. Thatcher and her friends, although it is almost impossible to find a friend of Mrs. Thatcher now.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am one.
Mr. Marshall: Guilty. The hon. Lady is courageous to say the least.
To be frank, my first reaction to the Westminster Government's response was disappointment, because it was more of a holding reply and less positive than I would have liked, but a lot has changed since then. Much water has flowed under the bridge, and it is fair to say that when our inquiry was conducted and the report was published things were starting to happen. Joint working arrangements and spending priorities were being considered, structures were being set up, and much of the planning process and the necessary actions were in the pipeline. Perhaps the timing was one of the reasons for that.
A great deal has changed for the better since our inquiry started two years ago. I have often said that nothing concentrates the minds of Ministers and civil servants more than a Select Committee announcing an inquiry and they realise that they will have to respond to the questions that arise. Even though the initial response is not necessarily to accept or agree with conclusions of Select Committees, it is remarkable—though probably purely coincidental—that many of the recommendations eventually come to pass. That is one of the greatest benefits of Select Committees.
Tremendous credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only for his anti-poverty measures in the United Kingdom, but for his global leadership in tackling poverty and debt among the world's poorest nations. We talk about poverty in Scotland but the concept is relative. One should travel to some third-world countries. I have never been to Mozambique but—goodness knows—we are not comparing like with like when we talk about poverty in our country and in countries such as Mozambique. It is to the Government's credit that my right hon. Friend is probably the recognised world leader in attempting to help the rest of the world in that respect. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who was a successful Minister in the Department for International Development, will confirm that in his closing remarks.
The Labour Government have turned the problem around. They have made a substantial difference. The Scottish economy is performing strongly and

139WH
unemployment is at the lowest level ever recorded, while the number of people claiming unemployment benefit is the lowest for a generation—since the days of the last Labour Government. We are embarking on the biggest post-war hospital and school building programme. For example, Glasgow is rebuilding all its secondary schools to give state-of-the-art educational facilities to all its pupils.
My role in opening the debate is mainly to explain the background to the inquiry, its nature and extent, and to set the scene for the debate. I have raised many issues, but there are others that I have not mentioned. I have also refrained from quoting figures and statistics. I expect subsequent speakers to do that, and to raise new issues. However, I wish to flag up several points, which I hope will be considered by the appropriate Ministers.
With regard to the lack of adequate statistics, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his extensive written reply of 23 February to my parliamentary question. It was 17 pages in length, and it quoted statistics for every Scottish constituency on benefits, families, pensioners, unemployment, winter fuel payments and other subjects.
It is important to collect useful, accurate and up-to-date statistics, especially on poverty matters. Such information is neither useless nor a waste of public money. It is necessary in order to do the job properly. The lack of such statistics was one of the difficulties that the inquiry encountered. Many statistics are outdated; some are based on the 1991 census, although we are embarking on a new census. As those statistics are 10 years old, they do not even relate to the new constituency boundaries. It is even worse that statistics on matters such as poverty are not collected at all in some parts of the country. Given the cost of collecting them, that is understandable, especially in remote rural areas. However, it could be argued that they are even more necessary in such areas: it is alleged that there is great poverty in rural regions, but there are no statistics to back that up.
The Committee made several recommendations with regard to the new deal. The new deal has been a great success and we would like it to be even more successful. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider our arguments for longer work-related options and for parity between the various programmes.
I hope that the promised Government review of consumer credit legislation will tackle the ease with which people can obtain substantial credit, frequently at excessive rates of interest. The methods employed by credit companies must be investigated. I do not know how some of them manage to stay within the law. It is also necessary to investigate interest-free credit arrangements whereby customers make a number of low payments followed by a substantial final instalment. If £1,500 is borrowed at interest-free credit for 12 months, the customer might pay 11 instalments of approximately £68, followed by a final payment of £750. If that sum is not paid on time, the customer will fall foul of the agreement, the small print of which might state that interest at a rate that is frequently as high as 30 per cent. is owed on the sum that was borrowed at the outset, rather than the sum remaining at the end of the year.
If that is the case, a letter might be sent, inviting the customer to pay low sums for the next couple of years. Therefore, instead of borrowing £500 interest-free for
140WH
a year, the customer will pay many hundreds of pounds more, although I have forgotten the precise figure for this example. Finance companies know that many customers will not be able to afford the final instalment, but they encourage them to keep paying, and then to pay the extra interest, because they make fortunes out of such arrangements. That is sharp practice and it should be outlawed. I know about these matters, as I have entered into such an arrangement. Interest-free credit deals should be arranged so that people pay only a series of equal payments, rather than commit themselves to a large final payment.
Credit unions, money advice projects and citizens advice bureaux perform a valuable role to help people with money problems in my constituency. As debt is one of the major problems in contemporary society, along with drugs and crime, such organisations must be supported. They are making an increasing contribution to dealing with the problems that are caused by poverty, and they deserve more recognition.
I am angered by the negative coverage that my constituency receives. Opposition politicians who know better condemn the people of Shettleston. The east end of Glasgow was once the workshop of the city, but the selective overspill policy that built the successful Scottish new towns has created great problems for the area and its people. On top of that, they had to face 18 years of the ravages of a Conservative Government. Despite all that, a tremendous and excellent community spirit exists in all areas of my constituency. I get angry when I see the same old photos of derelict land and graffiti in the media. That is all that is portrayed. My constituents also get angry because they do not recognise the area in which they live in such portrayals.
Why do we never see photographs of Glasgow green and the People's Palace, which is a world-famous museum? Why do we not see the international rose trials held in Tollcross park, which must be one of the loveliest places in the whole city? Why do we not see the winter gardens, which have been recently restored thanks to a heritage lottery grant of —2 million? Why do we not see the —9 million Olympic-standard swimming pool, which is part of the east end leisure complex visited by many thousands of people each week? Why do we not see the new Gorbals leisure pool, which is a model of its kind? Why do we not see the multicultural, multiracial gala day held in Govanhill park, which involves the entire community? Why do we not see some of the enchanting school concerts, especially the annual concert by Quarrybrae primary in Parkhead, in which every child performs and does so brilliantly? Why do we not see the east Glasgow music festival in which a great variety of musical talent is displayed every year by secondary school pupils? Why do we not see some of the many social activities organised by pensioner groups in the area? Why does the media not have a good news week and cheer people up for a change, instead of knocking the area with all the depressing articles about people who are very kind and generous whenever there is an appeal or a good cause, and about people who have helped to build the wealth of this country but have been

141WH
cast on to the dole or the slag heap as a result of the closure of traditional industries—steel, engineering, coal mining and the rest?
Of course there are problems in my constituency. There are problems in every constituency. However, the problems are being tackled. The blight and uncertainty caused by the future and the route of the M74 has gone away. The future of Celtic Park, which delayed the development of the Parkhead area for several years, has been resolved. Celtic now has one of the best stadiums in the world, as befits the first United Kingdom team to win the European cup, champions-elect of the Scottish premier league this year and potential treble winners. It is now building a team to match. I say that, and I am not even a Celtic supporter. It is an example to other clubs in the UK.
Health in the constituency is improving, despite periodical reports from academics that seem to show that merely to live in Shettleston is to take one's life into one's hand. I have stayed right in the centre of the constituency for 30 years, and I would not wish to stay anywhere else. I have good neighbours and one of the best outlooks in the city beside a park. It is a place to be proud to live in, and not as the media portray it.
Educational standards are rising. Last Friday, I attended an event at the John Wheatley college, which is named after one of my predecessors. He was the most famous Member to represent the constituency and the first Minister for Housing and Health in the 1926 Labour Government. I spoke to three sixth-year girl pupils from Eastbank academy. One of them is going on to Glasgow university and hopes to do research into AIDS and other diseases, one is going on to Strathclyde university and hopes to become a teacher, and one is going to the Glasgow College of Building and Printing to study photography and hopes to specialise in forensics. That is typical of the vast majority of young people in my constituency today, which is totally different from media portrayals.
For many years, Shettleston had the highest unemployment in Scotland, and was in the top 10 in the UK. The House of Commons Library figures for February show that it is now No. 9 in Scotland and No. 54 in the UK. From a high unemployment rate of about 20 per cent. under the Tories, it is now 7 per cent. That is real progress, and it is all down to the change of Government. The Tories wrote off cities like Glasgow. Labour cares and is proving it.
Rising employment, low mortgage rates, stability not boom and bust, the national minimum wage and its uprating, various Budgets and changes to taxation rates, various tax credits, winter fuel payments and pension increases have all resulted in most people becoming better off, over the lifetime of this Parliament, by several hundreds of pounds a year, and, in many cases, by thousands. No doubt colleagues will quote specific figures. As I said earlier, the Labour Government have made a difference; things have got better. Our record contrasts that of the Tories. To misquote Mrs. T yet again, they are no alternative.
Our inquiry and report were well worth while. I look forward to a constructive and interesting debate and, most of all, to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.
2.55 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: This is a major report on a crucial subject that the Scottish Affairs Committee studied in depth. It is to the Select Committee's credit that it chose such a complex and wide-ranging subject for investigation and recommendation.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the Select Committee's approach being always sensitive and respectful. That is how we should all approach the work to which the Select Committee directs us.
I also echo the hon. Gentleman's positive approach. Only by accentuating the positive can we deal with the problems and give people the decent future that I am sure that we all want for all our fellow citizens. All Select Committee members hope that our findings will be of some practical help to our fellow citizens and the people whom we met during our detailed investigation.
The statistics on poverty are bleak. More than one in five people in Scotland live in households on less than half the average income—that is some 1.1 million people. Even more worryingly, the number has risen by between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. compared with 1979. Research also shows that in recent years the number of people on very low incomes has increased. Those people must always be our concern. Worse still, the majority of Scottish low-income earners earn less than 40 per cent. of average income and are at the lowest end of the earnings league.
More than 350,000 children in Scotland live in households on less than half the average income—almost a third of Scottish children. In such debates it is easy to get lost in statistics, but our Committee has always realised that we are dealing with real people and real life, and it is our duty to try to improve living standards for all of them.
We also know from the statistics available that one fifth of working-age families live in poverty, as do one quarter of our pensioners. That is unacceptable in one of the wealthiest countries in the world per head of population. The scale of poverty shows the challenge that faces both the United Kingdom and the Scottish Executives.
The consequences of poverty are well understood and documented. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children states:
"Inadequate income causes stress, which exacerbates the health problems experienced because of poor diet, inadequate heating and poor housing."
We are not here to dwell on other people's misery; I hope that we can cure the problem and give people the decent start and the chance in life that we all want.
According to the NSPCC report,
"Low benefit levels also increase the likelihood of family tension and breakdown which compounds the distress to children."
The report also states:
"Most … children on child protection registers are from low income families … while … the most commonly identified stress factors in all registered cases of child abuse are unemployment and debt."
Those are just some of the consequences suffered by those who live in poverty.
Such complex and difficult problems and demand a multifaceted response. There is no instant or quick solution. Present Government policies to deal with low

143WH
income are built around the minimum wage and the system of tax credits for those in work, and minimum income guarantees through the benefit system for disabled people and pensioners. If those policies are to succeed in combating poverty and its consequences, people need to receive an adequate income from their pay, enhanced if necessary through the tax credit system or benefits payments. However, neither benefits, including tax credits, nor the minimum wage are based on an assessment of need. The European Commission recommended that all European Governments should set minimum income standards at a level
"considered sufficient to cover essential needs with regard to respect and human dignity".
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his Scottish National party colleagues were not even here to vote when we passed legislation on the national minimum wage?
Mr. Welsh: I know that the Minister cannot let such an opportunity pass by, but the Scottish National party has always supported a national minimum wage.
Mr. Foulkes: Where were you?
Mr. Welsh: If the Minister wishes to reduce the debate to petty party politics, he is entitled to do so, but it is out of place. We are discussing a subject that is crucial to everyone in Scotland. The Scottish Affairs Committee has produced a consensus report. The Minister is not on the Committee, and perhaps he dopes not believe in consensus reports, but all Committee members have together produced recommendations that I hope that his Government will implement. If he must lower the tone of the debate, he can go ahead, but I will not join him. I join my colleagues in support of the recommendations and if the Government listen to them, our people will be better off.
Mr. Foulkes: Where were you?
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. The Minister has made his point and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) wants to proceed with his contribution.
Mr. Welsh: The point is that I serve in two Parliaments, whereas the Minister serves in only one. All hon. Members, including Members of the Scottish Parliament, know that it is not possible to be in two places at once.
The minimum income standard was proposed, not as a guarantee of minimum income. but as a benchmark or standard against which earnings, benefits and pensions could be judged. The European Union is now seriously considering the matter, but it has not yet received any contributions from the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will encourage his colleagues in Scotland to contribute to the European measures to improve conditions for people throughout Europe.
144WH
Targets for the elimination of poverty are meaningless without a measurement of need, and the lack of such measurement is a fatal flaw at the heart of our efforts. There must be a measurement to allow us to set targets that can raise living standards. The Committee report recommends that the Government should have a proper measurement of income adequacy. Unfortunately, the Government do not accept that there can be a single research method that could calculate a minimum income standard for all families. I suggest to the Minister that by commissioning a study using existing research by the family budget unit at King's college, London and the Scottish poverty information unit, the Government would demonstrate fairness and a commitment to overcoming poverty.
In addition to implementing general policies, the Government must look at the specific victims of poverty—in Scotland one quarter of them are pensioners. The Department of Social Security argued that
"overall, pensioners have done relatively well during the past 20 years or so."
However, the evidence that the Committee received suggested that many pensioners struggle on a miserable income or live in the shadow of uncertainty about their long-term care in old age. Scotland's pensioners deserve respect and a decent standard of living after a lifetime's work.
Some 41.1 per cent. of all income support claimants in Scotland are pensioners, which means that about 172,000 must rely on state benefits to supplement pensions. Pension provision must therefore be the key element in tackling pensioner poverty and in meeting the needs of the Scottish people. The minimum income guarantee, free television licences for those over 75 and the winter fuel payments to pensioners are the Government's chosen vehicles to eradicate pensioner poverty. However, the minimum income guarantee relies on pensioners applying for income support by filling out a 100-question, 40-page form, which even asks whether they are pregnant—a strange question. It is of little surprise that between 21 and 32 per cent. of pensioners who are entitled to income support do not claim it. The Government must consider how they could further promulgate advice to pensioners to maximise the take-up of benefits. Local government could be a valuable assistant in complementing the Government's actions.
Our report recommends a simple practical step: to ensure that a full benefits check is offered to those of retirement age and that they are encouraged to take up that offer. That would help many people in Scotland. If a serious attempt is to be made to alleviate pensioner poverty, the process must be simplified, but the minimum income guarantee would not lift pensioner incomes above 60 per cent. of the median income after housing costs. If we are serious about wanting our pensioners to be able to live free of care and with dignity, we must direct attention to the universal state pension. The Government must consider linking the state pension to the increase in average earnings. As the report states, the resulting extra income would reduce the need for benefits and the accompanying claim forms,

145WH
and would overcome some of the time and effort required to administer the minimum income guarantee. It would allow the Exchequer to receive the extra tax from more affluent pensioners and enable the increasing wealth of a prosperous society to be shared by the elderly. The Select Committee also recommended other measures to benefit the elderly and I encourage the Minister to implement them.
Those living in rural Scotland comprise a particularly vulnerable group who do not have to seek trouble. According to Wendy Alexander, former Minister for Communities at the Scottish Parliament, a quarter of the 1.1 million people in Scotland who are living in poverty live in rural areas. Higher transport costs, low-paid jobs and a higher cost of living are all reasons for poverty being a particular problem in rural communities.
Our report recommends that the Scottish Parliament should watch the cost of sea ferries and seriously consider the innovative scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to enable the proposed new highlands and islands transport board to sell petrol that it has bought in bulk on the open market direct to retailers. The savings would not be huge, but they would help to offset the higher price of petrol in rural areas. There is no quicker way to lower living standards and quality of life throughout Scotland than raising petrol costs. Anything that reverses that would be of great assistance to everyone in those areas.
Even greater inroads could be made into tackling rural poverty if the Scottish Parliament would consider introducing and financing a remote living allowance. It is disappointing that that has been ruled out because such a scheme would effectively compensate for the higher cost of living.
The issues in our report are of enormous importance and have implications for both devolved and reserved policy areas. I have been able to address only a few of the many issues covered by the report, but it is clear that much must be done to tackle what has openly been described as the
"biggest scar of a civilised society".
The Scottish Affairs Committee has made a serious attempt to investigate poverty and to recommend practical solutions. The United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Parliament should not only take note of our recommendations, but set about implementing them. The report goes some way towards addressing the acute problems and if the Government fail to take notice, they will be judged by that failure.
I am the longest serving member of the Scottish Affairs Committee and I am making what may be my last speech here as we head towards a general election. That gives me the freedom to say what I like. It has been an honour to serve with Chairmen present and past and with colleagues throughout the years. I retire undefeated from Westminster to concentrate on my work in the new Scottish Parliament and I would like to thank the Clerks and officials who have served our Committee and Scotland well over the decades. At the end of this Parliament, our report on an important subject is a substantial legacy to leave as a guide for action on behalf of a major sector of the Scottish people. I wish all my colleagues well, whatever the future may bring.
3.8 pm
Mrs. Irene Adams: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on pressing for this debate. I also congratulate him on his speech. His insight into poverty and his description of his background has helped the Committee, and no hon. Member could have stood the inquiry in better stead. He has been superb throughout in pointing us in the right direction and we have been lucky to serve with him.
I do not have many notes and I do not intend to use a lot of facts and figures. If I cannot speak about poverty from the experience of my background and my constituency, I should not be here. Unlike my hon. Friend, I never suffered homelessness, but I came from a poor home. It was poor in money, but not poor in spirit—it was a stable, happy home. However, I should not like hon. Members or those who read my remarks to think that it is the norm for people such as me and my hon. Friend to end up in a job such as this having started from where we did. We are the exception that proves the rule, not the people who make the rule. Nobody should run away with the notion that anyone from our background can get here. They certainly cannot—it is very difficult indeed
I start where we started when we produced the report, by asking what poverty is. Poverty is not always due just to lack of money; it can also be due to lack of opportunity. As a child, poverty was mostly clearly spelt out to me at my grandfather's knee. In 1926, he came to Westminster, not to serve as a Member of Parliament, but to knock on doors with other hunger marchers. He came here three times and was thrown back on a train to Glasgow. He was quite glad about that, because he had walked all the way here. He left school at 14, forged his birth certificate in order to join the Army, and served for four years in the first world war, having been a boy of 15 when he went to the trenches. He was wounded three times and gassed, and was twice sent home and returned to the trenches. He joined as a regular soldier, then served in India and Ireland—although he was not allowed to serve much in Ireland because he was of the wrong religious persuasion, and was often sent back to barracks.
My grandfather then married and had his family. Throughout the hungry 1920s, he often walked 15 miles a day for work. In those days, parish councils paid people's relief. His parish council was Greenock, but he had gone to live in Paisley. Therefore, to receive his parish money every six weeks he had to do six weeks' work in Greenock. He had no bus fare to get there, so he walked the 15 miles from Paisley to Greenock in the morning, did his 10 hours at Tate and Lyle—the sugar—house—and walked back 15 miles in the evening: not an easy task. Throughout the 1930s, he had jobs on and off. In the late 1930s, he went back to the Army, and served in Orkney and Shetland during the second world war. After that, in the early 1950s, he got a job in the shipyard. I was brought up by my grandparents, and I remember him working there. When he was in his early sixties, he had an accident in the shipyard. A plate buckled and fell on his leg, practically crippling him. He received from his apparently unappreciative employers the grand sum of £50 in compensation for a life's work for his country.

147WH
Mine was a rich childhood in terms of hearing such stories from my grandparents. We had no money at all, but I never suffered poverty of opportunity, because they ensured that I had every possible opportunity. They also instilled in me the need to learn and achieve as much as I could at school. Not every child in my circumstances had someone like my grandfather with a huge personality to push them on their way. That remains true today. Children born into such backgrounds are too dependent on meeting one person along the way who will set them on the right road. That should not be happening. As a society, we should be ensuring that all children are set on the right road and have the opportunity to do what they want to do in life. The Government have begun to put children on that road. It will not be an easy task, but the Government tackled it early on, and I hope that they will continue to do so.
By the time that I had my own three children, I hoped that things would have changed, but each time that I was in the maternity hospital I was able, sadly, to pick out the children who would succeed in life and those who would fail. Mine is a small community, and I have been able to watch a lot of them grow up. To my eternal sorrow, I was absolutely right. Their fate was predestined, and that should not be so. If we as a Government cannot tackle that, we are not doing all that we should. However, the Government have taken 1.2 million children out of poverty, which is a good first step on the ladder.
Children who are born into such backgrounds experience poverty in a wide variety of ways. If there is not enough money for the electricity meter by a Thursday night, they have to sit in the dark with no supper, but they also have no heating or hot water when they get up on Friday morning. As a result, they do not smell too nice when they turn up for school; they are also tired and hungry and unable to attend to their morning lessons. That is the poverty faced by people at the bottom of society in this country. I agree that such poverty does not compare with the absolute poverty of the third world, and we should not forget that, but the poor in our society are 100 per cent. poor, and it is sometimes worse to be poor in a society such as ours. Here, the poor are surrounded by riches to which they and their children do not have, and never will have, access.
It is no wonder that it is easy for people from such backgrounds to drift into crime. I am not arguing that the poor always become criminals, but someone who is poor is more likely to go down that road than someone who is not. Poverty also leads people into drugs, which has been a sad blight on our society in the past 10 years. Sometimes, one has to forget the circumstances in which one lives and what better than to take the odd upper or downer? To begin with, the drugs are offered for free, and then at a low price, until one is hooked. As a result, the children of such parents are in an even worse situation—indeed, the worst of all. They must not only combat all the experiences of poverty, but cope with a parent who is out of it. Such parents are out of touch with all that is happening in society, and they end up providing little in the way of care for their children.
Such people get caught up in debt, which rules the lives of those in poverty. As the report demonstrated, often debt is not illegal but owed to reputable
148WH
companies. In the light of one case involving a well-known company—we decided not to name it because it was far from alone—one might ask how reputable such companies actually are. We discovered that a loan of £500 from that company incurs an interest repayment of £310. In other words, one would have to pay back a total of £810 on a £500 loan. Often, people will get half way through such a loan and start to miss a few repayments, so the company says, "That's OK, we'll offer you another loan to repay the first one." A further loan of £500 would enable repayment of, say, £50 outstanding from the first. That would leave £150, but one would still have £800-worth of debt. On and on the circle goes, and such people go ever deeper down a spiral of debt from which they can never escape. I am delighted that the Government are to undertake a long-overdue examination of credit controls. It is certainly the people at the bottom of the pile who are being ripped off.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, I am pleased that the Scottish Executive responded so quickly. I say that as a great supporter of devolution. It proves how much we needed a Scottish Parliament. We have three hours here today to debate poverty in Scotland, but it is a subject that requires much greater debate. There are people in this Parliament who recognised the need for another Parliament that could take time to look at such issues. Many of us here get sick of people asking us what we do now that there is a Scottish Parliament. The whole point of having one was to provide another chamber in which to discuss the things that we never had time to discuss here.
The Scottish Executive are in their infancy and have had problems. They will make mistakes, but we all do that. Mistakes are made even in this Parliament, which is of such great age. The problems will iron themselves out. The Government have tried desperately hard to tackle poverty, and are still doing so. I hope that they will continue, because we cannot let our children down for ever. Many children today are born at the bottom of the ladder, because the upper middle classes are not having as many children as they once did. It is up to society to look after those children, and we are the poorer if we do not. They are all our children.
3.21 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). Like her, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament is finally providing the forum for proper debates on issues that affect poverty in Scotland. The Select Committee had chosen the subject of its inquiry before I joined it, and I was pleased to be able to participate. I join in the thanks that have been offered to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and to other members of the Committee, for the work that they have done.
It is possible, constitutionally, that there will be a general election soon. There has been a debate in the press on the thoughts of a party—one that might be elected—on what will happen to the Scotland Office. In such a debate, we must not lose sight of the need for scrutiny of the reserved matters that affect Scotland. Ministers of all Departments might be tempted to think that, as there is now a Scottish Parliament, they no longer need to worry about Scotland. However, they do

149WH
need to consider Scotland where reserved matters are concerned. The inquiry might have helped to remind Ministers in the Departments responsible for reserved matters of that, and to refocus their minds.
The inquiry will not be the last one into poverty in Scotland. Tackling poverty is a long, hard job. The inquiry has helped to focus minds, enabling us to begin to tackle the problem, but one Select Committee report cannot provide all the answers. However, we have raised important issues, stimulated people, and provided those who gave us evidence with a forum in which to have their voices heard in Parliament and their concerns placed on to the agenda. Like the Chairman, I was impressed by the witnesses and their evidence. I remember in particular the evidence of some pensioners who took over the Committee, welcoming and introducing themselves to it before the Chairman had had a chance to speak.
It is also important to go out and meet the people who will not come here and give evidence in a formal setting. They need a chance to have their voices heard by those who can influence reports and decisions, and bring their concerns to the attention of Ministers.
The Scottish Executive's response was positive and pleasing, and recognised that the establishment of the Scottish Parliament should not end all dialogue between Westminster and Edinburgh. It is important not to tread on each other's toes, but it is also important to keep working together. The hon. Member for Paisley, North pointed out the need for someone to get children on the right road. We need such a person in education, which is a devolved matter, and the Scottish Parliament must ensure that someone breaks the cycle and helps young people to make the most of their potential.
The Chairman mentioned that the economy is picking up, but we must test our strategies and policies in the light of events in the United States because there may be a more difficult economic climate in years to come, which will be the real test of how effectively we are tackling poverty and its causes. I welcome the report's recognition of poverty as a major issue not only in the urban areas that have been identified in the past, but in rural areas. The hon. Member for Paisley, North discussed living in poverty in an area where others do not. Obviously, poverty anywhere is a serious problem, but we must recognise that added dimension in the light of the widening crisis in the rural economy. Foot and mouth disease has affected not only farmers, but small businesses that relate to the tourist industry. The Government must recognise the problems in rural life.
Foot and mouth disease is linked with the impending general election that may or may not happen. My wife keeps saying, "I told you four years ago that the election would be on 3 May 2001." However, I do not think that she is privy to the private thoughts of the Prime Minister. We would know when we were working if we had fixed-term Parliaments. If the foot and mouth crisis happened in the fifth year of such a Parliament, debate about the date of the election would be academic unless there was a major constitutional crisis. We would not be in this pre-election purdah if the Prime Minister had said from the outset that he would serve for five years.
150WH
As a Member of Parliament, one issue connected to rural life and poverty that is proving difficult to tackle is the future of our post office network. Liberal Democrat Members wanted to meet the new post office regulator, but because the Budget was moved from Tuesday to Wednesday that was not possible. The regulator now says that he should not attend meetings with representatives of political parties because we are close to a general election. Effective political scrutiny will be closed down if we do not clear the air about the date of the election. The future of rural post offices is extremely serious because they are part of the social network that helps pensioners to link up with and obtain access to facilities in their communities. Rural shops tend to be supported by rural post offices; if the post offices go, the shops will follow. There have been few signs that that problem is being tackled.
The Government have gone for the means-tested approach to pensioner poverty. My party has attempted to impress upon the Government that if they pay a greater pension it will reach all pensioners, which means that the poorest will not have to make a claim. We have also highlighted the fact, which is supported by the evidence of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that older pensioners tend to be poorer pensioners. If a major pension increase were targeted at older pensioners it would reach them immediately.
I have tried to improve the take-up of the minimum income guarantee in my constituency by putting out literature advertising the helpline. I have also arranged special surgeries to encourage people to come for advice, and I should like to thank the Benefits Agency for its support and hard work. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) said, the minimum income guarantee form is challenging, and, in reality, is an income support form with a new cover. I understand that the Government are discussing bringing in a smaller form tailored to the needs of pensioners. It would be helpful if the Minister would outline the progress that has been made and when it will be introduced. I sat at home before one of my surgeries thinking that I should get to grips with that form. When I examined it I was glad that Benefits Agency staff were attending the surgery to give advice because I would not have been able to help. However, that does not mean that people should not be claiming. Indeed, the Government may send out a wrong signal in trying to tackle that problem. My contention is that the poorest pensioners in our society are those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but do not claim it. Unless we tackle that problem urgently, we will be letting down those people badly. The message that I try to get across is that society wants to support our pensioners and to ensure that they have a proper retirement. Therefore, claiming the minimum income guarantee should not be stigmatized—it is their entitlement. Society has voted on that through Parliament, and it is there for pensioners to claim.
I am slightly disappointed about the timing of the Government response. The Select Committee published the report in July, but there was no response from the Government until December. I hope that the new brooms in the Scotland Office will sweep more quickly when responding to future Select Committee reports.
Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about the new brooms, but I remind him that

151WH
Parliament was in recess for about two and a half months between the publication of the report and the reply.
Sir Robert Smith: I thought that the Government carried on over the summer; I did not realise that they went into recess as well as Parliament I thought that the Government still tried to run the country during that time, but if I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. If that is so, perhaps the policy of less government could carry on throughout the year, rather than only during the three summer months.
Paragraph 33 of the carefully worded reply refers to
"Winter Fuel Payments of £200 this year for households".
It is my understanding that next year's winter fuel payment will be £150. It is important to get that across to people. The Minister indicates that that is not the case, which is interesting, because that does not chime with what others have said. It would be helpful, therefore, if he could make it clear when he replies to the debate that the payment will not drop to £150 next year. That would provide welcome reassurance for people who are budgeting for their expenditure next year, especially as we have had such a bad winter this year.
I want to deal with the concept of to take-up, because the Government have gone down the road of means-testing with the working families tax credit. That involves encouraging people to get involved in the system and to fill in forms. The part of the report that particularly needs to be taken on board is the part that deals with the need to ensure that people receive advice. The reality on the ground is that advice centres in many areas are suffering cuts as a result of local government settlements and the problems and challenges facing local government. It is in the interests of the Benefits Agency that there is effective funding from the centre. The Government should ensure, through whichever Department—perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry—that advice and resources reach citizens advice bureaux and that people receive information. Obviously, well-informed people mean effective take-up. In addition, if people are better informed, less goes wrong with the benefits system and the Benefits Agency.
It is also likely that fraud would be reduced if people knew what they should be doing. Quite a lot of problems with benefit claims result from people thinking that they are doing the right thing when in fact they have misunderstood the system. I received some statistics for July 1999 from the Library. Of appellants who were at social security appeals tribunals by themselves, 44.9 per cent. were successful. With a representative to help them, however, 57.2 per cent. were successful. Having a representative makes quite a difference to outcomes and how well people do. We are dealing with benefits and people on the margins, so if they are not successful at appeal, that really hurts. Perhaps it should be worrying that 38.5 per cent. of all appeals are successful, because that suggests that we need to improve some of the earlier decision making. Those who appeal are probably the tip of the iceberg. Not everyone goes to appeal; many may feel that they are not entitled to a benefit and just walk away.
I am also concerned that the Government have reduced the ability to backdate claims at times of bereavement or other major family change, when people
152WH
are not necessarily able to focus on paperwork and bureaucracy because they are focusing on coming to terms with what has happened in their lives. The Government should regret that and consider whether there should be more flexibility. If a person is meant to receive a benefit, the fact that he does not claim it does not mean that society has not seen his need for it.
That brings me on to the services that we provide. I say again that the Benefits Agency staff whom I saw were extremely dedicated in trying to help people. I particularly welcomed the fact that when someone came into the office but was not likely to be successful in claiming the minimum income guarantee, the staff might instead spot that he had a severe disability and ask whether he was receiving other benefits. That helps people: they might come in through the door for one benefit, but go out with another.
The computers that support the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency are a disgrace. A colleague looking over the shoulder of someone using the software for jobseeker's allowance noticed that a worksheet with workaround No. 155 was being used to deal with software problems. The computers had green screens, which some of us might remember from our university days, before we could afford proper modern screens. The Government are starting to talk about providing money for computers. The public service and major corporations underestimate the challenge of using new technology. Effective investment is required to get it right. Computer system failures mean that those who are most entitled to benefits do not receive them.
The credit system and the manner in which people are lured by interest-free credit is appalling. It used to be that a discount would be given to anyone who offered cash for goods that were offered on credit. There are no discounts for cash now, but deals that lock one into paying a lot of extra interest.
Another group that falls through the net is students. The problem first arose under the previous Government. I have never understood why students who fail to get a job in the summer months when they are not in education and have no means of support should fall through the net. We need to re-examine how we treat students and young people who receive housing benefit or other forms of support.
An issue that was rammed home to members of the Committee during the Western Isles visit is transport costs. It almost seemed that someone had briefed everyone on what they should say to us. I know that that was not the case and, therefore, how serious the issue is. The Western Isles is an extreme case. Those of us with rural constituencies know that transport costs are a problem nearer to home, but the Western Isles strongly highlight the difficulties. The mantra elsewhere is "education, education, education", but it was "transport, transport, transport" in the Western Isles during our inquiry into poverty. That is a challenge for the Government.
The Government emphasise work for those who can and security for those who cannot. A lot of the talk, action and initiatives centre on work for those who can. It is extremely important to encourage people who can to work, but there will still be those who cannot work who need security. Whoever is in power after the election—whenever it takes place—will have much to do

153WH
in that area. The social fund's cash limit is a serious challenge. It is farcical that in some areas, at the wrong time of the year, people cannot get the grants or loans they need, whereas in another area they might be able to. Housing benefit still needs to be addressed.
Overall, we need to examine how we assess the adequacy of benefits. Water and sewerage charges are going through the roof in Scotland. They are increasing dramatically because of past under-investment and the need to catch up. However, that does not play properly when it comes to benefits uprating. Water and sewerage charges must be paid. If they have increased by 10 or 15 per cent. but benefit has increased by only 3 per cent., the crunch is on. We need to re-examine how we define long-term benefit levels, especially for those who cannot work. The benefits system is still as it was in the days of the safety net, catching people between jobs. Some need support for a longer period.
The issue that frustrates me most is that of medical assessments for incapacity benefit and disability living allowance. The examples that we hear from colleagues about the number of successful appeals may be anecdotal, but there is a genuine sense that something is very wrong with the system. The National Audit Office is now reviewing its operation. I do not understand why some people are refused at the first hurdle. One person who had had his joints replaced because of a wasting joint disease was told by the benefits assessor, "You should be going back to work," but his surgeon said, "If you go back to work, you'll be back on my operating table and I will have to replace your joints." They may have been able to pass the tick-box test, but the long-term prognosis was not good. In that particular case, by the time that the appeal was won the person had died, and it was the widow who got the results of the successful appeal. That brought home to me the need to be far more sensitive when we deal with medical appeals and assessments. We must recognise that at the root of all these policy suggestions are individual people who are affected by our decisions.
3.40 pm
Miss Anne Begg: Listening to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), I was reminded of my own childhood. I cannot compete in the poverty stakes. I grew up in a household in which I was secure and warm. I do not know whether we had a lot of money, because that was not something we were conscious of. We did not have a car, telephone, washing machine or a fridge until my mum went back to work when I was eight, which brought more income into the house, but it was a secure and loving home. The amount of money that family had was not something of which I was aware. My father worked seven days a week and that seemed to bring in enough money.
I was reminded of one of my first political experiences, which has helped to influence why I am here, sitting on the Labour Benches. The house that I lived in for the first 16 years of my life was a two-bedroomed council flat. It was a Wheatley house, one of the first council flats in Brechin. In my street there were two blocks of those flats and, a few years later, a whole housing estate was built to the same design—presumably to the same
154WH
architect's plans—in what was called the "bottom end" of the town. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) will know them well, because they used to be in his constituency.
I remember a friend from school taking me into her house, which was the mirror image of my house. As I said, mine was a warm, loving home. We did not have fitted carpets, central heating or double-glazing in those days, but we had beautifully polished linoleum with rugs and nice, well-kept furniture. My mother is still incredibly house-proud. As I walked into the mirror-image of my house, I was struck by the contrast. There was no carpet or linoleum on the floor of the hallway. In the living room there was a bit of linoleum, one seat and a broken settee. As we walked down the hall I looked into one of the bedrooms and noticed that the floorboards had been lifted and used as firewood. The poverty in that house—not merely in terms of the amount of money coming in, but the poverty of spirit and opportunity and of my classmate's aspirations—was so evident that it had a fundamental effect on how I perceived the world from then on. It made me realise how lucky I was and helped to influence my belief that it is crucial for any Government to deal with the problems caused by poverty. Poverty can devastate people's lives and grind people down. Even with a good education and health service, the low expectation is such that people living in poverty will never be able to lift themselves out of the cycle of deprivation.
I was glad when the Scottish Affairs Committee decided to look at the issue of poverty in Scotland because, when we were deciding what our next subject for investigation should be, there was some debate as to whether the Committee should exist at all. What was the point of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when everything Scottish had gone up to the Scottish Parliament? Those of us on the Committee argued strongly for its existence because there is still a great deal that is relevant to Scotland that is part of the reserved matters. My hon. Friend the Minister will put me right if I am wrong, but 55 per cent. of the budget spent in Scotland is still controlled by Westminster. Only 45 per cent. of it is at the disposal of the Scottish Executive. A great deal can still be done. A huge amount can be done by the Westminster Parliament to alleviate poverty, because social security, pensions and the tax system can make a fundamental difference to people's lives.
When I talk about poverty and people realise that I am a Member of parliament for Aberdeen, they say, "Aberdeen is really affluent. Why on earth do you have an interest in poverty?" Yes, we in Aberdeen are lucky. We have a vibrant economy. The oil industry is going especially well at the moment, although I could not have said that two years ago. There is a huge amount of new investment in the North sea. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the United Kingdom—well under 2 per cent. in my constituency and falling. It is a well-heeled, affluent area, but it has pockets of poverty and deprivation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, that can often make the poverty seem worse. If a person lives in an affluent society, what he fails to have is shoved in his face every day.
My constituents who are unemployed in an area of low unemployment face difficulty. If they cannot get a job, what does that say about them? If jobs are available,

155WH
there is a skills shortage and people are crying out for people to work for them, but if they still cannot get a job, it reflects badly on them as individuals. That can cause psychological problems, which is perhaps why such people suffer stress and depression. If they could get themselves into work, out of poverty, many such problems would be alleviated. However, many people cannot break out of the cycle because it has so much of a grip.
When compiling the report, we recognised that the main route out of poverty is work—work for those who can, security for those who cannot. When the Select Committee was formed in 1997, we examined the new deal for the young unemployed. The most recent figures in Aberdeen, South show that youth unemployment has fallen by 90 per cent. I found out about that from the Lobby correspondent for the Evening Express. He telephoned one morning and said that he needed a comment from me about such a drop in unemployment. Without thinking, I said, "Bloomin' 'eck, that's amazing." It was amazing. I could not believe the figure. A reduction in youth unemployment of 90 per cent. is fantastic.
However, it is not only the young, but the long-term unemployed, who are finding jobs in Aberdeen, South. When we came into government, we were told that such people would never get jobs and that they were unemployable because they had been out of work for too long. It was said that they were no longer job ready and would not be taken on. The number of long-term unemployed in Aberdeen, South has cropped by 64 per cent., which is again a huge drop. People are now in work. I hope that they are earning enough to be paying taxes. They are now contributing to society and coming out of poverty.
I am glad that the national minimum wage will increase to £4.10 in October this year. Like many, I was desperate for provision for a national minimum wage to be on the statute books. I was disappointed that it was only £3.60, but I was aware that putting it into law was the first stage. We had to prove that it would not lead to unemployment or destabilisation of the economy.
I am glad that the Low Pay Commission recommended that the national minimum wage should increase in line not with inflation, but with earnings. The rate of £4.10 will make a huge difference to my constituents. At first, I thought that the minimum wage would not affect Aberdeen, South, it being an affluent area. I then discovered that the second highest number of people in any one constituency in Scotland who benefit from the minimum wage lived in Aberdeen, South. That was a puzzle, until I worked out that it was because people were in work and because we have a large sector that services the oil industry. Many women are in low-paid cleaning jobs or service jobs or are working in pubs. The minimum wage affects areas with low unemployment more than areas with high unemployment, because a person who is not in work cannot benefit from the minimum wage. My constituency has benefited from the minimum wage and I am sure that it will continue to do so.
If one adds such policies to the raft of social inclusion policies that the Government have introduced, we begin to see a difference. In the first two years of the
156WH
Government's term—when we embarked on the report—such changes were not seen. Legislation was being passed in Westminster, but the effects on our communities were not seen. Four years after the election, people on the ground are noticing the policies' effects. Policies such as early intervention and the provision of money from the new opportunities fund have improved schools, and that extra funding is beginning to break the cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity for many children in my constituency. There is a different atmosphere in many of the schools that were beleaguered before 1997 and a new sense of optimism. The McCrone report and the McCrone settlement for Scottish teachers have also helped. Schools that were struggling now feel that they can play their part in ending the cycle of poverty and deprivation.
The Government were right to begin with children, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North was right to say that the Government's emphasis on children has lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty since 1997. I was interested to note that the Government claimed to have lifted only 1 million children out of poverty until the figures of the Child Poverty Action Group were published a few weeks ago, which told us that we were doing better than we had thought and that the figure was 1.2 million. Children are being looked after.
At the other end of the scale are people who cannot work because they are beyond working age. The Government have helped pensioners. Our report was slightly critical of the Government's action for pensioners. However, with the increases in the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee, most pensioners—certainly pensioners who claim everything to which they are entitled—should be coming out of poverty. I accept the comments made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) that we have much to do to ensure that pensioners claim what they are entitled to: it is not charity, but their entitlement. Anything that can be done to simplify the bureaucracy, administration and form filling of the claiming process should be done, and the helpline has assisted pensioners in dealing with such processes.
The hon. Member for Angus said that there should be a measure of poverty based on need; we should calculate how much money people require to live, and ensure that they have that amount. I contend that the minimum income guarantee does that. A person who works in the citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen compiled some figures for me. He examined the benefits that a pensioner couple on the minimum income guarantee receive. Such a couple would claim housing benefit, a council tax rebate and the £200 winter fuel allowance. They would also probably be exempt from tax and national insurance, and would not pay into a pension scheme. If one compares such a couple with a person in work, their disposable income is equivalent to that of a person who earns £16,000 a year. That is a stunning figure, and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine would agree that it is a reasonable amount based on need. The minimum income guarantee has delivered that to our pensioners. Clearly, people who are in work have to pay for things such as travel to work, taxes and national insurance which pensioners do not.

157WH
On top of the minimum income guarantee, there is a proposal to introduce a pension credit. During the recess last summer, I spoke to most of the pensioner groups in my constituency. They felt that it was not just pensioners living in absolute poverty who needed to be helped, but those living just above the minimum level. The pension credit should certainly achieve that. The comments of the chairman of the pensioners group in Aberdeen who was quoted in the local Aberdeen newspaper a couple of weeks ago, that the pension credit would affect only a few pensioners, were simply not true. It will affect 3 million pensioners, or perhaps 5 million—I have forgotten. The number of pensioners who will be better off in 2003, when the new pension credit will be introduced, is not inconsequential. I have spoken for longer about that than I had intended.
Disabled people, or people with disabilities, probably suffer more poverty than any other group in society. The statistics prove that such people are less likely to be in work and more likely to be dependent on benefits. They are more likely to be living in poverty than any other group in society. As a result of a constituent raising the issue with me, I have recently become concerned about the disincentives in the current system that do not encourage disabled people to get back into work, and about one of the problems in relation to therapeutic earnings. One reason why disabled people do not always want to take a job is that they are frightened that, if they cannot manage the job, they will begin to lose their benefits. The Government made that less likely by allowing a year's grace: if a disabled person's work placement fell through, he failed to carry on the work or the job became too much, and the period of work had been less than 12 months, he was able to return to his previous level of benefit. That was welcomed.
However, many such people want to work many fewer hours. They might not want to go back into full-time work or even do 16 hours of work a week, which would allow them to qualify for the new disabled person's tax credit. They might want to do only a few hours of work to see how they managed. They would therefore have to qualify for therapeutic earnings, which would give them some money and would not mean that they lost incapacity benefit. However, I learned from the example of my constituent that the process was unnecessarily bureaucratic and difficult. Everything had to be done in the right order: people had to get their doctor's permission before going to the Benefits Agency and before going into work. If they did not do it in that order, they lost their benefits. That is exactly what happened to my constituent, who experienced two months of absolute hell while she tried to get her benefits restored.
I am pleased to say that my constituent's benefits have been restored, and that she is still doing a couple of hours of work a week. However, it was a horrible experience. I have subsequently been in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, and I am pleased to announce the answer that was given to a parliamentary question that I tabled today. Changes are to be made to the way in which the therapeutic earnings rule operates. From April 2002, the therapeutic work rule will be withdrawn. People will not have to prove that work will be therapeutic. Someone
158WH
who is on incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance and who wants to do less than 16 hours of work a week will be able to earn up to £60.50 without losing incapacity benefit
That will make a huge difference to those who fell between stools in terms of the therapeutic earnings rule. Such people had to prove that the work in question would be benefit the condition for which they received incapacity benefit Therefore, work would not be therapeutic for someone who had a chronic progressive disease. It might be psychologically therapeutic, but it would not meet the criteria set out.
I am sure that the change will make a huge difference and remove one of the blocks to helping disabled people get into work. They will receive £60.50 for only a year, but in that year they will be able to find out whether they want to work more than 16 hours, which would mean that they would qualify for other benefits or earn enough to live comfortably. If they cannot manage to do so, they can move back and continue to be able to earn the amount that they can earn at present, £20 a week. The amount is being increased from £15 to £20 a week. Disabled people will no longer have to go to their doctor to prove that the work is therapeutic. They will be able to earn that money. I have not been able to get hold of my constituent to let her know about that, but I am sure that she will welcome it.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.15 pm
On resuming—
Miss Begg: I was about to finish my speech before the suspension in any case, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. There is still a long way to go before poverty in Scotland is brought to an end, but to say that is not to underestimate the Government's achievements. I hope that the Committee's report has gone some way towards influencing the Government to ensure that poverty remains at the top of their agenda. There is no doubt that we are moving in the right direction for the first time in well over a generation and, given a second term, the Government can build on the excellent work that they have begun. It is essential that we continue to tackle the scourge of poverty, because eventually we must make it a thing of the past.
4.16 pm
Mr. Bill Tynan: I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, for the opportunity to participate, and I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on securing this important debate. He made the wonderful suggestion that we should have a good news week, and I can list the things that I would mention in that regard. Certainly, I am exceptionally proud of the Hamilton water palace, and the new museum in Hamilton with its specific area for the Cameronians is most welcome. We also have a wonderful new shopping centre that I am delighted with, particularly as I can take some credit for it during the general election campaign.

159WH
It is particularly important that we provide sports facilities for young people, especially those who may turn to drugs and under-age drinking. If such facilities enable them to move away from damaging peer groups, we will make real progress.
I did not join the Select Committee until after the Hamilton, South by-election, so it had already begun its work. I discovered that its members worked together positively in their meetings, and in a way that differed from my expectation. However, back at the ranch—in debates such as this—the situation is rather different. If the poor had listened to the part of today's debate in which we tried to score points off each other, they might well have been horrified. It would be wonderful if we could concentrate our efforts on ensuring that the poor benefit from our expertise and see the positive, rather than negative, aspects of political parties.
I should like to raise a number of issues, including credit unions. We took evidence from the new credit union in Blantyre, which has 2,000 members, and the Hamilton credit union. Credit unions provide an opportunity for the poor to escape those who exploit them. Such people offer money at huge rates of interest, which makes it very difficult ever to escape their clutches. Often, the way to pay them off turns out to be selling drugs, so I certainly support credit unions. Last week, the Scottish Executive set aside £1.5 million to that end. That is a very positive stop, and should be considered in the light of what we in the Westminster Parliament are doing.
Mr. Welsh: The corporate body of the Scottish Parliament, of which I am a Member, supported an initiative from Members of the Scottish Parliament to set up a credit union linked with the Parliament. I am happy to see that the hon. Gentleman's ideas are being put into practice, and I hope that credit unions will flourish and achieve a great deal for the people who join them.
Mr. Tynan: I concur with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. The research showed that credit unions gave people in the community the opportunity to look after and govern themselves. Credit unions are able to go to people who fall into debt and say, "If you need help, we are part of the community, and good practice operates."
During my time in Parliament, I have paid close attention to the continuing debate about pensioners, in the course of which some of my fellow Members have expressed the belief that pensioner poverty could be tackled differently. Over the past 20 years, the gap between rich and poor pensioners has widened. The income of the richest fifth grew by 80 per cent., whereas that of the poorest rose by only 30 per cent. Clearly, the Government had to address that imbalance. During this Parliament, more than half the extra money that has been spent on tackling pensioner poverty has gone to the poorest third of pensioners. That is to be applauded. The minimum income guarantee, as a tool for the specific purpose of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, has been central to that approach.
From this April, the figures will be £92.15 for a single pensioner and £146 for a couple. From 2003, those figures will be £100 and £154 respectively. I sincerely
160WH
believe that we will be able to deliver that, because when the election comes we will manage to secure another large majority. I know that that is making a difference in my constituency, where 2,000 people are better off. However, take-up is a key issue. The Department of Social Security estimates that 500,000 people are not receiving this benefit and that between 21 per cent. and 32 per cent. of pensioners who are entitled to income support do not claim it. We must consider how best to reach those people, because that will make a real difference.
Every hon. Member has the opportunity to encourage people to take up the minimum income guarantee, regardless of how they feel about it. The Government's major publicity campaign has been one instrument in achieving take-up. However, the detailed claim forms are an obstacle, and the Minister must recognise that the best way forward is to make it much easier for people to claim. With regard to the phone line, someone on the phone is a faceless person, and having to give personal details in such circumstances often deters pensioners from making a claim.
The Scottish Pensioners Forum has spoken of the need for more pensioner advice centres. Such centres could have a larger remit than simply helping people to fill in forms. For example, they could be in well-publicised locations such as supermarkets or community centres, or arrange home visits to disabled people. About 18 months ago, South Lanarkshire council decided that it would contact every pensioner in South Lanarkshire, and targeted areas such as East Kilbride, Clydesdale and Hamilton, South. About 400 people in East Kilbride who were entitled to benefits had not claimed them. That initiative provided the opportunity to reach the people whom we do not normally reach, for whatever reason. Home visits and the establishment of pensioner advice centres would be a step forward.
The basic state pension must remain the foundation of any future provision. I recognise that there have been many calls to restore the earnings link, and we have discussed that. However, a universal increase in pensions would create an enormous funding problem. To tackle pensioner poverty, we must accept that the poorest pensioners in society need additional support. The minimum income guarantee provides such support. Simply to restore the earnings link would mean that people such as me, who can live on a pension after retirement, would receive the same benefit as those with no pension at the poorest end of the spectrum. The Government have recognised that, and are making real progress.
The Government are right to target those in greatest need. Changes resulting from the pension credit will enable us to make some progress in convincing people that they should be saving for their old age. Those with, say, £100 of credit who are entitled to a small pension of £90 will still benefit, in that they will receive 60 per cent. of that pension. It is essential that we deal with such situations.
We need to look at the operation of the social fund. The people who apply to it are those who most need our help. The current management and distribution of the fund are not the best ways of resolving the problem of poverty. I would like the social fund to be reviewed so that money from it is available to the poorest in our

161WH
society, enabling them to have a better standard of living. I do not want to mention my own background. When my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) spoke, I thought that she was describing my house. The only difference was that we burnt the doors as well.
4.27 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I am not, and never have been, a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but I chair the all-party poverty group. I was partly responsible for establishing the group after the international UN year on poverty. All the Governments that signed up to that year had to demonstrate how they were going to tackle poverty, and the UK coalition against poverty was established. It approached the House in 1996–97 to ask if we were prepared to establish a group on poverty.
The group has campaigned in a rather unique way, which has been, I think, the best way to tackle poverty. The Scottish Parliament has looked at using the same method, although I do not know whether it has made a decision. I do not want to knock the Select Committee report. It is excellent, and I support it in its entirety. However, the Committee did not consider that method of tackling poverty, as I discovered when I asked its chairman about it. I will return to that later.
Hon. Members on both sides have referred to credit unions, which are important. In such a subject, we can see the best of devolved government, with the Westminister and Scottish Parliaments working hand in hand. Financial services is not a devolved matter. The consultation period on document CP77 ends tomorrow—23 March—so some comments made today might become part of the consultation process. The document sets out the strategy for a new form of credit union and new regulations for credit unions. Last week, the Scottish Minister for Social Justice, Jackie Baillie, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made an announcement, followed by a debate in the Scottish Parliament, that £1.5 million will be made available to the credit union movement in Scotland.
That money will be used to develop the sustainability of credit unions and to increase their membership from 120,000 people to 5 per cent. of those involved in Scotland. It is also to be used to increase the number and skills of volunteers, to bring about a change in public attitudes and to assist all credit unions to meet the new regulatory framework. Credit unions themselves will be able to access the money, although I know that they have concerns. From talking to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who has responsibility for credit unions, I know that their concerns are being heard. Eight roadshows on the consultation document have been held throughout the UK.
4.31 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.43 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Ross: I was saying that the Scottish Executive, working with the Westminster Government—that is
162WH
how we envisaged devolution working—announced a £1.5 million action plan to help the credit union movement in Scotland. That was followed by a debate in the Scottish Parliament during which a document entitled "Unlocking the Potential: An Action Plan for the Credit Union Movement in Scotland" was launched. I recommend that all hon. Members obtain a copy of that marvellous document, which, unusually for an Executive document, not only sets objectives and targets, but identifies exactly who will be responsible for delivering them. That is an example of the new Parliament in Scotland doing something different and being held to account, which is to be welcomed.
Last Saturday, I went to a meeting of my local credit unions, which are worried about the consultation process because they believe that their concerns are not being heard. I took the opportunity to reassure them, because my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has said that she has listened to those concerns. My local credit unions are also worried about the proposals for capital requirements and liquidity of assets—a subject that was raised at every credit union roadshow. The fear that they might have to hold 20 per cent. of their assets at all times has been listened to. I believe that, when the consultation has finished, there will be good news for my colleagues in the credit union movement.
Many credit unions fear that they will not be ready for the switch-over on 1 July 2002. The Treasury understands that and Shaun Munday of the Financial Services Authority, who will be responsible for the new regulation, made a speech in Blackpool two weeks ago during which he stated clearly that time will be given to credit unions to sort themselves out. They will be able to take advantage of the £1.5 million that has been given to the credit union movement in Scotland and sort out some of their problems.
Another anxiety is that regulation and registration will cost thousands of pounds. It would be ridiculous to ask small credit unions for such a sum. I have the impression that the sum will be much reduced to the low hundreds of pounds if any contribution is asked for.
The Scottish Parliament introduced the document in response to concerns expressed by Members of the Scottish Parliament and the credit union movement. It will be welcomed and I commend it to my colleagues. I am the chair of the all-party poverty group. If there is a weakness in the document, it is the lack of a recommendation to involve directly the people living in poverty and to hear their voices. During the past four years, Secretaries of State and Ministers of State responsible for dealing with social exclusion have come to this Room to meet people who are living in poverty. Three weeks ago, before he delivered his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke directly to people who are living in poverty. Last night, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke to them about tax credits and other credits.
If Members of the Scottish Parliament want to deal with poverty, they must involve those who live in poverty. They must find a mechanism by which to hear them and enable them to talk directly to Members of Parliament, civil servants and Ministers in the Scottish Parliament. That was the recommendation of the recent "Voices for Change" conference. Young people from

163WH
Scotland said, "We want our voices to be heard; we are more than just a postcode." One weakness of the document is that it does not demand that we identify and directly involve people living in poverty, or allow them to demonstrate the effect of the policy and suggest how it could be improved.
I have been pleased to be able to participate in the debate and I should like to apologise to you, Mr. Stevenson, and to the Minister, because I must slip out to go to another meeting. I will not be able to hear the response of the Minister, who spoke a bout the issue only a few weeks ago in Dundee. He spoke about it in the global context rather than the local context, which the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee mentioned at the time. The report is a marvellous document and has my wholehearted support.
4.50 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate, although I apologise to hon. Members for being absent for most of it. I suspect that they will understand my constituency pressures and that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I must dash off soon after my contribution. I apologise to the Minister if I am not present to hear his comments.
I joined the Scottish Affairs Committee in late November 1999 and it has been a pleasure to be part of the inquiry. I was somewhat thrown in at the deep end, but I learned to swim—against the tide on some occasions, I admit. I give credit to all Committee members and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who led the Committee so well during the inquiry. I was pleased that we were able to get out and about to different areas and see what was happening on the ground. This afternoon, hon. Members have mentioned the many elements that feed into the package of recommendations, such as health, housing, the environment and benefits—everything connected to poverty. However, I will limit my comments to only a few aspects of the report.
First, I wish to mention the national minimum wage. I come from a part of Scotland that was described as the area with the lowest-paid—sometimes the second lowest-paid—people in Scotland The national minimum wage has made a significant difference to individuals and the local economy. Nearly £1 million has been injected into the economy of Dumfries. If we give £1 million to people on low pay they will spend it and, in turn, that can create jobs. That has happened in the Dumfries area, and unemployment has fallen. The old saying that, "Money is made round to go round" is true in that case.
On the evening that the Low Pay Commission announced the level of the minimum wage, I was knocking on doors in Lockerbie. A man nearly tore the hand off me, asking, "How much will the minimum wage be? Will you explain it to me?" He was a forestry worker who worked 52 hours per week with top-line pay of £112. Forestry work is heavy, dirty and dangerous work and yet, at the end of the 20th century, someone was still receiving such poor remuneration for it. He was delighted with the national minimum wage and I am sure that his life is now somewhat better. However, that
164WH
was only the start of lifting people out of poverty. Linking the national minimum wage with the working families tax credit boosted families in particular.
I come from a rural area and was delighted that the Committee visited my constituency to get a feel for what is happening on the ground. When people discuss rural Scotland, they normally think of the Highlands and Islands and nowhere else. Members of the Committee know that the reality is somewhat different and it is good that we got a flavour of other areas. As the report states, problems of rural poverty are easily overlooked. Rural poverty is no different from poverty in cities; poverty and affluence live side by side. There is a mythical view that country life is vastly different from what we here know it to be. Poverty exists in rural areas, which are not bright and shiny for people who are trapped there.
Life in rural areas is hard for many people. There is the compensation of the quality of life that people can experience, which is fine for those who move into a rural locality and begin to enjoy a different life style. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston mentioned that we paid a short visit to Finland and it was interesting to see what was happening there. We recognised during our visit that structural changes in farming and their human repercussions are not only a Scottish problem. It was interesting to see that the way in which things were restructured in Finland led to the loss of 30,000 farms.
Who knows what we shall see at the end of the current UK crisis? Clearly there will be fewer farms in the UK and in my constituency in particular. Some farmers may take the opportunity to opt out of their current means of earning a livelihood because it brings them a great deal of pain.
I spoke to someone today who has worked on a farm for 26 years. The farmer, who has lost his stock, does not want to return to the dairy side of the business. The farm worker is now surplus to requirements, but he did not seem downhearted when I spoke to him on the telephone this morning. He said, "All I want is a job. I want an opportunity to restart my life." He will get that because he has the right attitude, despite his difficult situation. The difficulty is that I cannot convince the local authority that he is a special case who should be quickly rehoused because he is about to lose his tied accommodation. We cannot help people through life if we are unsympathetic and do not listen to their difficulties. This is an extreme situation and I am disappointed when people cannot help. Unemployment could lead to a serious poverty trap.
As if poverty were not bad enough, the struggle of day-to-day living and surviving increases the opportunity for individuals, families and communities to become heavily indebted. The report gives an example from Glasgow where one company clearly operates to the disadvantage of poor people. The example was of a £500 loan that would generate £310 of interest, which is scandalous. We heard about credit unions this afternoon. The same loan taken out with Cranhill credit union would have shown an interest of £18.60.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) were exactly right when they discussed credit unions. The Scottish Executive must be praised for its action plan, elements of which offer real potential. We need to examine the

165WH
social fund and how it operates. A plea was made to us during the inquiry about handing its operation to credit unions to get more value for money. There is a big question mark against that, but we must think seriously about how others can deal with poverty and use the finite resources better.
I am also worried about the way in which banks create problems for people. I have personal experience from constituency work. One example is of an experienced, elderly chap, who had continued to do a small amount of sub-post office work—filling in at holiday times—after he retired. He borrowed some money from the bank but, in his 74th year, he suddenly fell seriously ill with cancer. The bank had no mercy, and I had to intervene to stop it putting interest on top of interest and to let the man off from that spiral of debt. That bank responded. In general, banks are ready to hand out money to vulnerable people but are quick to chase them for it to be repaid. They often have no thought of how they could assist people's desperate plight; instead, they build more problems on top of it.
Undoubtedly, people in my area will get into serious difficulties, and I have appealed to the banks to be more responsive and show more heart. I am delighted that one major bank is taking the opportunity to meet me to examine not only the problems that farmers will have, but those that will exist for small and medium-sized businesses and self-employed people who find that they have no work.
The report and the Government's response offer a lot of hope. As Opposition Members would expect, I am delighted by much of what the Government have done on the national minimum wage, working families tax credit, the new children's tax credit and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. Much has been done but, like many of my hon. Friends, I am convinced that there is still an awful lot more to do. We have not yet addressed all aspects of poverty, or the fact that many people are depressed throughout their daily lives. However, a start has been made, and I am confident that progress will be made through a second term of Labour government.
5.2 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am not, and have never been, a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee but, like many hon. Friends, I have followed the many inquiries of the Scottish Affairs Committee since I was elected in 1992. The inquiry we have spoken about today was especially relevant and timeous, and I commend the Committee members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). I know a little of his history, and he did not mention all the places in which he had lived as he wandered around during his childhood. Many of them are in my constituency: I know that he went to Larbert primary school, which, at the time, was part of the old Larbert high school. It is now all to be swept away, because we have had five new high schools planned—including the new Larbert high school—in Falkirk, East since the Government came to power. My hon. Friend had better get back there quickly if he wants to take snaps of his former stamping grounds.
166WH
The Committee's inquiry was perceptive, with many excellent and well-targeted recommendations that I read with great interest. It was also effective because, from reading the Government's response to the report, it is clear that the report informed, often challenged and influenced Government policy. We are all here not just for power, but for influence, and the Government's response and shifts in policy have brought them into line with the Committee's recommendations. For example, concessionary travel for all pensioners is being introduced across the United Kingdom, not just Scotland, and the tax credit for disabled persons, which was highlighted in the report, has been introduced.
I want to highlight a serious point, rather than extend the work of the Select Committee, which did a stalwart job. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) referred to credit unions. In the previous Parliament, I was appointed liaison officer with the credit unions in Scotland. It was an interesting environment in which to work. I come from a large family. My granny ran a menage, which was basically a shilling club from which many people bought school clothes and winter blankets. I remember such transactions in my grandmother's home. Credit unions have now expanded greatly, so much so that they are in the White House. I often visited one that was operated by Strathclyde regional council, and Strathclyde police also has a large credit union.
Les Stalling from the credit union in Bo'ness and Abe Anderson from Grangemouth credit union approached me because they were extremely worried about the Financial Services Authority's approach to such matters. They are anxious that the burdens placed on them will be too great for them ever to become more than just fledgling organisations. They may be overburdened and even collapse. They are not concerned about hundreds of thousands of pounds, but a couple of thousand pounds for a union with only 300 or 400 members. However, that money is the difference between being able to obtain a cheap loan for a vital household commodity or school clothes for the children and not having such items. We must ensure that we follow up such matters. I welcome the document "Unlocking the Potential". I know that members of the Scottish Affairs Committee as well as Members of the Scottish Parliament will follow such a development. I should hate it to be stifled, preventing credit unions from growing into larger organisations.
I refer now to housing benefit and council tax benefit, which were not referred to in the report, and the need to link them automatically, so that they are passported as soon as someone applies for income support. I am sure that many others share my experience of people who fall out of employment and enter poverty. They must apply for income support and often, by default or bureaucratic muddle, it is months before they realise that they are not receiving housing benefit and council tax benefit. They usually find out when they receive a letter from the local council saying that they are £300 or £400 in arrears. That has a terrible effect on those who have lost their job or fallen ill. They find that they are stuck into a new phase of life from which they have to dig their way out.
Councils say that they will not backdate or write off such debts, but take money out of people's social security benefits for the next "X" number of years. It is a ridiculous situation. If it were backdated, the money

167WH
for which such people have applied would come into the local community, lift the burden from individual, impoverished families and, in a sense, boost the local economy. Instead of there being an infusion of cash from the national Government coffers, there is a drain on the resources of the very poor in Scotland. We must consider seriously how to link such matters and ensure that they are passported and backdated to the date of income support application.
The recommendations in the report on working families tax credit have been discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). Job-poor means income-poor. It is clear that the effect of the credit on the family in work is substantial. In my constituency, 1,741 people have already claimed working families tax credit, which means that substantial increases in the resources are available.
The citizens advice bureau network has highlighted the fact that there are some serious problems with the way in which working families tax credit works. The first problem is that it is paid through an employer. I am not saying that employers are slow because they do not want to do the work, but they do not complete the paperwork quickly enough, which causes difficulties. People who should quickly be better off find that when they are working, they are worse off. Working families tax credit should be paid directly through the Inland Revenue, which would speed matters up considerably.
Another problem is that some people claim for child care, which is fundamental to getting families back into work. However, they have to make the claim for child care when they claim working families tax credit. Often, people get a job, claim working families tax credit and then make a permanent arrangement for child care. However, the claim cannot be backdated. Those affected must find the extra money until they get the child care element of working families tax credit. The claim for child care should be permitted at any stage of a working families tax credit application. That would be a substantial improvement.
The CAB has found that there is still a problem with the accuracy of information provided by the various tax credit offices. New deal advisers often fail to give people the correct information. The CAB suggests improving the training of those giving advice, so that they deliver one clear message.
People who receive the £70 working families tax credit should qualify for the same help as those who have means-tested benefits, because once a certain level is reached, they can no longer gain means-tested benefits assistance and end up no better off than when they started. I hope that will be taken on board when people examine the question of poverty.
On pensioner poverty, recommendation (w) about income adequacy has been mentioned. We must get a real measure of what is an adequate income for people to live on. The Committee recommended that strongly and the Government are taking it on board. The recommendation to increase the minimum income guarantee is an excellent one. In my constituency, 2,300 pensioners now have a vastly improved standard of living because of the MIG.
The link to earnings in recommendation (r) was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South. If we have the resources, we should use them to
168WH
the best effect at the earliest possible moment. We must continue as we have done. Strangely enough, that was recognised in today's early-day motion 2, which states that the uprating in April
"for the first time in over 25 years, will exceed the percentage increases in both prices and average earnings"
Those whom we could call the usual suspects admit in the first part of that early-day motion that the increase is higher than if it had been linked with earnings.
A pensioner who received £84—the basic pension with a small addition—wrote to me to complain that his friend received the minimum income guarantee last year, which amounted to £78. That was all right, because he was receiving £84. However, this year, the friend was getting £92.50 and he was feeling aggrieved because he was receiving only £84. Of course, having only £84 means that he is eligible for the MIG. There is clearly a problem out there. People are wondering what they should be claiming and how they should go about it.
I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) who is working with the churches in his constituency. Each church in his constituency has given a leaflet to every single parishioner, pensioner or not, and said, "If you're not a pensioner, give this to a pensioner relative or take it up with a pensioner friend," to increase the number of claimants. We could all use that network to bring everyone in. If we increase uptake, we will get the improvement that will greatly affect the level of poverty in Scotland.
I hope that the Committee does not see this as the last stage in its work. We now have a Scottish Parliament that will achieve many good things in partnership at a Scottish level and in a different way. However, the fundamental responsibility of the Government is to get the economy working right. In our last manifesto, we pledged that we would ensure that pensioners share in the increased prosperity. I hope that that pledge applies to everyone who is living in poverty. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to redistribute the resources of the UK to such people. I hope that the Labour party will be returned to government at each of the next two or three general elections. If that is the case, I predict that the economy will improve, and I believe that everyone in Scotland, and in the rest of the UK, should share in the increased wealth.
5.15 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am pleased that today's debate is taking place. It is ludicrous and undemocratic to suggest that the Scottish Affairs Committee should be disbanded. The debate has shown that Scotland is relevant to Westminster and that Westminster is relevant to Scotland. That is an important point, and it has also been highlighted by the Committee's excellent report, which is very detailed.
I commend the Committee for its work and, in particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on his commitment to the report and the subject that it addresses, and on his excellent presentation at the beginning of the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for New Forest, West

169WH
(Mr. Swayne) have felt honoured to be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and they both apologise for the fact that they are unable to be present.
Mr. David Marshall: They have been good members.
Mrs. Laing: When the Select Committee Chairman says that my hon. Friends have been good members, I understand his meaning.
I am impressed by the way in which the Committee has gathered its evidence. It has not imperiously summoned people to Westminster. Its members have gone out and spoken to the people when they purport to represent, which means that the people are better represented.
I wish to point to a contrast. Other Select Committees enjoy travelling to California or Australia to gather evidence, or to other places with an agreeable climate. I am not criticising that, but the Scottish Affairs Committee evidently believes, as I do, that far more of life is to be seen in Glasgow than in most other places in the world—although I concede that the climate is bad, and nothing can be done to improve it.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston about the outside world's perception of Glasgow. On occasions, it is ridiculous. He offered an excellent list of some of Glasgow's good points; he stated that Glasgow is looking forward, and that the west of Scotland is at the forefront of many innovations affecting every aspect of modern life.
It annoys me when Londoners who visit Glasgow are surprised that there are trees in the city. They tell me that they were unaware that Glasgow has parks. They consider that the main reason why anyone would want to visit Glasgow is to view the Burrell collection. That is fine, but it is not what Glasgow is about, and neither is it what the people who make up the many communities in Scotland are about. However, I felt sympathy for a group of people who flew from London last summer to visit me in Glasgow. They telephoned from the airport to tell me that as the plane was coming in to land, they looked out of the window and were surprised to see that Glasgow was close to the sea, and had beautiful beaches. I asked them where they were.
Mr. Foulkes: Prestwick.
Mrs. Laing: The Minister is correct. It is apparent that he is proud of his constituency. However, to return to my story, Prestwick airport is referred to as Glasgow on the internet. That is why my guests thought that they were flying into Glasgow. I hope that the Minister will accept my anecdote in the spirit that it is offered; I wish to be nice about his constituency. Prestwick is a wonderful place. Immediately after they landed, my guests boarded a train to Glasgow.
As the hon. Member for Shettleston said, the purpose of a Select Committee is to hold Ministers to account and to make the Government sit up and take note. I sincerely hope that the report will do that.
Unsurprisingly, I take issue with the remarks of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) on consensus. We
170WH
have been happily sitting next to each other all afternoon, but the consensus will end now. Although it is good that the report is based on consensus, we in Parliament are supposed to argue and ask questions. It is only by doing so and by disagreeing with one another that points can be fully argued out, which is how the best conclusions are arrived at. It is not possible to take the politics out of Parliament—or, at least, not out of this Parliament.
I understand the position of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). I am sorry that she had to leave the Chamber She made a moving speech earlier. I know her constituency extremely well, and it is not easy to confront the social problems such as poverty that exist in places such as Ferguslie park. When generation after generation of people suffers the same deprivation and every experiment fails, it is difficult to deal with. The hon. Lady has herself acted courageously in her work on drugs.
The hon. Lady spoke about her grandfather and the real poverty and working conditions of the previous century. I could tell a similar tale about my antecedents. In listening to her, I realised how grateful I was to both of my grandfathers, neither of whom accepted the position to which they were born. They learned a trade, worked hard and did the best they could for their families. However, that does not change the fact that the goal of us all is to do something about the pockets of poverty that we find in every part of the country. We are all here because we want to improve our society; the question is how to do so. If I disagree with some of the comments made this afternoon and some of the report's recommendations, it is because I disagree not with the goal but with the method of achieving it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley, North that a person's start in life means so much, and that is why educational opportunity is everything. No matter which type of home a child is born into, if that child is given the opportunity to broaden his horizons by receiving a good education and being encouraged to make the best of his educational opportunities, that is the best that a society can give the child. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that if a child is properly to benefit from the educational opportunities available, his home life must back that up.
I also agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). Poverty is not absolute. It involves a contrast; it is a relative concept. Indeed, hon. Members mentioned the Minister's previous ministerial position, in which he dealt with serious poverty in the third world, which makes poverty in the United Kingdom seem not like poverty at all. However, that does not mean that it is not poverty, because poverty is a relative concept. The hon. Lady was beginning to make me feel that I had been deprived as a child. We did not have a fridge or central heating and we had only a small black-and-white television, but it did not feel like deprivation, because no one was different. That was normal.
The pressures on families now are much greater. Perhaps it is a function of increased affluence that there is a contrasting increase in poverty.
Sir Robert Smith: If the hon. Lady wants to end consensus or feels the need for a debate—she mentioned increased affluence and the fundamental importance of

171WH
education—does she not believe that when there is a choice between tax cuts and investment in education, an affluent society should choose to invest in education?
Mrs. Laing: That is a very good question, and I am glad to see that the consensus has gone.
We should not have to choose between tax cuts and investing in education. Proper management of the economy and proper investment in education in a way that cuts bureaucracy puts money into schools and gives teachers the chance to teach will give children the opportunities that they need for the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over to us."] It might be more comfortable here. I remember my allusions yesterday to Bannockburn. I prefer my splendid isolation.
The point is that a properly managed economy allows both investment in education and tax cuts, which allow people a choice on how to spend their earnings and thereby boost the economy. Both can be achieved if the Government manage the economy properly. However, I appreciate that the Liberal Democrat party does not understand that. That's fair enough.
In the spirit consensus I, was going to agree once again with Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who spoke about credit unions, as did many other hon. Members. Surely, that contrast that I mentioned between affluence and poverty puts pressure on families to spend more money and, therefore, to borrow more money and get into that dreadful spiral of debt. Society today is very materialistic because of advertising, commercial attitudes and information of an advertising nature, all of which put pressure on people. Some of the ideas in the report about the development of credit unions are highly commendable, and I hope that the Government pay attention to them.
As the hon. Member for Shettleston said, the main reason for a debate such as this is to hold the Government to account. They certainly should be held to account for their lack of achievement in relieving poverty. I say that with all due respect to the Minister who is with us this afternoon. He has been in his post for only a short time, but I am sure that over the next half hour he will give us some hope and ideas as to how he will tackle the problems. However, some of his predecessors have not done so. Their rhetoric is good, but talk about what a Government want to achieve is no more than a wish list if it is not backed up by action.
I wish to make three short points about the way in which the Government have dealt with the problems of poverty and the problems that they have created through their policies: first, there are too many small, unco-ordinated initiatives; secondly, there are too many targets; and, thirdly, the benefits system is too complicated—many other hon. Members made that point. I have a list of 12 initiatives. I will not read them out, as everyone knows what they are: health action zones, sure start trailblazers—they all have interesting names—the healthy schools initiative, sport action zones and so on. They all have good spinnable names, but the fact is that all those little initiatives—
Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: I am sorry; I do not have time and I do not want to encourage consensus.
172WH
Those little initiatives are decent attempts to bring remedies to the problem. They do not, however, attack the underlying problem itself. The underlying problem can be dealt with only by providing educational opportunities, good health care and employment opportunities, to which the report alludes. If the society in which we live is not based on those three fundamentals, all the frothy little ideas in glossy brochures simply will not work.
My second point is about targets. I know that the Government are fond of targets, and I am not criticising the report in that respect. However, I may be more free to criticise the Government than are Select Committee members. If there are so many targets, how can we tell what we are achieving? The Government's first annual report referred to 40 indicators of success on which the Government wanted to be judged over the long term. Their second annual report on poverty referred to 43 different indicators of progress. The Select Committee report is therefore far more valuable than the reports being churned out by the Government. It is probably based on a far more general knowledge of the problem as well.
I do not need to discuss the complexities of the benefits system, about which several hon. Members have made good speeches this afternoon. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) introduced the subject and his comments on it are applicable throughout the country. I would not like to take an exam on the benefits system. I would not like to have to prove that I understand it, even though I try to do so. There is no reason why the systems should be so complex. There is no reason, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said, why there cannot be better interaction between one department and another. If one department makes a mistake and does not tell a person that he is getting into debt, and another department says that there is no chance of the benefit being backdated, that person has no hope of getting back on his feet again. Those who suffer most are those who do not understand how to work the system. That is sad, because people who know how to work the benefits system get the best out of it, whereas people who are in real difficulty desperately need help to find out how to obtain support.
Recommendation (c) on page 56 of the report states:
"We believe a cross-departmental approach to the provision of support mechanisms within the agricultural sector is required which would also necessitate a close partnership working between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government."
The report was published well before the present crisis in agriculture and the countryside. The recommendations are good and I sincerely hope that the Government will pay attention to them.
The Minister has a lot of questions to answer this afternoon, so I shall conclude by saying that it has been a pleasure to examine this report and this subject. We are all trying to achieve the same goal. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister ideas for the future that will be better than some of the ideas of the past.
5.34 pm
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): Notwithstanding the most recent remarks, this has been an excellent debate. It has been enriched by

173WH
the personal experiences of my hon. Friends the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). The quality of the debate has matched the excellence of the Committee's report, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston on that. On this occasion, I do not say "my hon. Friend" merely as a matter of form. He and I entered the House together, and I know of his deep and abiding commitment to the people of Shettleston—especially the poor people—whom he represents so well.
I congratulate all the members of the Committee on their work in producing the report. I agreed with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) about one point—some of the Committee's critics, perhaps including hon. Members who are present, might now recognise its usefulness, as demonstrated by the report that it has produced and the debate that it has engendered.
I would recommend that anyone who is interested in poverty—and there are many such people in Scotland—should read the report. It describes the problems that we face and offers helpful comments both to the Executive in Scotland and to the Government in the United Kingdom. We have taken many of the report's recommendations on board in the eight months since it was published, and I am grateful to hon. Members for recognising the progress that has been made. Like many of them, those of us in government accept that there is much more to do.
It is a particular pleasure for me to be able to respond to the debate given my previous job in the Department for International Development—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston referred—which was concerned with poverty eradication in developing countries. That gives me a particular empathy for the subject of today's debate.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) repeated the quote that poverty
"is the biggest scar of a civilised society."
However, he forgot to mention that that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the former Secretary of State for Scotland, when he gave evidence to the Committee. Even at that time, we recognised the importance of the problem and the ways in which we deal with it.
I have more time than I had yesterday to deal with the points that hon. Members raised. However, if there are any substantive points that I do not cover, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
We have taken a large range of measures to help to achieve poverty eradication. Several hon. Members referred to the working families tax credit, and it may be helpful if I outline some facts about it. About 108,000 families in Scotland benefit from the WFTC. The average award in Scotland was £75.25 a week, which is 23 per cent. higher than under the family credit that it replaced. It must therefore have improved the situation in relation to poverty. [Interruption.]
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members will note that the Division Bell is ringing. Are
174WH
any hon. Members going to vote? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have suspended the sitting, as I am obliged to do, but we shall now, reconvene.
Mr. Foulkes: I must say that in terms of flexibility you are one of the most sensible and intelligent Chairmen I have ever served under, Mr. Stevenson.
I was talking about the working families tax credit. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget that the basic credit in the WFTC would be increased by £5 a week from June 2001. We have already improved the position; people are already better off, and they will be even more so from June 2001.
In addition to the Government's work on tax credits, we have introduced the biggest ever increases in child benefit. From April this year, it will increase again to £15.50 for the first child and £10.35 for subsequent children. For the first child, that is a 26 per cent. rise in real terms. I am especially surprised that the hon. Member for Epping Forest—who, given recent announcements, should know about these matters—did not acknowledge that fact. It may not mean a great deal to her, but it will make a substantial difference for people in poverty in Scotland. In fact, the increases will help some 600,000 Scottish families.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and for Paisley, North raised the issue of child poverty and what was done about it in the Budget. That has been one of the significant changes since the report was produced. Yesterday, we had a debate on the impact of Government policy on families in Scotland. We have set ourselves child poverty targets, and in that respect I find the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest astonishing. How can one know whether one has achieved something without setting targets? That is what we did with international development, and we are doing the same with child poverty. Our aim is to halve child poverty in 10 years, with a view to abolishing it in 20. This is the first time that a Government have taken on that responsibility, and we are already making significant progress.
As a result of measures introduced in the most recent and previous Budgets, more than 1.2 million people in the United Kingdom—more than 100,000 people in Scotland—will be lifted out of poverty. By April 2001, a family with two children on half average earnings will be £3,000 a year better off as a result of measures introduced during this Parliament. A family with two children on income support will be £1,670 a year better off, and families in the bottom quintile will be £1,700 better off on average. How can Opposition Members say that people are not better off and not being pulled out of poverty by the actions of this Government?
A number of hon. Members have mentioned lone parents, and I shall talk briefly about the new deal for lone parents, which has been a remarkable success, in spite of the Jonahs who criticised it three or four years ago. More than 7,000 lone parents in Scotland, most of whom are women, have found work through the new deal. Our Green Paper on employment announced a new £100 million package to give lone parents the help that they need to return to the workplace. We believe that employment is the best way to tackle poverty, and the Select Committee recognised as much in paragraph 35 of its report, which states:

175WH
"The major cause of poverty in Scotland … is unemployment and premature economic inactivity".
The package to help more lone parents into employment must be welcome news, but I should make one thing clear: we are not forcing lone parents into employment. All we are saying is that lone parents on benefit should attend work-based interviews to learn about the opportunities that are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and others referred to the national minimum wage. Paragraph 36 of the Select Committee report makes it clear that, although employment is key, it
"does not necessarily provide a route out of poverty and low pay remains a problem."
That is why we have tackled low pay by introducing the national minimum wage. The Government are pleased that paragraph 149 of the report states that the Select Committee regards
"both the working families' tax credit and the minimum wage as important weapons in the fight against poverty."
The report continues:
"The minimum wage, as well as valuing people, also sends messages to employers about their own responsibilities."
The Government believe that responsible employers value the national minimum wage, which ensures that cowboys who want to pay less than a reasonable wage cannot undercut them.
I should point out to the hon. Member for Angus that the vote on the national minimum wage took place on 10 March 1998—a year before we set up the Scottish Parliament. In other words, he was absent without leave and his excuse is not accepted.
Mr. Welsh: It is impossible to be in two places at once, and two of the Minister's hon. Friends—one of whom has returned to the Chamber—have indeed found that impossible. Members of Parliament have other business to deal with. I did not say that the vote took place in the time of the Scottish Parliament, and the Minister is trivialising the matter with this nonsense. At times, he has attended neither the Scottish Grand Committee nor Scottish Question Time. Does that mean that he does not care about the issues with which they deal? He should stop being childish and stick to the point that we are discussing.
Mr. Foulkes: I think I have touched a raw nerve. The debate in question took place during the night, when nothing else was happening. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was in bed fast asleep. He mentioned the national minimum wage in his speech, and in my brief intervention I merely pointed out that he and his colleagues were not present to vote, so they had better keep quiet about the matter.
We have announced that the national minimum wage will be increased to £4.10 an hour from October 2001, which is good news for 120,000 Workers in Scotland. The Select Committee report noted that women are over-represented in poverty statistics. The increase in the national minimum wage especially helps women who, unfortunately, are still among the lowest paid in our society. The hon. Member for Epping Forest smiled when I made comments about the hon. Member for Angus, but she and her colleague, scaremongering as
176WH
usual, said that jobs would go because of the national minimum wage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unemployment has gone down, and the number of people working in Scotland has risen substantially.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston mentioned financial exclusion, which is referred to in paragraph 86 of the Select Committee report. I, too, have had constituents in dire straits because they cannot deal with their large debts, and who have been threatened with legal action, or with the possibility of visits by representatives seeking to recover the money. At the same time, I have received letters from banks urging me to take out huge loans without any security whatsoever. I am sure that other hon. Members have also experienced that.
On behalf of the Government, I encourage banks and financial institutions to take a more responsible attitude to lending. Consumer credit and lending are totally acceptable in our society, but it is in nobody's interests for a company to lend individuals more than they can afford to pay back. The company cannot get its money back, the reputation of the financial industry might suffer, and the individuals can suffer real hardship and misery. The message must be to lend money responsibly. Potential borrowers should also act sensibly.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs has set up a taskforce to explore the causes and effects of over-indebtedness and to examine ways of achieving more responsible lending and borrowing. The Government have recently announced that they will provide £1 million to fund three pilot projects for a telephone-based debt advice service. The Scottish Executive have provided further funding for one of them, in Fife.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of credit unions. Paragraph 102 of the report recommends that we promote their development with full vigour. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has announced measures to help credit unions, such as allowing them to loan money over more flexible periods and increasing the savings limit for young people to £5,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) mentioned that the Secretary of State and Jackie Baillie have announced a £1.5 million action plan to expand the credit union movement in Scotland. We understand and are taking into account the practical and financial problems that credit unions face.
As a Minister in Scotland, I have been pleased to travel around and see that people have new jobs as a result of the Government's measures. Their record on tackling unemployment is first rate. It is below 1 million for the first time since 1975. In Scotland, employment is at its highest level since 1960, which is when I left university, so it was a long time ago. That is a real achievement for the Government.
We have enabled people to earn a decent income and, therefore, to find a way out of poverty. The new deal, which has been a great success, is a key factor. Since it began, 31,500 young people have found employment through it. I pay tribute to the professionalism of the Employment Service and its partners in delivering the new deal. We have taken steps to ensure that older

177WH
people who wish to do so can also enter the labour market through the new deal.
Hon. Members have mentioned tax credits, and suggested that the system is too complicated. We intend to reform the tax and benefits system to tackle poverty and to overcome barriers to working. Tax credits are not a gimmick, but a way of giving targeted support to those who need it. When tackling poverty, it is important to look at wide issues, not just concentrate on one or two areas. Our reforms mean that the Inland Revenue is performing new functions: administering tax credits and enforcing the national minimum wage.
I recently met the director of the Inland Revenue in Scotland. As a result of that meeting, I am arranging for Scottish Members to be invited to a briefing session in Edinburgh, which will enable them to understand the detailed operation of the working families tax credit and the new children's tax credit. They will then be able to advise their constituents about them.
Sir Robert Smith: At that briefing, will the Inland Revenue be able to deal with the other side of the problem? We do not want to put extra burdens on employers that affect job creation. Will that briefing be able to examine ways of reducing the cost to employers of administering the working families tax credit?
Mr. Foulkes: Yes, it certainly will. I am thankful that I shall not have to deal with that today, because time is running short.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said, I used to be the director of Age Concern Scotland, and the report examined pensioner poverty. We looked hard at the inheritance that we received and we were absolutely right to decide to tackle the problems of the poorest pensioners first. Figures from the Department of Social Security show that, during the 20 years or so to 1997, the poorest pensioners did not share in the general increase in prosperity. Society became more unequal, and the Select Committee states that the Government were right to concentrate initially on the poorest pensioners. We welcome that endorsement. We introduced the minimum income guarantee to provide support for the poorest pensioners and the Select Committee commends us for doing that. From April, the minimum income guarantee will be simplified and increased to £92.15 for a single pensioner and £140.55 for a married couple. That shows our commitment to the poorest pensioners.
Thankfully, the Department of Social Security is reducing the existing claim form from 40 pages to 10. The form will be shorter, more user friendly, easier to understand and less bureaucratic. We shall examine some of the suggestions that have been made today on other aspects of take-up and pass them to the Department of Social Security for consideration.
Pensioners have free television licences if they are over 75 and they received a winter fuel payment of £200 this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will announce next winter's payment
178WH
later this year. Fuel poverty is a problem, and I was privileged to launch the Government's fuel poverty strategy with Jackie Baillie of the Scottish Executive. I commend what the Scottish Executive are doing in providing £350 million for installation of free central heating in all pensioners' homes. That huge step forward was never envisaged by the previous Government, but 130,000 households will benefit.
The Select Committee argued that the level of state retirement pension should be linked to national average earnings, but that would not help the poorest people so much. Next year, the Government will spend an extra £4.5 billion on pensioners, and when tax and benefit reforms are considered together, almost all pensioner households will be better off in April 2001, compared with April 1997, than they would have been with an earnings link in the basic state pension. We have done better than if there had been an earnings link. The pension credit is on its way and people who save will not be penalised for that. It is the first time that we have ever done that.
Various points were raised about rural poverty, which I appreciate as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, and the Government have dealt with that. It was astonishing to hear the hon. Member for Angus say that this is a non-political issue when his representative in the Scottish Parliament produced a dishonest report based on out-of-date figures. The figures for child poverty, lone parents, families and pensioners are three years old. That is typical of the Scottish National party's dishonest approach to politics. It dare not admit that Labour's policies are working and benefiting people, so it fiddles the figures. The facts are that, since spring 1997, the number of children living in households with no one in work has fallen by 300,000 in the United Kingdom and by more than 30,000 in Scotland. The Labour Government have introduced measures to lift more than 1 million children in the United Kingdom and more than 100,000 in Scotland out of poverty. In Scotland more than 100,000 more people are in work now than in 1997. With the minimum income guarantee, 200,000 of Scotland's poorest pensioners will be £800 a year better off in real terms from next month.
It is dishonest to drag up three-year-old statistics when everyone knows that it has been in the past three years, and particularly in the past few months, that the full impact of Labour's help for the poorest has been felt—even more will be achieved in the coming months. We do not need statistics to prove that fact because we have the evidence of our eyes and ears: more people are at work; those at work are paid more because of the minimum wage; and, because of the £200 winter fuel allowance, pensioners no longer need to choose between heating and eating.
It is typical that the Scottish National party should try to use the poor for party political gain. However, the people of Scotland will never forget the Scottish nationalists' common cause with Thatcher in 1979, which gave us 18 years of a Tory Government who attacked and undermined the poor of Scotland. As we have heard today, the Scottish National party is making

179WH
common cause with the Tories again to undermine Labour's achievements. Only through a partnership between a Labour Government at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament can we deliver the social justice that Scotland has sought for generations. The Scottish nationalists either will not or cannot understand the need for that partnership.
I hope that you enjoyed those remarks, Mr. Stevenson. I know that the hon. Member for Angus did not. We are a forward-looking Government and there are so many examples of that that I wish I had more time to describe them: the new pension credit, the introduction of tax credits to integrate the various support systems, the new deal. We are a thoughtful Government who are addressing the problem of poverty. We are a visionary Government: consider the commitments and targets that we have set to end child poverty. We are a caring Government who do not deny that problems exist, but who believe that only Labour in partnership with the Scottish Executive can achieve progress in areas such as fuel poverty. We are committed to radical actions and
180WH
measures such as the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage and the minimum income guarantee, which will benefit Scottish pensioners. Unlike the hon. Member for Angus, I wrote these words; I noticed that he was reading from a prepared statement.
No one who knows modern Scotland and sees what is happening there can deny that we inherited an appalling legacy and have recognised the challenges that poverty brings. We have taken action to deal with those challenges: we have ensured that social and economic progress work hand in hand. There is no division between social and economic policy. We run a successful economy and that is how we are able to tackle poverty. I commend the Government's record on tackling poverty and welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee report, and I hope that hon. Members recognises what the Government have done to implement the report's recommendations and to tackle to poverty in Scotland and in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Six o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to facilitate the reporting by the public of invalid road vehicle excise duty discs.[154445]

  Mr. Hill
  Members of the public may report apparently unlicensed vehicles seen on the public road by providing details of the vehicle concerned, together with the location and details of the keeper, if known, to the nearest Local Office of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This information is used as a starting point for further investigation.

  Alternatively, members of the public may complete specially designed witness statements which are available from the Agency's network of Local Offices. The statement form may also be downloaded from the DVLA website. If prosecution action follows, a copy of the statement containing the witness's name is made available to the alleged offender.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much revenue was raised from motorcycle and moped vehicle excise duty in the last 12 month period for which figures are available, indicating the amount raised for each vehicle excise duty band; if he will estimate the rate of evasion, indicating the estimated number of untaxed motorcycles and mopeds used on public highways for each category; and if he will make a statement. [154721]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]£40.3 million was raised in vehicle excise duty (VED) from motorcycles and mopeds in 1999–2000 in Great Britain.

  A

  B

  C

  F

  G

  H

  I

  Design capacity

  Actual number of people

  Hour

  Quarter-hour

  Hour

  Quarter-hour

  Line

  Busiest section

  Time

  capacity

  capacity

  capacity

  capacity

  Bakerloo

  Charing Cross to Piccadilly Circus

  08.45–09.00

  27,954

  6,989

  21,676

  5,419

  Central

  Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street

  08.45–09.00

  45,582

  11,395

  37,876

  9,469

  Victoria

  Victoria to Green Park

  08.45–09.00

  42,363

  10,591

  33,098

  8,274

  Waterloo and City

  Waterloo to Bank

  07.45–08.00

  14,818

  3,704

  11,854

  2,964

  Jubilee

  St. John's Wood to Baker Street

  08.45–09.00

  19,375

  4,844

  19,949

  4,987

  Northern

  Clapham North to Stockwell

  08.45–09.00

  28,258

  6,564

  29,286

  7,321

  Piccadilly

  Earl's Court to Gloucester Road

  08.30–08.45

  33,216

  8,304

  25,144

  6,286

  Circle

  Sloane Square to Victoria

  17.30–17.45

  8,958

  2,240

  8,493

  2,123

  282W
  Following a full roadside survey in 1999, it is estimated that there are around 265,000 unlicensed motorcycles and mopeds in GB. This represents a drop in the evasion level from 35 per cent. in 1994 to 25 per cent.

  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has a number of initiatives in hand to tackle the problem of unlicensed motorcycles. The Agency is working closely with the police in targeting unlicensed motorcycles at events and rallies and conducting specific motorcycle enforcement campaigns. The introduction of automatic number plate readers later this year will make it easier to detect unlicensed motorcycles. A consultation document will be issued shortly which will seek views on the introduction of a licence disc for motorcycles which cannot be removed intact once fixed to the number plate. As well as making it easier to detect unlicensed motorcycles this proposal should also resolve the problem of the theft of motorcycle licence discs.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 315W, on London Underground, what proportion of the maximum capacity of London Underground train carriages was reached at peak periods during January and February on a line by line basis.[154397]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd. (LUL) who inform me that they regularly monitor train crowding which enables them to assess the level of crowding on the busiest sections of each line. The complexity of this survey means that it is not cost-effective for it to be carried out on a monthly basis. It is therefore not possible to provide the information specifically requested in the question for January and February this year as to do so would incur disproportionate costs.

  The table shows the most recent information as measured by London Underground at various times during 1999–2000. For each line it provides a snapshot of the busiest quarter-hour period on the busiest section The table shows in columns F and G the theoretical design capacity of trains as set out in the earlier answer on 2 February 2001, Official Report, column 315W, and in columns H and I the average number of people recorded by LUL in 1999–2000 as using those lines at the busiest period. However, it should be noted that in practice some trains may have a higher and some a lower crowding. This could be caused by either any unevenness in the time between consecutive trains or in the uneven distribution of customers along platforms.
  283W

  A

  B

  C

  F

  G

  H

  I

  Design capacity

  Actual number of people

  Hour

  Quarter-hour

  Hour

  Quarter-hour

  Line

  Busiest section

  Time

  capacity

  capacity

  capacity

  capacity

  H&C

  Liverpool Street to Moorgate

  08.30–08.45

  8,958

  2,240

  8,493

  2,123

  Metropolitan

  Finchley Road to Baker Street

  08.30–08.45

  35,984

  8,991

  34,409

  8,602

  District

  Victoria to St. James's Park

  08.30–08.45

  30,380

  7,595

  27,085

  6,771

  East London Line

  Surrey Quays to Canada Water

  08.15–08.30

  6,815

  1,704

  6,521

  1,630

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 315W, on London Underground, what evidence his Department has obtained to show that the figures for the maximum capacity of London Underground train carriages are compatible with the health and safety of passengers.[154399]

  Mr. Hill
  The health and safety of passengers is the responsibility of London Underground and it is the Underground's top priority. I understand that the capacity of London Underground carriages is not itself considered to be a health and safety issue. However, London Underground recognises the possible safety implications of overcrowding. Access to platforms, and therefore trains, is restricted whenever necessary on safety grounds.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been provided by the Government since May 1997 to London Underground; and if he will make a statement.[154450]

  Mr. Hill
  We have provided £1.9 billion of funding to London Underground since May 1997. Government funding has supported total investment in the Underground between 1997–98 and 2000–01 of some £3.4 billion.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce a conclusion to his negotiations with Transport for London concerning the PPP for the London Underground. [154990]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last month that he had agreed to work together with the Commissioner of Transport for London, Bob Kiley, and with London Underground, on developing mutually acceptable modifications to the Public Private Partnership. Mr. Kiley has said in discussions with the Government that he seeks the unified management control of key underground operations, mainly through keeping the maintenance of track and signalling within London Underground. The 55–point plan that he is now discussing with us provides for that control within the overall structure of the PPP.

  There are inevitably some technical issues still to be worked out but I believe that there is now a real basis for an agreement to allow the PPP competitions to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion. Discussions are being taken forward as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the PPP competitions and the massive investment which the Underground so urgently needs.

  Devon Way, Stafford
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidance he has given the Highways Agency(a) generally and (b) specifically relating to Devon Way, Stafford, for consultation with residents before trees that screen trunk roads are removed; [154259]

  2) how many trees the Highways Agency removed from the land between the M6 motorway and Devon Way at Stafford on 8 March and for what reasons.[154258]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. David Kidney, dated 22 March 2001:

  REMOVAL OF TREES ON M6 AT DEVON WAY
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked Tim Matthews to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions about the removal of trees on land between the M6 and Devon Way, Stafford. I am replying in the absence of Tim Matthews.Following complaints about the condition of the trees from a local resident, site inspections showed that some of the trees were in a poor state and needed cutting down or pruning. Three trees were cut down on the 8th March and a fourth one shortly afterwards. Further works are required to this area of mature planting and these will be carried out soon.During the site visits we spoke to a number of residents who generally supported what we were doing but I am sorry that we were unable to talk to them all.I can assure you that we are only removing trees that are dead or dying on safety grounds, or pruning those which overhang adjacent gardens and are causing a nuisance. We intend to provide some new planting at this location, with low-level shrubs at the rear of the gardens graduating to woodland species closer to the motorway.There is no specific guidance for consultation in these circumstances but we do as a rule advise those likely to be affected. In this instance we were responding to the wishes of a number of local residents. I can only apologise for the fact that not everyone was happy.If you would like any additional information please contact Peter Adams at our Bi mingham office. His telephone number is 0121 678 8215.

  Nesscliffe Bypass
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made to build the Nesscliffe A5 road bypass and on the anticipated completion date.[154466]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.
  285W
  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 22 March 2001

  PROGRESS ON A5 NESCLIFFE BYPASS
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked Tim Matthews the Chief Executive to reply to your Parliamentary Question about progress on the A5 Nesscliffe Bypass. I am replying in the absence of Tim Matthews.Good progress is being made with the statutory procedures, which are now close to completion. The Compulsory Purchase Order has been confirmed and the legal challenge period is due to expire on 29 March 2001. We have begun the procurement process with the aim of inviting tenders in June for a Design and Build Contract. We hope to award the contract in December this year. Work should start on what we expect to be a 21 month contract in early Spring 2002. All being well, the bypass should be open to traffic in late Autumn 2003.We are confident that we will meet this programme but we do have to bear in mind the current restrictions imposed by the Foot and Mouth situation on access to the countryside. This is particularly relevant given the essential ecological surveys that must be carried out at specific times of the year. We will keep this situation under close review.If you would like any additional information please contact Stephen Edwards at our Birmingham office His telephone number is 0121 678 8360.

  A329M Closure
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the reason was for the time taken by(a) the Environment Agency to respond to the accident and spill on the A329M on 12 March and (b) the police to clear the road; and for what reason the police closed the road for most of that day;[154278]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the traffic delays caused by the closure of the A329M on 12 March and (b) the Environment Agency's role in the closure. [154277]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that due to the spillage of diesel fuel and a subsequent six-vehicle accident the Thames Valley police closed the A329M at 23.54 pm on 11 March and re-opened it approximately three hours later. During the intervening period. the Thames Valley police, assisted by the Environment Agency, were involved in mopping up the diesel fuel and removing the six vehicles involved in the accident, which was made more difficult at the time by severe weather conditions. At the scene of such an accident the police have a duty to ensure that the safety of the public the preservation of life, the rescue of the injured and the gathering of evidence to support the prosecution of serious traffic offences take precedence over any problems caused by traffic delay or congestion. The police are of course conscious of delays that can ensue from such accidents and they work with the Highways Agency and local radio stations to minimise disruption to traffic. Once the Thames Valley police were satisfied that it was safe to re-open the road, they did so at approximately 3.00 am on

  12 March.

  Following an initial telephone call from the Thames Valley police, Environmental Protection Officers from the Environment Agency arrived at the scene approximately 50 minutes from first notification of the incident, to find that diesel fuel was flowing from the road into the roadside drains. The Agency's officers isolated the
  286W
  surface drains using sawdust and soil from the verges and made a request to the local authority for gulley suckers to empty the roadside drains as soon as possible. The Agency's officers checked ditches on both sides of the M4, identifying areas where these drained to the Emm Brook. After a thorough examination, the Agency officers could find no evidence to suggest that any diesel fuel had entered either the ditches or the Emm Brook.

  Car Number Plates
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on flags printed on car number plates.[154312]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]In March 2000 the Government announced that legislation would be introduced to allow motorists to display the GB national identifier and the European circle of stars on car number plates on a voluntary non-mandatory basis. This would enable citizens to dispense with the requirement to display a separate GB sticker when travelling in Europe. The option of a separate GB sticker remains. There are no plans to permit the display of any other symbols or flags on number plates.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the policy of the Government are concerning the enforcement of the provisions of Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which requires driving instructors teaching for money to hold an approved driving instructors' certificate; and under what circumstances exceptions are made to this policy. [154735]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]The universal practice is for the Driving Standards Agency to use the Vehicle Inspectorate to investigate alleged cases of illegal driving instruction on its behalf. The inspectorate, in liaison with the agency, is responsible for pursuing prosecutions.

  Departmental Policies (Stourbridge)
  Ms Shipley
  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(a) Stourbridge and (b) the metropolitan borough of Dudley the effects on the area of his Department's (i) local government and (ii) transport policies and actions since 2 May 1997.[154731]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]The principal funding that this Department have provided to Dudley metropolitan borough in which Stourbridge falls since 2 May 1997 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 Stourbridge. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  The £55 million Dudley southern bypass was completed in 1999.
  287W

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02'

  Revenue Support Grant2

  87.24

  97.44

  102.52

  98.35

  108.29

  Income from National non-Domestic Rates2

  68.22

  71.10

  76.84

  86.71

  84.78

  Housing Investment Programme3

  5.37

  4.41

  4.42

  10.97

  3.20

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  18.68

  16.62

  15.54

  14.52

  0.00

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1.04

  3.35

  3.42

  0.00

  0.00

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.05

  0.02

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Capital Challenge

  4.26

  3.37

  4.77

  0.00

  0.00

  Major Repair Allowance

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  14.05

  SRB Funding7

  5.31

  4.60

  5.29

  3.35

  18.54

  Neighbourhood Renewal4

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.76

  ERDF Funding

  2,169.315

  4,135.111

  5,557.033

  7,667.424

  3,066.129

  ERDF Funding5

  0.00

  0.00

  300.000

  268.250

  0.00

  ESF Objective 2

  648.439

  1,003.649

  1,263.193

  0.00

  0.00

  ESF Objective 25

  0.000

  192.583

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  3.75

  4.85

  6.76

  2.03

  -

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  3.75

  4.85

  6.76

  2.03

  -

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.58

  1.82

  1.51

  3.61

  6.86

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant6

  0.00

  0.08

  0.07

  0.09

  0.11

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant6

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.42

  -

  1 Where known

  2 The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000" respectively.

  3The Housing subsidy figure for 2000–01 is still provisional. The reduction in HIP resources for 2001–02 is due the introduction of the new Major Repair Allowance i.e. a new way of allocating resources for works to council stock; the table shows Dudley's indicative figure for 2001–02.

  4This is the first year of a 3-year NRF allocation to Dudley. It will be for the emerging LSP to determine how and where it should he spent.

  5 These amounts of ERDF and ESF Objective 2 grant have been identified as approved for projects within the Stourbridge district.

  6Rural bus payments were made to the WM Passenger Transport Executive, Centro for spending across the metropolitan area.

  7Details of SRB Projects.

  Dudley Foundation For The Future (1995–2002)

  The seven-year scheme aims to raise educational attainment, particularly for ethnic minorities; enhance employment and enterprise focusing on assisting small businesses and improving manufacturing excellence; improve housing and the environment and increase energy efficiency. Although generally borough-wide in approach there is some targeting, particularly in the Central Dudley and Brierley Hills areas.

  Key Outputs

  5,000 jobs created/safeguarded: 2,800 people obtaining qualifications; 530 new businesses; 4,500 new dwellings.

  Costs

  Single Regeneration Budget Total: £13.1 million Scheme Total: £43.2 million

  Wren's Nest Comprehensive Area Regeneration-Dudley (1996–2000)

  A six-year scheme from the Dudley Partnership Board. Developed from a Community Vision Conference, this scheme reflects the priorities of residents, local businesses, community organisations and public bodies. The Wren's Nest estate of almost 12,000 people is in one of the most deprived wards in Dudley. The scheme is intended to complement and extend the positive impact of Estate Action in the area. It will add value to that investment by raising skills levels, increasing the confidence and management ability of local people and promoting community safety.

  Key Outputs

  90 jobs created/safeguarded plus 17,385 construction jobs,

  820 people obtaining qualifications, 950 people obtaining jobs,

  540 dwellings improved an 170 completed.

  Costs

  Single Regeneration Budget Total: 1£0.4 million

  Scheme Total: £36.6 million
  288W
  Impact On Employment. (1996–2000)

  A four-year scheme led by Stourbridge College, in partnership with the local ethnic minority community. The Partnership plans a range of initiative; to enhance confidence and skills within African and Caribbean communities. It will involve local employers more in promoting employment and training opportunities and targeting FE colleges to improve their response to this group by providing good practice models.

  Key Outputs

  100 qualifications gained, 140 people obtaining jobs after training and 300 residents accessing employment following advice.

  Costs

  Single Regeneration Budget Total: £175,000

  Scheme Total: £63,000

  Local Jobs For Local People (Dudley) (1998–2000)

  This six-year scheme focuses on skilling for job opportunities at Merry Hill and local industrial estates. A training centre will be established offering programmes and child care with links to job vacancies at Merry Hill. Regeneration support will be given to the industrial estates to create jobs, which will also involve the training centres. New Deal support will be in creating opportunities for clients is and involving residents who fall outside New Deal parameters

  Key Outputs

  3,100 training weeks; 300 residents accessing employment through training, 5,000 sq.m. new business/commercial floorspace.

  Costs

  Single Regeneration Budget: –1.8 million

  Scheme Total: –7 million.

  Transport Safety Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will complete his review of transport safety and report to the House; and if he will make a statement.[155069]

  Mr. Hill
  In my answer of 9 June 2000,Official Report, columns 424–25W, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I explained our conclusion that it would be wrong to take a view on potentially fundamental changes to the organisation of transport safety until the outcome of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash was known. I understand that the relevant part of the inquiry is expected to report later this year A report of the consultation and analysis undertaken by the transport safety review group was placed in the Libraries of the House last year.

  Ten-year Transport Plan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provision contained in the Ten-year Transport Plan for(a) a London east-west rail link, (b) the London Cross Rail scheme, (c) the Chelsea-Hackney Line, (d) the East London Line and (e) the West London Line; and if he will indicate the priority he gives to each of these projects.[155068]

  Mr. Hill
  The Ten-year Plan provides for a significant increase in transport infrastructure investment, including in enhanced rail capacity in London. Specific London rail schemes, priorities, and the resources to be allocated to them, will be decided after discussion between Government, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Mayor of London. To this end, we have set up a high-level group to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the development and taking forward of rail schemes in London.

  West Midlands Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of the West Midlands Regional Development Agency.[153631]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  All the RDA's, including Advantage West Midlands, have made good progress. Advantage West Midlands (AWM) has engaged with all sectors of the local economy to produce a strategy for the region and has agreed with key partners the 60 main actions required to take it forward.

  AWM has achieved significant successes. So far this financial year (to February), some 28 companies from abroad have invested in the west midlands, creating 2,100 jobs and safeguarding a further 745. Marconi is moving to a site at Ansty near Coventry and jobs are beginning to emerge at BMW at Hams Hall near Birmingham. AWM has introduced a Regional Venture Capital Fund, the first RDA to do so. It is progressing innovation issues with a very good team of regional partners. It has very clearly defined the region's priority business sectors and is increasingly dovetailing all its activities to support them: the food and drink sector is an excellent example.
  290W
  In addition, AWM has led the creation of six Regeneration Zones which will focus resources on the areas of greatest need and opportunity—including for the first time, a Rural Regeneration Zone encompassing the Marches.

  It has successfully led two emergency Task Forces set up at the behest of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to address crises which have arisen in the region's automotive and ceramics industries. Key recommendations involve the creation of three high-technology corridors along the region's main feeder routes.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what consultations have taken place since 1 January between his Department and(a) regional development agencies and (b) regional assemblies about the Central Railway project;[154847]

  (2) what meetings have taken place since 1 January between Ministers in his Department and representatives of Central Railway.[154848]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Lettings
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the pilot projects to test choice-based lettings approaches; and if he will make a statement.[155394]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to announce that 27 local authority-led pilot projects have today been selected to test different lettings approaches.

  The pilots are designed to give new and existing social tenants in England greater choice over their housing and to give local authorities and Registered Social Landlords the opportunity to test new ways of doing that, while continuing to meet housing need.

  This is the best way to meet the long-term housing requirements of those who need social housing. The challenge for pilot authorities is to find better ways of responding to need while offering choice, in different housing markets, and across different authorities. We will draw on the pilots to develop a body of good practice for all social landlords.

  I am delighted that we received over 90 bids for pilot status. I was particularly encouraged by the readiness of local authorities and RSLs to work together to deliver a choice-based approach. Many bids involved a partnership approach, bringing together some or all of the RSLs operating in the area, and in some cases private landlords as well, to offer as wide a choice as possible to new and existing tenants.

  I have been very impressed by the quality of the bids submitted. I have therefore decided to make available a further £2 million, in addition to the £11 million announced at the time of the Spending Review to fund the pilot scheme, in order to support as many good quality projects as possible.
  291W
  The list of successful lead authorities is set out in the list.

  I am also delighted to announce that £3.5 million over two years has been allocated under Round 3 of the Capital Modernisation Fund. This additional money will be used to fund Information Technology development to support choice-based lettings approaches and to promote mobility across the social housing sector.

  Successful bids—lead authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset borough council

  Blackburn with Darwen borough council

  Bolton metropolitan borough council

  Bradford metropolitan borough council

  Brighton and Hove borough council

  Camden council

  Coventry metropolitan borough council

  Croydon council

  Derby city council

  Ealing council

  Eastbourne borough council

  Hammersmith and Fulham council

  Harborough district council

  Haringey council

  Herefordshire district council

  Kennet district council

  Lewisham council

  Manchester city council

  Mansfield district council

  Medway district council

  New Forest district council

  Newham council

  Restormel borough council

  Sandwell metropolitan district council

  Sheffield metropolitan borough council

  Stockport metropolitan borough council

  Sunderland metropolitan borough council.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make an announcement about regional planning guidance for the south-east.[155395]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 18 December last year we published draft revised Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east. This put the urban renaissance and protection of the countryside at the heart of the revised regional strategy. It put forward a housing strategy that took no more land than assumed by the regional planning body. We re-consulted on the proposed housing distribution and after careful consideration of all the representations we are today issuing Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9).

  In the light of the divergent views expressed on the individual county figures and in the absence of any consistent regional rationale to justify a new distribution, the proposed distribution has not been changed. We acknowledge the concerns expressed during the public consultation but would emphasise that in line with our
  292W
  new 'plan, monitor and manage' approach, the scale and distribution of
  housing will be subject to review within the next five years in response to monitoring and other information. We do not believe in fixed 20-year housing targets.

  The RPG9 document is being distributed to local authorities, Regional Planning Bodies, Regional Development Agencies and others who participated at the Public Examination held in 1999. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House and made available to MPs from the Region. Further copies can be obtained from the Stationery Office at a cost of £.

  Standards Board
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in establishing the Standards Board for England under the Local Government Act 2000; and if he will make a statement.[155447]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Last month, I appointed Tony Holland as the first chair of the Standards Board for England. I have today appointed Patricia Hughes as Deputy Chair, and John Bowers, Alan Doig, Margaret Pratt, Paul Sabapathy and Roger Taylor as members of the Board. I am in the process of making two further appointments from representatives of local authority elected members and hope to be able to announce these in the near future.

  The appointments will provide the Standards Board with a range of expertise and skills from around the country, which will be crucial to the success of its future work. The members will bring wide experience of local government and the public and private sectors to the work of the Board. They will equip the Standards Board with the lay, legal, academic and audit expertise it will need as it faces up to the challenge of the new ethical framework and ensuring the highest standards of conduct in local government.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for providing development assistance to Ethiopia; and if she will make a statement.[155072]

  Clare Short
  Since the signature by Ethiopia and Eritrea of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in June 2000, we have been reviewing our development relationship with Ethiopia. As part of this process, we held a seminar to discuss papers commissioned from academia and civil society to help update our understanding of current politics, governance and civil society; the economy; poverty; and food security.

  Last November I visited Addis Ababa and discussed these issues with I prime Minister Meles Zenawi. We informed him that we intended to focus as a first priority on food security, and undertook to consider whether we could contribute to the development of the private sector in Ethiopia.
  293W
  Effective support to help reduce poverty in Ethiopia will depend on continuing peace and stability and the full and speedy implementation of the Peace Agreement signed in Algiers last December We have been encouraged by recent progress. We have supported the peace process through the UN Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) with a contribution of £535,000 for an emergency survey of mines and unexploded ordnance undertaken by the UN Mines Advisory Service. We are also supporting UNMEE through our assessed contribution to peacekeeping operations.

  The overall objective of our assistance will be to support the Government of Ethiopia's Poverty Reduction Strategy. In food security, we will work for long-term sustainable improvements and reduced vulnerability to cyclical drought. We will support the provision of financial assistance through the World Bank, IMF and European Commission. We will also provide technical assistance to strengthen the World Bank's work with the Government on the 2001 Public Expenditure Review and on Food Security, and plan to do so on the Poverty Reduction Strategy process. We are also considering technical support in food security and education to the European Commission.

  We also envisage providing support for Food Security (including rural roads). In the private sector we will explore options for facilitating Ethiopia's effective engagement in international markets and ways in which the enabling environment for private investment can be improved. We plan to help strengthen district level road maintenance capacity. We are investigating how to support the Government's poverty monitoring capacity. Other possible areas of intervention include improved governance and support for a more effective civil society.

  The implications of HIV/AIDS for Ethiopia's development will be considered throughout the programme. We plan to support the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa, which is sponsored by UNAIDS.

  We will continue to provide direct humanitarian relief and food aid where there is a clear need and where we are well placed to help.

  On current plans we expect to spend up to £30 million over the next three years: these figures are indicative and subject to adjustment in the light of developments.

DEFENCE

  Army (Scotland)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment strength, (b) actual strength and (c) level of undermanning in percentage terms of establishment against actual strength was for the(i) Highlanders, (ii) Black Watch, (iii) Royal Scots, (iv) Royal Highland Fusiliers, (v) King's Own Scottish Borderers. (vi) Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, (vii) Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and (viii) Scots Guards on 1 March in each year from 1995 to 2001; what initiatives are under way in Scotland to address issues of recruitment and retention; and if he will make a statement.[154086]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]The information requested is as follows.
  294W

  Establishment

  Trained strength

  Percentage ±

  Highlanders

  1995

  597

  703

  17.6

  1996

  597

  648

  8.5

  1997

  659

  616

  –6.5

  1998

  658

  583

  -11.4

  1999

  658

  507

  -22.9

  2000

  658

  500

  -24

  2001

  608

  494

  -18.8

  Black Watch

  1995

  597

  591

  -1

  1996

  597

  555

  -7

  1997

  597

  514

  -14

  1998

  597

  539

  -9.7

  1999

  597

  511

  -14.4

  2000

  703

  508

  -27.7

  2001

  670

  566

  -15.5

  Royal Scots

  1995

  597

  543

  -9

  1996

  663

  562

  -15.2

  1997

  663

  495

  -25.3

  1998

  663

  508

  -23.4

  1999

  663

  471

  -29

  2000

  597

  470

  -21.3

  2001

  608

  515

  -15.3

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  1995

  703

  743

  5.7

  1996

  703

  617

  -12.2

  1997

  703

  595

  -15.4

  1998

  703

  621

  -11.7

  1999

  703

  581

  -17.4

  2000

  597

  626

  4.9

  2001

  607

  532

  -12.4

  King's Own Scottish Borderers

  1995

  597

  594

  -0.5

  1996

  597

  575

  -3.7

  1997

  597

  546

  -8.5

  1998

  597

  567

  -5

  1999

  597

  507

  -15

  2000

  597

  549

  -8

  2001

  638

  585

  -8.3

  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  1995

  597

  598

  0.2

  1996

  597

  523

  -12.4

  1997

  597

  557

  -6.7

  1998

  597

  593

  -0.7

  1999

  597

  601

  0.7

  2000

  597

  598

  0.2

  2001

  609

  591

  -3

  Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

  1995

  411

  414

  0.7

  1996

  411

  373

  9.2

  1997

  411

  386

  -6.1

  1998

  411

  372

  -9.5

  1999

  411

  372

  -9.5

  2000

  411

  403

  -1.9

  2001

  499

  415

  -17

  Scots Guards

  1995

  597

  693

  16

  1996

  597

  566

  -5.2

  1997

  597

  529

  -11.4

  1998

  597

  520

  -13

  1999

  597

  531

  -11

  2000

  597

  558

  -6.5

  2001

  609

  643

  5.6

  Note:

  The figures are at 1 January each year
  295W
  A revision of the Army's recruitment management structure has brought together the field Army, the Territorial Army and the Army Training and Recruiting Agency's resources and expertise to run coherent recruiting campaigns in each of the UK regions, including Scotland. This co-ordinates local and national recruiting activities to best effect. Specifically in Scotland, the Army has recently awarded a trial one-year contract to a commercial consultancy company who will undertake on the ground recruiting activities, in partnership with the existing recruiting organisation, bringing commercial expertise into this area and utilising the company's wide-ranging contacts and database. The company intends to introduce an innovative programme of promotional and marketing activity, highlighting the wide range of career opportunities that the Army provides. Final selection of recruits will, however, remain firmly with the Army.

  Army retention is being tackled as a high priority. Our aim is to maintain good levels of retention through policies that genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families, both generally and those on deployment. A raft of measures has already been introduced, including acceptance of the latest pay award, and these appear to be having an impact on retention. These measures are not confined to Scotland, but apply throughout the Army in the UK and overseas.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken against those(a) responsible for racial harassment of Ian Bannister and(b) responsible for setting up a photoshoot with soldiers dressed in Klu Klux Klan regalia and the officers commanding these soldiers.[154067]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army has no record of any claim of racial harassment from Ian Bannister. The Royal Military Police are, however, currently undertaking an investigation to examine the circumstances behind the incident with the photograph.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been issued to the 2nd Parachute Regiment concerning members posing for photographs with Nazi regalia.[154066]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army is committed, through the Chief of the General Staff's Equal Opportunities Directive, to eradicating all forms of discrimination by developing policies, practices, and procedures within the framework of the law which do not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind. This policy is reiterated in Commanding Officer's Equal Opportunities Policy Statements and Action Plans.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme will be published; what the cause of the delay has been; if the review will consider the use of retrospective legislation as a remedy for the perceived injustices; and if he will make a statement.1154047]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 16 March 2001, Official Report, column 756W. The review has taken longer than expected
  296W
  mainly because of knock-on effects from delays to the Joint MOD/DSS Compensation Review which proved more complicated than anticipated. Consistent with the long-standing public sector pension policy, there are no plans to introduce changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme retrospectively.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February 2000,Official Report, column 648W, if he will list the private companies identified as purchasers of 10 rifles required by the Saville inquiry; and what efforts have been made to secure the co-operation of these companies with the inquiry.[154132]

  Mr. Hoon
  The police investigation announced in my answer of 17 February 2000, Official Report, column 648W, has established that, of the rifles required by the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, 19 were sold to private companies. These companies were Alvis Logistics, A. F. Budge and Co. Ltd. and R. E. Trem and Co. Ltd. Every effort has been made to secure the companies' co-operation in consultation with the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February 2000,Official Report, column 648W, what the conclusion was of the MOD police inquiry regarding destruction of evidence pertinent to the Saville inquiry; and what actions have been taken against those responsible. [154131]

  Mr. Hoon
  The report of the investigation by West Mercia and Ministry of Defence Police into the unauthorised destruction of rifles will be sent to Ministers shortly. When the report has been considered its conclusions and any proposed follow-up action will be made public where it is appropriate to do so. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry has been kept fully informed.

  Nuclear Weapon Accident Response Exercises
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, dates and locations of nuclear weapons convoy exercises in 2001.[153727]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following nuclear weapon accident response exercises are scheduled to be held during 2001:

  Month

  Name

  Location

  May

  NW Convoy Group Standardisation

  Lincolnshire

  June

  Exercise Bowline

  Coulport

  July

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Wiltshire

  September

  MOD Police Nuclear Weapon Convoy

  Standardisation

  To be confirmed

  October

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Suffolk

  November

  RAF Station NAR team Standardisation1

  Oxfordshire

  November

  Exercise Senator

  Bedfordshire

  1RAF Station Nuclear Accident Response (NAR) teams provide immediate response forces for the air transportation of nuclear weapons

  Low Flying (Wind Farms)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made on the likely effects of siting wind turbines in tactical training areas.[155605]
  297W
  Dr. Moonie
  In principle the Ministry of Defence has no objection to wind farms. The UK has three specially designated Tactical Training Areas (TTA) that are available for authorised military Operational Low Flying (OLF) training. The three TTAs are located in central Wales (LFA7T), north Scotland (LFA14T) and the border region of northern England/southern Scotland (LFA20T). Within these areas military fast jet and Hercules aircraft may operate at heights between 250 ft and 100 ft. In addition, Units make use of these specifically surveyed areas to conduct specialised night training.

  Flying down to 100 ft is also authorised over the Electronic Warfare Tactics Range (EWTR), LFA13. The EWTR is a RAF facility made available to other NATO countries on a repayment basis, or under other special arrangements. It is located in the north of England, at Spadeadam, and partially overlays LFA20T, the northern England/southern Scotland TTA. In addition to tactical radar avoidance training, the airspace associated with use of the EWTR is made available for test and evaluation flying, specialised night training and some operational low flying training. Low flying within LFA13 is associated almost entirely with operation of the EWTR.

  Conclusions of a study conducted by the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment into the Effects of Wind Generators on Radar Performance were that wind turbines cause interference to primary surveillance radar and harm the ability to detect and track aircraft flying over wind farms. Moreover, the presence of a ulit constructions of significant size would be highly dangerous to aircraft flying down to 100 ft.

  In the interests of flight safety, the safety of aircrew and members of the public, it is vital that any hazards to low flying aircraft are minimised . Any extraneous distractions or possible reduction in external support capabilities, such as that provided by ground radar, can have a deleterious effect upon aircraft safety, and thus the safety of aircrew as well as those on the ground.

  It is, therefore, MOD opinion that obstacles in excess of 100 ft in height, unlit by night and with the ability to cause interference to radar, have the potential to create an acute safety hazard to aircraft engaged in operational low flying training, tactical radar avoidance training, specialised night flying and test and evaluation flying, however, each case has to be considered on its merit.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make statement [153408]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Iam therefore unable to provide a substantive answer in accordance with Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  However, a breakdown of the Ministry of Defence's public relations' expenditure is published in the annual Departmental Performance Report. broken down into
  298W
  categories of RN, Army, RAF and civilian recruitment, public relations, marketing and business support services, Chief of public relations, sales promotion, scholarships and National Employers' Liaison Committee.

  Service Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what negotiations are taking place between his Department and the Treasury over compensation payments for service personnel killed and disabled during service with the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.[154046]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 March 2001,Official Report, column 209W. The proposals contained in the Joint Compensation Review Consultation Document have been fully discussed with Her Majesty's Treasury.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the statutory basis of the Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 is; and if they mirror those of the Home Department forces.[154409]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]. The Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, came into operation on 20 February 1986 following an agreement between the Defence Council and the Police Complaints Authority of the same date. Following the coming into force of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 a further agreement between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Police Complaints Authority was signed on 23 June 1988, which resulted in the Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) (Amendment) Regulations 1988. These agreements, made in accordance with section 96(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, introduced force discipline regulations corresponding to those established by Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for Home Department police forces. They also build on the provisions of section 1(4) and section 4 of the MOD Police Act 1987, and the Ministry of Defence Police (Representation at Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1988 (SI 1099/1988) made under it.

  The MDP discipline regulations mirrored those of the Home Departments forces until the Home Department forces regulations changed in April 1999. The proposals in clause 32 of the present Armed Forces Bill are designed to enable parity to be restored.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's police officers subject to(a) complaints and (b) disciplinary procedures are investigated under (i) procedures made by statute and (ii) with punishments and appeals procedures set out in legislation.[154407]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]The Ministry of Defence Police complaints and discipline regulations were introduced following an agreement between the Defence Council and the Police Complaints Authority on 20 February 1986. Following the introduction of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, a further agreement between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Police Complaints Authority was signed on 23 June 1988. These agreements, made in accordance with section 96(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,
  299W
  introduced complaints and discipline regulations corresponding to those established by or by virtue of Part IX of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for Home Department police forces. They also build on the provisions of section 1(4) and section 4 of the MOD Police Act 1987 and the Ministry of Defence Police (Representation at Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulation 1988 (SI 1099/1988) made under it.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds the Armed Forces Bill Committee was told on 7 March that a complaint against a Ministry of Defence police officer would be processed by the Police Complaints Authority through exactly the same complaints procedure as with the Metropolitan police and that the arrangements would be absolutely identical.[154406]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]The Ministry of Defence Police complaints regulations are comparable to those of the Home Department police forces. A complaint against an MOD police officer in England and Wales for instance would be dealt with in exactly the same way as a complaint against a member of the Metropolitan Police Service or any other Home Office police force.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds he stated to the Armed Forces Bill Committee on 7 March that in the case of a complaint against his Department's police an MDP officer(a) would be subject to the responsibility of the chief constable of the area in question with whom he had made an agreement and (b) that police officer would be subject and accountable in precisely the same way as a police officer in the Metropolitan area.[1544101

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]Under the proposed modest extensions to the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) jurisdiction contained within the Armed Forces Bill, MDP officers seconded to or providing mutual aid to Home Department police forces would be subject to the control and direction of the chief officer of the receiving force. Complaints against MDP officers on secondment or providing mutual aid to Home Department police forces would be dealt with in exactly the same way as a complaint against a member of the Metropolitan Police Service or any other Home Department police force.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, columns 19–20W, on Porton Down, if staff from his Department have held other meetings with the Medical Research Council regarding advice on an independent epidemiological study for Porton Down volunteers since 14 November 2000; and on what dates each of these meetings took place.[154785]

  Dr. Moonie
  No other meetings have taken place.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many studies have been undertaken since 1971 by the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down to establish the annual totals of service
  300W
  volunteers who have taken part in experiments at the establishment; and on what dates each of these studies were completed.[154784]

  Dr. Moonie
  No such formal studies have been undertaken. However, since 1995 the annual reports of the Independent Chemical and Biological Defence Ethics Committee have included the numbers of volunteers who have participated in the Service Programme during the report year. These reports are usually produced in the following April-May

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001, Official Report, column 19–20W, on Porton Down, what plans his Department has to take on more staff in the Gulf veterans illnesses unit to deal with issues relating to Porton Down volunteers.[154786]

  Dr. Moonie
  We plan to take on a further member of staff, probably a Higher Executive Officer (Grade C2), to deal with Porton Down Volunteers issues.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has requested the Medical Research Council to consult the Operation Antler team of Wiltshire police regarding its advice on an independent epidemiological study for service personnel who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down.[154768]

  Dr. Moonie
  No.

  US Military Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will send a team of his staff to the United States to evaluate the system under which the US Government provide compensation to former military personnel who have developed illnesses as a result of taking part in chemical warfare experiments.[154793]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have no plans to do so. The Ministry of Defence has a Liaison Officer in Washington D.C. who can gather information on US arrangements for paying compensation to veterans who participated in trials in the US, should there be a need to do so.

  Depleted Uranium (Dundrennan Range)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the damage done to the depleted uranium monitoring rig located offshore at the testing range at Dundrennan.[154199]

  Dr. Moonie
  The test rig housing the depleted uranium samples was damaged during winter storms. The most likely cause of this damage were the chains securing the buoys marking the rig which impacted repeatedly with the main body of the rig during unexpectedly high sea states. In all some 20.76kg of depleted uranium, the equivalent of four projectiles, were lost and, if not recovered, it is expected that the material will oxidise and disperse in exactly the same way as rounds fired into the Solway Firth from the Kirkcudbright range. The ongoing comprehensive environmental monitoring programme continues to confirm no uranium above naturally occurring background levels.

  Royal Logistics Corps
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rates of pay are for Royal Logistics Corps(a) drivers, (b) supply specialists, (c) ammunition technicians and (d) chefs; and what plans he has to increase the rates of pay for those employed on explosive ordnance disposal. [154582]

  Rank

  Pay range

  Driver

  Pay range

  Supply specialist

  Pay range

  Ammunition technician

  Pay range

  Chefs

  Pte

  Lower

  £12,070.55–£16,800.95

  Lower

  £12,070.55–£16,800.95

  n/a

  —

  Lower

  £12,070.55–£16,800.95

  L Cpl

  Lower

  £15,461.40–£18,206.20

  Lower

  £15,461.40–£18,206.20

  Lower

  £15,461.40–£18,206.20

  Higher

  £18,388.70–£22,100.75

  Cpl

  Lower

  £19,812.20–£22,637.30

  Lower

  £19,812.20–£22,637.30

  Higher

  £20,575.05–£25,341.95

  Higher

  £20,575.05–£25,341.95

  Sgt

  Lower

  £22,925.65–£25,889.45

  Lower

  £22,925.65–£25,889.45

  Higher

  £25,017.10–£28,199.90

  Higher

  £25,017.10–£28,199.90

  S Sgt

  Lower

  £25,298.15–£28,904.35

  Lower

  £25,298.15–£28,904.35

  Higher

  £28,218.15–£32,109.05

  Lower

  £25,298.15–£28,904.35

  WO2

  Higher

  £30.966.60–£33.028.85

  Higher

  £30,966.60–£33,028.85

  Higher

  £30,966.60–£33,028.85

  Higher

  £30,966.60–£33,028.85

  The trade of Ammunition Technician in the Royal Logistic Corps, whose duties include explosive ordnance disposal, has been subject to the job evaluation process. All ranks in this trade at corporal and above have been assigned to the higher pay range. Those employed on explosive ordnance disposal will, in common with other trades, be eligible under Pay 2000 for the award of annual incremental pay increases subject to satisfactory performance. In addition they will receive annual pay awards as recommended by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

  Service Personnel (HIV/AIDS)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) RAF, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Army are suffering from HIV/AIDS; and if he will make a statement. [153171]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]Twelve members of the armed forces are currently known to be suffering from HIV/AIDS. As one of the services has only one member known to be suffering from HIV/AIDS, a breakdown by service cannot be provided for reasons of confidentiality. No information is held on members of the armed forces who may be receiving treatment outside the Defence Medical Services.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf War veterans have been deemed eligible for war pensions due to the effects of the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [154048]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  At 31 January 2001, 965 awards of war disablement pension had been made to Gulf War veterans for Gulf War-related illnesses.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Union Rights
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further proposals he has to introduce legislation in relation to trade union rights. [153644]
  302W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]The rates of pay effective from 1 April 2001 for Royal Logistics Corps drivers, supply specialists, ammunition technicians and chefs are shown in the table. The rates shown are the highest and lowest points of pay scales, which are incremental.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have introduced greater rights to trade union membership and representation through the Employment Relations Act 1999 and other initiatives. This legislation needs time to bed down. We therefore have no plans to introduce further trade union legislation during this Parliament.

  Energy Prices
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking with regard to energy prices. [153646]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are taking a number of actions, both nationally and internationally, to promote competitive gas and electricity prices.

  Trade Balance
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what forecast he has made of the balance of trade in 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [153648]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Treasury forecast for the balance of trade shows a £26.75 billion deficit in 2001, rising to £33.75 billion in 2002.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will come to a decision on ECGD support for the Ilisu dam. [153650]

  Mr. Caborn
  We will not make our decision on ECGD support for the Ilisu project until both the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) have been received and fully assessed.

  We have received assurances from the commercial parties that the EIAR, which is their document, will be made publicly available before a decision is taken.

  Science
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to keep Britain at the forefront of scientific advances. [153651]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government place great importance on the quality of British science. A strong science base is essential to the knowledge economy. We will increase the
  303W
  level of funding through the Science Budget by an average of 7 per cent. per year, in real terms, over the next three years. We have taken significant steps to reverse the underfunding of university scientific research infrastructure: and we will increase postgraduate student stipends by 23 per cent. in real terms. We have also, and for the first time, allocated funds for an 'e-science' initiative which will enable the development of very high speed computing for the next wave of science. The UK is a good place to do science and many international companies have R&D centres here.

  Metrication
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on metrication. [153652]

  Dr. Howells
  In compliance with metrication legislation made in 1994, four out of five trade weighing machines are now operating in metric units. We fully expect the remaining weighing machines to convert to metric.

  Chemical Industry
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on prospects for the chemical industry. [153653]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The chemicals industry has consistently outpaced the growth in the economy overall. Forecasts suggest that this pattern will continue for the foreseeable future. The industry does, however, face significant pressures on restructuring, performance and innovation to meet rapidly changing global challenges. The Government will continue to do what they can to help the industry meet those challenges.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the sub-post office network. [153654]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  By accepting all 24 recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's (PIU) report on the future of the post office network, the Government have demonstrated their continuing commitment to maintenance of a nationwide network. We are working closely with the Post Office, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other stakeholders to implement the PIU recommendations. These measures are designed to modernise and improve Post Office services and to strengthen confidence in the future of the network.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of how the increased national minimum wage will benefit people in Scotland. [153655]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We estimate that the increase in the national minimum wage to £4.10 from 1 October 2001 will be of direct benefit to around 120,000 workers in Scotland-6.1 per cent. of all workers in Scotland.
  304W
  Between April 2000 and February 2001, Inland Revenue enforcement officers visited 363 employers in Scotland and identified around £212,000 in underpayments for workers in Scotland.

  The Low Pay Commission's third report, which the Government published on 5 March, contains a thorough assessment of the impact of the national minimum wage thus far and of the likely impact of this increase. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the implementation of the national minimum wage. [154289]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Earlier this month the independent Low Pay Commission produced volume 1 of their third report evaluating the impact of the national minimum wage. The Commission undertook an extensive consultation exercise as part of their work. They received 150 written submissions and took oral evidence from the CBI, the TUC and a number of other organisations to supplement their written evidence. Volume 2 of the third report, which will cover issues of implementation and enforcement, is due in May.

  Industrial Clusters
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his measures to support the development of industrial clusters. [153656]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government recognise the importance of clusters and networks and are working closely with the RDAs to identify and remove barriers to their growth and development. In the White Paper "Opportunity for All in a World of Change", published on 13 February, the Government set out their proposals to promote the growth of successful clusters by asking the RDAs to develop strategies for success for their regions, building on their existing strengths. They will do so with the assistance of a report, "Business Clusters in the UK: A First Assessment", which was also published on 13 February.

  Key aspects of clusters policy were discussed at a conference in Nottingham involving Government, RDAs and other stakeholders on 8 and 9 March.

  Government funding for cluster development will continue to be provided to RDAs via the Regional Innovation Fund. Continued work on clusters will be undertaken by Lord Sainsbury's Clusters Policy Steering Group.

  steel Production
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the production of engineering steel. [153657]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The UK companies that produce engineering steels have had to adapt to difficult trading conditions in recent years and have undertaken restructuring in order to remain competitive. This has been a painful process for those involved but it leaves them well placed to continue to supply the home market and maintain exports.

  Small Business
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost to small business of regulations introduced since May 1997. [153658]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since August 1998, all legislation likely to have an impact on business has been subject to a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). A series of Command Papers lists RIAs for each six month period, the most recent being No. 4918. RlAs are published and are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the progress being made on miners' compensation claims. [153659]

  Mr. Hain
  Substantial progress has been made but we still need to do more.

  In the last few weeks, we have agreed with miners' solicitors how compensation for loss of pension will be handled. This element of compensation amounts to around £400 million. This is the last piece in the jigsaw. This now means that, over the next few months, we will see many full and final offers of compensation made.

  And as I said in my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), in the last eight weeks alone we have announced a package of measures which will see £million's of additional compensation being brought forward and offered quickly to a whole raft of claimants.

  Many of these will not previously have been made an offer. We are also clearing a large backlog of medical reports, which will enable 1,000 claims a week to go forward to have compensation assessed over the next three months. I am also pleased to see the number of respiratory consultants employed on this scheme steadily increasing. We now have 228 in place an increase of almost 25 per cent. from a few months ago. The number of medical assessments carried out per week is now well over 600—an increase of 50 per cent.

  All of this is progress on top of the £360 million already paid on miners compensation . We are paying out over £1 million a day on coal compensation.

  Work-life Balance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about the work-life balance. [153660]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice" sought views on a number of practical options to help working parents. The Green Paper recognises that parents daily juggle work and family life and, recognises that businesses, particularly small employers, need to minimise extra costs.

  During the consultation period for the Green Paper, which ended on 7 March, Ministers and officials met almost 300 people and received over 450 written responses to options contained with it. The Government are now considering these responses.
  306W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the responses he has received to his Green Paper "Work and Parents". [153663]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The consultation period for the Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice" ended on 7 March. During the consultation period officials and Ministers met almost 300 employees, employers and other interested groups and representatives. Additionally more than 450 written responses were received.

  The Government announced how they intend to proceed on those issues covered in the Green Paper with financial implications for the state in the Budget on 7 March. These are an increase in the flat rate of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and Maternity Allowance; an extension to the period of flat rate maternity pay to 26 weeks; the right to two weeks paid paternity leave for all working fathers and paid adoption leave, paid for the same period and at the same flat rate as SMP. Additionally the Government have doubled the threshold for Small Employer Relief.

  All of the options announced in the Budget had strong support throughout the consultation from employees, employers and other interested groups. The responses received during the consultation period will help inform decisions on the remaining options just as they helped inform the initial decisions on maternity and paternity leave.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the Green Paper, "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice" on the people in the northern region. [153633]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Following the consultation on the Work and Parents Green Paper. the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget increases to maternity pay and leave and the introduction of paid paternity and adoption leave. Based on current figures, we estimate that around 160,000 working men and women in the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside will have the opportunity to benefit from these changes alone. Other options put forward in the Green Paper are still under consideration and decision on these will be announced in due course.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the law relating to intellectual property rights. [153661]

  Dr. Howells
  UK law relating to intellectual property rights is continually being updated in response to new developments at international, European and domestic levels. Where relevant European legislation provides specifically for a review, we intend to play a full part in that process.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to reduce the amount of regulation of small and medium-sized businesses. [153662]
  307W
  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes the issue of burdens on business very seriously and is working to ensure that red tape is kept to a minimum, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.

  The Department of Trade and Industry announced new proposals to strengthen and improve the employment tribunal system in November 2000. The new measures will help to ease the burden on business caused by weak and ill-founded claims. We are also considering the responses to a consultation on a proposal to exempt small and medium-sized businesses from the requirement to pay merger fees.

  The Small Business Service has been set up to work with small firms and Departments to ensure that regulations do not impose unnecessary burdens. The Government have revised guidance on Regulatory Impact Assessments, emphasising the need to think small first in drawing up regulations and to consult with the Small Business Service.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the costs of burying overhead power lines; and if he will make a statement. [153664]

  Mr. Hain
  Developing technology is unlikely to provide any immediate help in offsetting the cost penalty that goes with burying overhead power lines.

  Education (Business Co-operation)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he plans to encourage co-operation between universities, colleges and the business community. [153665]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have introduced a number of measures to encourage collaboration between higher education and business. We have established the £140 million Higher Education Innovation Fund to support higher education and business interaction—particularly with SMEs—and are supporting university innovation centres, which are regionally based partnerships between large businesses, groups of small businesses and academia. We are also running one further round of University Challenge and Science Enterprise Challenge to further assist the commercialisation of research and help bring business skills into the science curriculum, and will be supporting 20 Business Fellows to lead their academic colleagues in working with business. Collectively, this represents a significant public investment in knowledge transfer. We plan to maintain this investment through a permanent "third" stream of funding to reward and incentivise excellence in knowledge transfer alongside funding for research and teaching.

  We are also working towards the target of 1,000 TCS Programmes running at any one time, enabling firms of all sizes to develop their competitiveness by using a graduate to embed new ideas or technology, and we have doubled the number of new starts of Faraday Partnerships so that the national network of at least 24 Partnerships will be in place by 2002. We will also continue to support LINK programmes which encourage businesses to work with the research base in universities and elsewhere.
  308W
  Additionally, we have recently announced a further round of Foresight LINK Awards focused on key Foresight research priorities from Panel reports published last December.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce controls on the end-use of arms exported from the United Kingdom in the forthcoming draft legislation on arms export controls; and if he will make a statement. [153647]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government rigorously assess all export licence applications to determine the risk of any proposed export being misused in contravention of the consolidated EU and national export licensing criteria. Under these criteria we will not issue an export licence where there is a clearly identifiable risk that the equipment could be used for internal repression or external aggression. Applications are also refused if we assess that an unacceptable risk of diversion exists.

  We have taken a number of steps to strengthen the process of risk assessment at the export licensing stage. Such improvements have not required a change in the law and there no plans to include specific measures on end-use monitoring in the draft Export Control Bill.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set the Department' s executive agency, the Patent Office, for 2001–02. [155546]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have set the Patent Office the following targets for 2001–02:

  Patents

  1. To increase performance year on year so that 90 per cent. of search reports are issued within six months of request by 2005–06.

  2. To grant 90 per cent. of patents within three years of request.

  Designs

  3. To register 90 per cent. of designs within 9 months of application.

  Trade Marks

  4. To register 90 per cent. of processed trade mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed within nine months of application.

  5. To achieve by the end of the year a reduction of eight weeks in the average time taken to issue a decision in a trade mark dispute once the case is ready.

  Policy

  6. To publish details of progress towards key milestones in UK and International policy development in the Annual Report and on our website.

  Efficiency Targets

  7. To increase output in relation to current expenditure by an average of at least 2 per cent. per annum over the period 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  In addition to these key targets:

  Finance

  The Office will pay 100 per cent. of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.

  Questions delegated to the Chief Executive

  The Chief Executive will reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.
  309W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the second stage of the quinquennial review of the Patent Office will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [155542]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The second stage of the five-yearly review of the Patent Office has now been completed. The Patent Office has a key role to play as a driver in the knowledge economy.

  I am pleased to say that the review found the Patent Office has achieved a remarkable transformation over the last decade and is now extremely customer focused and responsive. The Office's patent granting and other registration functions are well regarded and compare favourably with those of other IPR Offices. Indeed on trade marks, the review found that the Office was thought to be one of the best in the world.

  The Patent Office's role has to be seen in an international context, which is evolving. Trade is becoming increasingly international and intellectual property protection has to reflect this . The Patent Office is in the forefront in initiating and promoting development of the international systems. The European Community and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) have both embarked on substantial programmes to achieve harmonisation and there is significant work in progress in the EU in areas such as the proposed Community Patent. The review concludes that the Offices should work to make the international routes for patent granting—which SMEs as well as larger companies need—cheaper, faster and more accessible and to reduce duplication of work. There is also a growing need to ensure that copyright can be protected and enforced on an international basis.

  The Patent Office has an important part to play in fostering innovation and encouraging technological transfer. The review finds that more could be done to help ensure that inventions achieve successful commercial exploitation. It suggests that the Patent Office should work with the Small Business Service to help small businesses in this respect, such as by helping to match inventors with business partners. This would complement the wider activities of my Department in support of innovation and the knowledge economy.

  IT has great strategic and financial importance for the Office. The Office has made good progress in introducing electronic services and a significant farther programme is in train.

  The Office needs objectives and targets appropriate to this agenda of internationalisation and effective help for small business, allowing delivery through e-communication channels wherever possible.

  The demand for patents is outstripping the ability of Patent Offices to deliver, both internationally and in the UK. Reducing duplication of work between offices is thus all the more important. The Patent Office has a wide programme to try to ensure that scarce examiner resource is used to best effect. The report makes recommendations about recruitment strategies for patent examiners, flexible working schemes, training and use of examiners as well as pay.
  310W
  Obtaining IP rights is only part of the story: small business made clear that effective enforcement of rights is crucial to their value and they found that effective enforcement could be both difficult and costly. The report recommends that the Patent Office should work with others to develop alternative dispute resolution procedures and to help facilitate the greater use of insurance in this field. It could also usefully extend its work to improve awareness of the range of intellectual property rights and how to enforce them. On trade marks and copyright significant action to assist enforcement is already in hand. The report recommends that the Office should consider further streamlining its procedure for handling trade mark oppositions.

  The report looks at the Office's use of contractors. It finds that in the case of the London Front Office, there have been gains in terms of cost and efficiency, but the option of bringing the function back in-house should be appraised before a decision is taken whether to continue with contracting out. In the case of accommodation services, the report finds that it is not clear-cut whether these should remain contracted out or be brought back in-house. The Office should undertake an internal benchmark costing, taking into account all the relevant factors, before deciding how to achieve best value.

  The report suggests new procedures for the handling of appeals for entry to the patent and trade mark agent profession and on cases of misconduct. It suggests that the Office should encourage multi-disciplinary partnerships, which can offer a "one-stop shop" on a range of issues.

  Overall, the review shows what a success story the UK Patent Office has become. The Office is found to set a high example in its responsiveness to customers and open communications with staff, its new IP Portal and its successful involvement in the "New Deal" initiative. Other agencies, and other parts of government, could particularly learn from its example in these respects.

  I would like to place on record my appreciation for the efforts the staff and management of the Patent Office have made to bring about these achievements.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes are planned to the service which the Radiocommunications Agency provides to investigate interference to domestic television and radio reception. [155544]

  Ms Hewitt
  Further to my reply of 9 November 2000,Official Report, columns 327 –28W, I have now reviewed the way that the Agency handles the investigation of domestic television and radio reception problems. With effect from 1 April the Agency will accept complaints about TV and radio reception (subject to certain basic conditions, such as the installation of a satisfactory aerial) and a charge will only be payable if, following an investigation by the Agency, the problem is found to be within the complainant's own installation. That charge will be £50 including VAT. This procedure will allow domestic consumers to report possible interference arising from new broadband telecommunications systems.

  Postal Services Commission
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will issue social and environmental guidance to the Postal Services Commission; and if he will make a statement. [155543]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have today, in accordance with section 43(2) of the Postal Services Act 2000, issued guidance to the Postal Services Commission about the making by the Commission of a contribution towards the attainment of the social and environmental policies referred to in the guidance. A draft of the guidance had been laid, in the terms in which it is now being issued, before each House of Parliament on 8 February 2001, in accordance with section 43(4) of the Act. Copies of the guidance have been laid in the Libraries of each House and the guidance is also being made available on the DTI's website www.dti.gov.uk.

  The process of giving statutory social and environmental guidance has been developed to provide a means of ensuring that regulators take due account of the Government's social and environmental policies in carrying out their statutory functions. Regulators have a statutory duty to have regard to the guidance.

  Debt Taskforce
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the personnel involved in the debt taskforce, its work programme and the preliminary conclusions it has reached. [154813]

  Dr. Howells
  The debt taskforce I set up to explore the cause and effect of overindebtedness and develop practical solutions for achieving more responsible lending and borrowing is made up of representatives from:

  British Bankers Association

  Consumer Credit Association

  Experian

  Finance and Leasing Association

  Financial Services Authority

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  Office of Fair Trading

  Personal Finance and Research Centre.

  I have asked the taskforce to look at three key issues:
  improving the transparency of information provided to consumers before and when concluding an agreement; including the small print
  adoption of core principles of lending practice; including examining an applicant's overall borrowing exposure and ability to repay
  requiring clear notification to consumers on free and low interest agreements before the final payment is made.

  The taskforce will present its report and recommendations to me in April.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales, are not receiving direct postal deliveries because of precautionary and mandatory access restrictions connected with the foot and
  312W
  mouth disease outbreak; and what arrangements can be made for the delivery and collection of postal votes in such circumstances. [154829]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been advised by the Post Office that all households in the affected areas have access to its postal services. Arrangements have been made at a local level for the collection and distribution of mail in areas affected by foot and mouth disease or where farmers or landowners have requested that postal staff do not go on their land. These arrangements include:

  Handover of mail at the farmer or land owners gate;

  Collection by the addressee from the delivery office

  Delivery to an alternative address.

  A central record of these local arrangements is not available.

  Arrangements for the delivery and collection of postal votes would be the same as for ordinary mail.

  Textile and Clothing Strategy
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the British fashion industry on its role in the national textile and clothing strategy. [153649]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Textile and Clothing National Strategy Group, on which the British Fashion Council is represented, made a number of recommendations that relate directly to the role of designers. These are under consideration by the Department and others interested in promoting the sector. As the Minister directly responsible for the sector, I have met representatives of the British Fashion Council on two occasions since November last year to discuss possible further support to designers within the wider context of the strategy.

  Conoco Power Station (South Killingholme)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Conoco Global Power Developments UK Ltd.'s proposal to build a combined heat and gas power station at the Conoco Humber refinery at South Killingholme. [155541]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today granted consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Conoco Global Power Developments UK Ltd. for the construction of a 700 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Conoco Humber Refinery at South Killingholme in North Lincolnshire. The station has also today been given clearance as a gas-fired station under section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 and planning permission for the station has been deemed to be granted subject to 47 planning conditions agreed with the North Lincolnshire borough council. This consent is an extension to the proposal which was granted consent on 13 November 2000.

  The station will supply the energy requirements of the Conoco Humber Refinery and the Lindsay Oil Refinery and is the largest combined heat and power station given approval by the Government. This demonstrates our continued support to promote CHP stations, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of carbon to fulfil the promises we gave at Kyoto.
  313W
  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Trade Tariffs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with(a) the European Commissioner for Development and (b) his European counterparts on (i) the recent amendments to proposals for the everything But arms initiative and (ii) the implications of these proposals for United Kingdom sugar producers; and if he will make a statement. [153556]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government welcome the European Union's recent agreement to the everything But arms proposal which has now led to the EU's removal of tariffs from all remaining imports from the 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in the world, subject to transitional arrangements for bananas, rice and sugar only. This resulted from ongoing discussions held by the Government with other EU member states and the European Commission, an important part of which was consideration of the implications of these proposals both for ACP sugar exporters and UK sugar producers.

  It is the Government's view that LDCs, because of their low level of economic development and poor infrastructure, are not in a position to export large amounts of sugar in the short term. This, coupled with the arrangements for tariff quotas for sugar through until 1 July 2009, means that the short term implications for UK sugar producers are negligible.

  Companies House
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set the Department's executive agency, Companies House, for 2001–02. [155545]

  Dr. Howells
  I have set Companies House the following targets for the 2001–02 year.

  Operational Targets
  To process 99 per cent. of statutory documents within five days of receipt at Companies House To achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95 per cent To ensure that there is a minimum of 98 per cent. error-free work in current processing To ensure that 96 per cent. of all forms submitted to Companies House are captured error-free
  Question delegated to the Chief Executive
  The Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply
  Customer Service and Complaints Handling
  To ensure that products and services on Companies House Direct are available for 98 per cent. of the time between the supported hours of 7am and 8pm, Monday to Friday.314W To achieve a score of more than 75 per cent. in each quarterly Companies House Customer Satisfaction Survey To clear up 90 per cent. of complaints within five days.
  Financial Targets
  To maintain a unit cost reduction of 3 per cent. in real terms on document registration To achieve, taking one year with another, a 6 per cent. average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets To pay all bills due within 30 days, or other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is later.

  Cars (Prices)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to reduce further the price of cars. [153627]

  Mr. Byers
  Due to action taken by the Government following the Competition Commission report prices have fallen by around 10 per cent. in the past year.

  We shall continue to take steps to ensure the public get value for money.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Office Costs Allowances
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Council what has been the percentage increase in hon. Members' Office Cost Allowance since 1997. [154426]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The OCA increases annually by the RPI percentage rate as at 31 March. Percentage increases in Office Costs Allowance (OCA) since 1997 are:

  Percentage increase

  Allowance (£)

  April 1997

  2.6

  47,568

  April 1998

  3.5

  49,232

  April 1999

  2.1

  50.264

  April 2000

  2.6

  51,572

  Leader of the Opposition's Office
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Council what the percentage change has been in the money supplied to the Leader of the Opposition's office in each year since 1997. [154400]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Leader of the Opposition's Office allowance started only in 1999, initially at a level of £500,000 per annum; this increases annually by the RPI percentage rate as at 31 March.

  The April 2000 increase was 2.6 per cent., which increased the payment to £513,000.

  Government Bills
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Council how many(a) clauses there were in Government Bills as introduced and (b) Government amendments were tabled, in Sessions (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1999–2000; and if she will give a ratio between both figures for both sessions. [154286]
  315W
  Mrs. Beckett
  (a) Information1 on the number of clauses and schedules is as follows:

  Year

  Clauses and Schedules on Introduction

  Pages on Introduction

  Pages on Royal Assent

  1996–972

  896

  1,044

  1,143

  1999–20003

  2.637

  2,796

  3,600

  1The figures exclude Scottish, Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills.

  2House of Commons sat for 86 days and the House of Lords for 79 days.

  3House of Commons sat for 170 days and the House of Lords for 177 days.

  (b) Information on Government amendments could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the Appointments Commission will publish the employment status and occupation of applicants for a people's peerage. [1542021

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the Appointments Commission has not asked applicants for non-political peerages for information about their occupation or employment status as it did not wish to discourage people with outstanding achievements in areas unconnected with how they might earn their living. However, the Commission wishes to encourage nominations from people in all walks of life and from all parts of the country and will look at the information it has received in this light. I understand that any information that the Commission decides to publish will be in its annual report and on its website.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the Appointments Commission will publish its annual report. [154203]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the Appointments Commission plans to publish its annual report in the summer.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on prospects for the Turkish economy. [1544511

  Mr. Vaz
  The new economic reform programme agreed with the IMF, which is based on fighting inflation, achieving sustainable public finances and enhancing structural reform, will, if vigorously implemented, put Turkey firmly back on the road to realising its full economic potential.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the explanatory statements relating to(a) Islamabad reference C4694 and (b) Dhaka reference 64550 will be dispatched. [154491]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]In respect of Islamabad reference C4694, the entry clearance officer wrote to the sponsor's solicitor on 5 March 2001 deferring the application for three months to allow the sponsor to commence UK divorce proceedings to dissolve his first marriage. If evidence of the commencement of such proceedings is provided, the entry clearance officer will review the refusal, with a view to the possible authorisation of a fiancée entry clearance. If such evidence is not received, the entry clearance officer will draft the explanatory statement and the case will proceed to appeal.

  In respect of Dhaka reference 64550, the entry clearance officer received the notice of appeal on 12 February 2001 and will despatch the explanatory statement within three months of that date.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in maintaining the achievement of clearing the backlog of outstanding correspondence on visa matters. [155445]

  Mr. Vaz
  As Minister responsible for entry clearance matters, I have been asked to reply on my right hon. Friend's behalf. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that sine my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) on 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 508W, the level of outstanding correspondence on visa matters remains at zero.

  Visas
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many contacts the Minister for Europe and his office have had with the entry clearance unit regarding objections to refusals of visa applications in(a) New Delhi, (b) Calcutta, (c) Bombay, (d) Nairobi, (e) Auckland and (f) Sydney in the last 18 months; [154918]

  (2) how many objections to and refusals of visa applications were overruled by Ministers in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001, broken down by applicants' country of origin; [154917]

  (3) on what grounds the Minister for Europe overruled objections to and refusals of visa applications in the last 18 months; if he will list the names of the applicants; and if he will make a statement. [154916]

  Mr. Vaz
  Figures on ministerial overturns on visa cases were not kept centrally until I became Minister responsible for entry clearance in October 1999. Statistics were then kept at my request. I have overturned 49 decisions to date. In this period there have been over 2 million visa applications of which approximately 140,000 have been refused. I have therefore overturned decisions in 0.0025 per cent. of cases. I have done so on the basis that I am satisfied that the applicants qualified for entry clearance under the immigration rules. It would be inappropriate for me to divulge the names of applicants or details on individual cases on confidentiality grounds.
  317W
  This is in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can say however that the cases in which I intervened covered a wide range of nationalities. As well as cases from the sub-continent, I have overturned decisions made in a range of countries, from south America, to south-east Asia to north Africa.

  Diplomatic Posts
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those diplomatic posts that have been opened over the last four years; and what plans he has to open new diplomatic posts overseas. [155446]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Since 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has opened the following posts to support the delivery of the foreign policy objectives I set out on coming to office.

  Posts with resident UK-based staff

  Banja Luka (Bosnia-Herzegovina) (1997)—British Embassy Office

  Chongqing (China) (2000)—Consulate General

  Denver (USA) (2000)—Consulate

  Dili (East Timor) (2000)—British Office

  Gothenburg (Sweden) (2000)—Consulate General

  Pristina (Kosovo FRY) (2000)—British Office.

  In addition, the British trade office in Hong Kong became a Consulate-General in 1997

  Posts with resident locally engaged staff only

  Lomé (Togo) (1998)—Consulate

  Calgary (Canada) (1999)—British Trade Office

  Fukuoka (Japan) (1999)—Consulate

  Ahmedabad (India) (2000)—British Trade Office

  Bamako (Mali) (2000)—Consulate

  Bhopal (India) (2000)—British Trade Office

  Conakry (Guinea) (2000)—Consulate

  Goa (India) (2000)—British Trade Office

  Hyderabad (India) (2000)—British Trade Office

  Port-Au-Prince (Haiti) (2000)—Consular Office

  Pune (India) (2000)—British Trade Office.

  In addition, the following posts have been upgraded from ones with only locally engaged staff to ones with resident UK-based staff:

  Bangalore (India) (1999)—British Trade Office

  Nagoya (Japan) (1999)—Consulate

  Monterrey (Mexico) (2000)—Consulate.

  As a direct result of the additional resources secured in the spending review last year, I am able to announce that we shall open three new embassies with resident UK-based staff in capital cities in the near future:

  Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan)

  Chisinau (Moldova)

  Pyongyang (Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

  In addition, we shall upgrade the posts in Bamako (Mali) and Asmara (Eritrea) to UK-staffed posts from the LE posts currently open; and upgrade the post in Lahore (Pakistan) to an entry clearance operation, from a British trade office. Pakistan is a country where we are already well represented, but Lahore is a city where we now need a stronger presence.
  318W
  Upgrading the post in Bamako will allow HMG to engage further with the Malian Government and to continue with our efforts to secure peace and stability within west Africa.

  Upgrading the post in Asmara will be a cost-effective means of engaging more effectively with the Eritrean Government, promoting growing trade opportunities for British business and providing consular and visa services.

  Opening in Bishkek will allow HMG to build up a strong bilateral relationship with the Kyrgyz Government and better to promote stability in the strategically important region.

  In Chisinau, an Embassy will allow HMG to work with the Moldovan Government, and keep a close watch on the Transdniestria conflict.

  In December I announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the DPRK. Opening an embassy in Pyongyang will allow HMG to engage fully with the DPRK, improving our capacity to analyse political, economic and social developments and to help support recent positive developments in inter-Korean relations.

  These new post openings mean that, net of closures, we shall since 1997 have expanded our diplomatic network of posts with resident UK-based staff by 12, in addition to having new locally staffed offices in a further 10 cities (net of closures seven). This strengthening of our global network will enable us better to promote UK interests and a strong world community.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it took from arrest to sentencing to process persistent young offenders in Shropshire(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [154663]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have information on performance for West Mercia. In 1997 it took an average 155 days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in the police force area of West Mercia compared with a national average of 141 days. The latest available West Mercia average is an estimated 114 days for July to September 2000 compared with a national average of 95 days.

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154535]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of
  319W
  responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

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

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary were awarded £950,000 under round two of the Targeted Policing Initiative for a force-wide project to tackle violent crime linked to alcohol abuse (Operation Amethyst). The project will provide immediate support to victims of domestic violence at hospital Accident and Emergency Departments. It will tackle on and off-licensed premises selling alcohol to those under the legal age limit. A media campaign will be launched to publicise the negative effects of alcohol. Youth workers will be provided to work with those people misusing alcohol. Other aims of the project include: creating an Alcohol Assessment Stabilisation Programme in conjunction with an arrest referral scheme; management of the licensing environment; creation of a Safety Advisory Group to provide guidance and advice, and provide education about alcohol.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Restormel Borough Council was awarded £70,000 for a mobile system, which will complement the existing town centre schemes in St. Austell and Newquay and private sector facilities allowing crime and anti-social issues to be targeted in an area that is predominantly rural with scattered centres of population. The project aims to significantly reduce vehicle crime, violent crime and youth offending.

  Carrick District Council was awarded approximately £644,000 to extend the existing CCTV provision in Falmouth and Truro by providing 25 new cameras and a new monitoring station. The scheme will link the hospital and college sites in Truro. The project aims to reduce overall crime in Truro City Centre and Falmouth Town Centre by 40 per cent. over three years.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  Truro and St. Austell are covered by the Cornwall YOT. The YOT directly provides assessment and intervention work in support of: final warnings; bail support and supervision services; supervision of youth court orders and throughcare and post release supervision for young people sentenced to custody. The YOT also provides responsible officers for child safety and parenting orders. The YOT also manages the delivery of services supplied by other agencies including: drugs misuse assessment and intervention accessed through the RAPIDLY project, which is funded with the assistance of the Youth Justice Board and the Health Action Zone; and
  320W
  the Hot Spot project dealing with young fire setters, which operates as a collaborative venture involving the Fire Service, Dreadnought and Social Services.

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

  Violent Offences (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported offences involving violence there were in Wales in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001; and how many of those involved (i) village shops and (ii) village post offices. [154802]

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

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

  Year ending

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  March 1998

  17,589

  1,815

  786

  March 1999

  32,099

  1,818

  853

  March 2000

  37,922

  1,749

  909

  September 2000

  38,185

  1,613

  885

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been(a) applied for and (b) issued in Wales since their introduction; and if he will make a statement. [154805]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The local child curfew scheme was introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and has been available since September of that year. The scheme allows a local authority, after consultation with the police and other appropriate local bodies and following confirmation from the Secretary of State, to set up a scheme under which unaccompanied children up to the age of nine can be banned from a particular area for a specified period at night.
  321W
  No local authority has applied to the Secretary of State to set up a local child curfew scheme

  Following consultation on why this provision has not been used we are now raising the age of children who can be covered by the scheme to 15, and allowing the police to initiate applications. These changes are being introduced in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We believe these amendments will encourage the consideration of child curfews as part of local crime and disorder reduction strategies.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) child curfew orders and (b) antisocial behaviour orders have been (i) applied for and (ii) issued in Lancashire since their implementation; and if he will make a statement. [154801]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The local child curfew scheme for children of nine and under was introduced by section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and has been in force since September of that year. The scheme allows a local authority, after consultation with the police and other appropriate local bodies and following confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to set up a scheme which bans children up to the age of nine from being out late at night (for a specified period between 9 pm and 6 am) otherwise than under the control of a responsible adult.

  No local authority has applied to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to set up a local child curfew scheme. We have consulted widely on why this provision has not been used and many useful suggestions are being taken forward. In particular consultations indicated that the age range was too narrow given that children out on the streets late at night are often aged 10 or over.

  We are seeking to remedy this by raising the age at which children can be covered to 15. This change is being introduced in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We are also giving the police the power to initiate and set up a scheme following consultation with the local authority and after confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We believe these changes will make the scheme more likely to be used, and play a useful part in local crime and disorder reduction strategies.

  The antisocial behaviour order was a new civil order created under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which has been in force since April 1999. This community based order can be applied for by the police, a local authority or in consultation with each other, against one or several individuals (perhaps a family) whose behaviour is anti-social (ie it causes alarm, distress or harassment to one or more people not in the same household as him/herself).

  We understand that at least five antisocial behaviour orders were issued in Lancashire between 1 April 1999 and 31 May 2000. Figures, by local authority area, for the numbers of orders applied for during that period are not held centrally. However from 1 June 2000 the number of such orders applied for and issued is being collected centrally. Provisional data up to 30 September 2000 show two antisocial behaviour orders being applied for in Lancashire, both of which were granted.

  Lancet Inquiry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total costs of the Lancet and associated inquiries to date, indicating the costs of the witness statements submitted to the CPS, broken down into(a) stationery, (b) postage, (c) clerical, (d) officers and (e) heating and lighting; and if he will make a statement. [154924]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Cleveland police that the total police costs of the Lancet and associated inquiries to date is £3,252,000. The total cost is inclusive of salaries, overtime and travel and subsistence costs incurred by officers from Cleveland, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire, together with expenditure incurred for rental of premises and office expenses. A total of 3,162 witness statements and interviews have been taken since the inquiry began in November 1997. The Chief Constable informs me that the total costs could be broken down into the categories requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the costs to public funds of the suspension of officers during Operation Lancet; and if he will make a statement. [154925]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Cleveland police that the estimated costs of salaries and related costs up to 31 March 2001 in respect of the eight suspended officers is £870,600.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total costs of the involvement of Warwickshire police in the Lancet Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [154927]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Cleveland police that the total costs incurred to date by officers from Warwickshire Constabulary is £76,300.

  Operation Dollar/Operation Eagle
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the costs to date of the(a) Operation Dollar and (b) Operation Eagle inquiries broken down by (i) wage, (ii) overtime, (iii) expenses, (iv) office accommodation and (v) stationery; and if he will make a statement. [154926]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Cleveland police that the total costs of Operation Dollar amount to £326,400 broken down as follows:(a) wages, overtime and costs: £312,500; (b) transport: £8,800; (c) subsistence: £3,700; and, (d) office expenses: £1,400. Operation Eagle was an internal administrative arrangement by Cleveland police to handle disciplinary issues arising from Operation Lancet and the costs cannot be separately identified.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the size of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement. [155576]
  323W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This has been under consideration for some time as a means of ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which provides for the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. I am pleased to announce that the existing complement of 21 inspectors will be increased to 33 over the next three financial years.

  The extra 12 inspectors will result in a substantial and unprecedented level of Inspectorate staffing. This will lead to more inspections to ensure compliance with licence conditions, and will enable applications for authorities under the 1986 Act to be dealt with more efficiently, without compromising the quality of advice offered by the Inspectorate. Furthermore, the Home Office will be able to become more proactive in raising standards of animal care and welfare, and to play a greater role in developing and promoting strategies of "replacement, reduction and refinement".

  The cost of the additional inspectors will in due course have to be reflected in licence fees paid by those conducting animal research.

  I hope that the scientific community and animal welfare organisations—and the general public—will welcome this important announcement. It is a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to ensure that, for as long as there is a need to use animals in scientific research, the legislation to protect them is applied to maximum effect.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and civilian staff

  Police strength

  FTE

  Strength

  Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 January 2001

  Change March 1997 to January 2001

  Change September 2000 to January 2001

  North East

  6,597

  6,749

  6,820

  6,890

  294

  70

  Cleveland

  1,459

  1,404

  1,421

  1,426

  -33

  5

  Durham

  1,461

  1,558

  1,581

  1,596

  136

  15

  Northumbria1

  3,677

  3,788

  3,818

  3,868

  191

  50

  North West

  17,588

  17,153

  17,110

  17,259

  -330

  149

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,011

  2,000

  2,021

  -24

  21

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,084

  1,048

  1,049

  -94

  2

  Greater Manchester

  6,922

  6,795

  6,767

  6,867

  -54

  100

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,179

  3,215

  3,245

  -3

  30

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,085

  4,081

  4,076

  -154

  -5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11,750

  11,200

  11,189

  11,196

  -554

  7

  Humberside

  2,045

  1,932

  1,905

  1,902

  -143

  -3

  North Yorkshire

  1,338

  1,283

  1,293

  1,299

  -38

  6

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,163

  3,184

  3,190

  32

  6

  West Yorkshire

  5,209

  4,822

  4.806

  4,804

  -405

  -2

  East Midlands

  8,436

  8,206

  8,350

  8,447

  11

  97

  Derbyshire

  1,791

  1,777

  1,780

  1,816

  26

  36

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  1,993

  2,010

  2,021

  73

  11

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,115

  1,162

  1,190

  -6

  28

  Northamptonshire

  1,177

  1,117

  1,166

  1,161

  -16

  -5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,204

  2,232

  2,258

  -65

  26

  324W
  there are (a) in total and (b) for each police force in England and Wales for the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [154903]

  Mr. Straw
  The tables show, for March 1997, March 2000, September 2000 and January 2001, total numbers of police officers and civilians for each police authority in England and Wales, together with changes in numbers since March 1997 and September 2000.

  The total number of police officers for September 2000 has been amended from 124,614 to 124,547 as a result of a revision made by the Northumbria police in respect of the figures which they provided for the September returns.

  On 31 January 2001 total police numbers, including secondments, in England and Wales were 125,537, an increase of 990 over the revised position at 30 September 2000.

  Between 30 September 2000 and 31 January 2001, the number of civilian support staff increased by 565 to 54,598, including secondments. This is the highest number ever recorded. In total, there were 180,135 police officers and civilian staff on 31 January 2001, as compared with 180.169 in March 1997.

  The substantial investment provided to the police service through the Crime Fighting Fund, announced in September 1999, and which started operation in April 2000, is now delivering the positive results promised. Police numbers rose by 377 between 1 April and 30 September 2000 and by a further 990 between 1 October 2000 and 31 January 2001, a total increase in 10 months of 1,367. This rise in 10 months is the largest single increase in police numbers during one whole financial year since 1988–89.

  On the basis of forces' projections, we expect that police numbers should reach 126,000 by March 2001, 128,000 by March 2002 and record numbers by March 2003.
  325W

  Police strength

  FTE

  Strengh

  Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 January 2001

  Change March 1997 to January 2001

  Change September 2000 to January 2001

  West Midlands

  12,290

  12,151

  12,324

  12,416

  126

  92

  Staffordshire

  2,211

  2,170

  2,157

  2,138

  -73

  -19

  Warwickshire

  926

  900

  912

  942

  16

  30

  West Mercia

  2,040

  1,887

  1,906

  1,899

  -141

  -7

  West Midlands

  7,113

  7,194

  7,350

  7,438

  325

  88

  Eastern

  9,727

  9,364

  9,515

  9,683

  -43

  168

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,028

  1,006

  1,031

  -63

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  1,302

  1,237

  1,266

  1,309

  7

  43

  Essex2

  2,961

  2,806

  2,780

  2,859

  -102

  79

  Hertfordshire2

  1,759

  1,767

  1,961

  1,954

  195

  -7

  Norfolk

  1,432

  1,381

  1,387

  1,397

  -34

  11

  Suffolk

  1.180

  1,145

  1,115

  1,133

  -46

  18

  London

  27,536

  26,216

  25,415

  25,571

  -1,965

  156

  City of London

  859

  732

  720

  711

  -148

  -10

  Metropolitan Police2

  26,677

  25,485

  24,695

  24,861

  -1,817

  166

  South East

  15,111

  14,971

  15,347

  15,421

  310

  75

  Hampshire

  3,452

  3,419

  3,435

  3,451

  0

  16

  Kent

  3,260

  3,204

  3,239

  3,308

  48

  69

  Surrey2

  1,620

  1,785

  2,113

  2,088

  468

  -25

  Sussex

  3,085

  2,822

  2,812

  2,851

  -233

  40

  Thames Valley

  3,695

  3,740

  3,748

  3,723

  28

  -25

  South West

  9,424

  9,313

  9,354

  9,509

  85

  154

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  2,934

  2,941

  2,968

  -21

  27

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,865

  2,841

  2,873

  2,927

  62

  54

  Dorset

  1,284

  1,306

  1,299

  1,339

  55

  40

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  1,114

  1,142

  1,160

  28

  18

  Wiltshire

  1,154

  1,118

  1,099

  1,114

  -40

  15

  Wales

  6,592

  6,632

  6,738

  6,863

  271

  125

  Dyfed Powys

  1,005

  1,040

  1,045

  1,063

  58

  18

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,264

  1,271

  1,265

  22

  -6

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,403

  1,393

  1,432

  63

  39

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,926

  3,029

  3,103

  127

  74

  England and Wales3

  125,051

  121,956

  122,163

  123,256

  -1,795

  1,093

  Total secondments

  2,107

  2,214

  2,384

  2,281

  174

  -103

  Total4

  127,158

  124,170

  124,547

  125,537

  -1,621

  990

  1Northumbria police revised their total police strength figure for September 2000 by a reduction of 67 officers. This figure in this table has been corrected.

  2As of April 2000, the Metropolitan police force was reduced in size by a transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. These changes need to be borne in mind when comparing figures for these forces before and after April 2000.

  3Excluding secondments

  4Including secondments

  Note

  Because of rounding, constituent parts may not necessarily sum to the totals

  Civilian Staff1

  FTE

  Strengh

  Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 January 2001

  Change March 1997 to January 2001

  Change September 2000 to January 2001

  North East

  2,557

  2,603

  2,583

  2,606

  49

  22

  Cleveland

  609

  595

  598

  597

  -12

  -1

  Durham

  583

  590

  573

  596

  13

  23

  Northumbria

  1,365

  1,417

  1,413

  1,412

  47

  0

  326W 327W

  Civilian Staff1

  FTE

  Strengh

  Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 January 2001

  Change March 1997 to January 2001

  Change September 2000 to January 2001

  North West

  6,267

  6,994

  7,007

  7,147

  880

  140

  Cheshire

  735

  823

  870

  860

  125

  -10

  Cumbria

  451

  469

  505

  577

  126

  73

  Greater Manchester

  2,612

  2,822

  2,845

  2,936

  324

  91

  Lancashire

  1,126

  1,422

  1,351

  1,343

  217

  -8

  Merseyside

  1,343

  1,458

  1,437

  1,430

  87

  -6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4,762

  4,922

  4,923

  4,897

  135

  -26

  Humberside

  718

  840

  783

  789

  71

  7

  North Yorkshire

  519

  492

  533

  602

  83

  69

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  1,391

  1,399

  1,307

  16

  -93

  West Yorkshire

  2,234

  2,199

  2,208

  2,199

  -35

  -9

  East Midlands

  3,555

  3,769

  4,039

  3,964

  408

  -75

  Derbyshire

  723

  826

  865

  867

  144

  2

  Leicestershire

  755

  805

  808

  807

  52

  -1

  Lincolnshire

  521

  516

  554

  552

  31

  -2

  Northamptonshire

  554

  599

  825

  691

  137

  -135

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  1,024

  987

  1,048

  45

  60

  West Midlands

  4,819

  4,991

  5,132

  5,302

  482

  169

  Staffordshire

  763

  858

  897

  942

  179

  45

  Warwickshire

  376

  394

  388

  411

  35

  23

  West Mercia

  942

  1,043

  1,026

  1,096

  154

  70

  West Midlands

  2,739

  2,695

  2,821

  2,853

  114

  31

  Eastern

  4,234

  4,485

  4,699

  4,802

  569

  103

  Bedfordshire

  484

  490

  493

  487

  3

  -6

  Cambridgeshire

  607

  503

  543

  605

  -2

  63

  Essex2

  1,199

  1,348

  1,472

  1,452

  253

  -19

  Hertfordshire2

  818

  890

  948

  952

  134

  4

  Norfolk

  603

  655

  651

  684

  81

  33

  Suffolk

  522

  600

  592

  621

  99

  29

  London

  13,840

  10,890

  13,382

  10,341

  -3499

  -41

  City of London

  347

  285

  235

  230

  -177

  -5

  Metropolitan Police2

  13,493

  10,605

  10,147

  10,111

  -3,382

  -36

  South East

  6,399

  6,966

  7,292

  7,357

  956

  64

  Hampshire

  1,316

  1,443

  1,462

  1,404

  88

  -58

  Kent

  1,384

  1,647

  1,670

  1,756

  372

  86

  Surrey2

  727

  762

  865

  893

  166

  28

  Sussex

  1,149

  1,328

  1,405

  1,448

  299

  43

  Thames Valley

  1,825

  1,786

  1,890

  1,855

  30

  -35

  South West

  4,122

  4,512

  4,581

  4,690

  568

  108

  Avon and Somerset

  1,438

  1,436

  1,437

  1,459

  21

  22

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,159

  1,343

  1,391

  1,428

  269

  37

  Dorset

  615

  686

  681

  685

  70

  4

  Gloucestershire

  435

  484

  498

  499

  64

  1

  Wiltshire

  475

  563

  574

  619

  144

  45

  Wales

  2,455

  2,457

  2,686

  2,704

  248

  18

  Dyfed Powys

  322

  359

  393

  392

  70

  -1

  Gwent

  452

  498

  490

  523

  71

  34

  North Wales

  476

  519

  511

  506

  30

  -5

  South Wales

  1,206

  1,081

  1,293

  1,283

  77

  -10

  England and Wales3,5

  53,011

  52,588

  53,524

  53,808

  797

  483

  Total secondments

  n/a

  639

  708

  790

  n/a

  82

  Total4,5

  53,011

  53,227

  54,032

  54,598

  1,587

  565

  1Excluding traffic wardens

  2As of April 2000, the Metropolitan police force was reduced in size by a transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. These changes need to be borne in mind when comparing figures for these forces before and after April 2000.

  3Excluding secondments

  4>Including secondments

  5In the March 1997 figures, civilian secondments are counted within the figures for the forces from which they were seconded. The increase of 1,587 civilians between March 1997 and January 2001 takes this into account.

  Note:

  Because of rounding, constituent parts may not necessarily sum to the totals
  328W

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meat inspectors were in place at points of entry for imported meat products in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [152380]

  Ms Quin
  This information is not held centrally. All meat imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIP) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. The inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the local authority. Central Government have no powers to instruct the local authority over the number of inspectors. However, the BIP has to be approved by the Commission, whose inspectors conduct periodic inspections and who have to be satisfied that the inspection services are adequate. If they are not, the approval of the BIP may be suspended.

  Meat produced within the EU may circulate freely in the single market, and is not subject to border checks. It is subject to checks at the point of destination within the UK. The Meat Hygiene Service has been instructed to step up levels of inspection at cutting plants and cold stores, to ensure that any increased volumes of imports (which could arise from the effects of the foot and mouth crisis) can be checked for the necessary health marks and correct documentation.

  Arable Farming
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the(a) average income and (b) public subsidy was for arable farmers in England for the last year for which figures are available. [152851]

  Ms Quin
  The latest year for which figures are available is the year ended February 2000. The average net farm income for cereal farms in England for that year was £11,700 and the average total direct subsidy payment was £37,000. The average net farm income for general cropping farms was £8,000 and the average total direct subsidy payment was £31,500. The total direct subsidy excludes the additional support farmers receive from the consumer, through maintenance of EU agricultural prices above world levels by the CAP.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 501W, on hill farmers, what elements combine to give a subsidy of £24,400 per farm. [153536]

  Ms Quin
  I am sorry that there was an error in my answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 501W, giving the total of £24,400 as the subsidy. The correct average total subsidy paid to full-time LFA cattle and sheep farms in England in 1999–2000 was
  330W
  £29,400. This is made up of £25,400 per farm in livestock subsidies, £3,500 per farm in environmental subsidies and £500 per farm in crop and other subsidies. The rest of the answer remains correct.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2001,Official Report, column 501W, on hill farmers, what the subsidy is for a typical hill farm in England arising from the EU. [153537]

  Ms Quin
  Less than half per cent. of direct subsidies paid to full-time LFA cattle and sheep farms in England in 1999–2000 did not arise from EU legislation. Although some subsidies such as BSE payments and hill farm compensatory allowances are part funded nationally, they are still part of the CAP.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Truro and St. Austell)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Truro and St. Austell constituency, the effects on Truro and St. Austell of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154538]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Truro and St. Austell constituency falls within the geographical area covered by the Devon and Cornwall Area of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In November 1999, in line with national policy, this area of the CPS, in liaison with the police and the East and West Cornwall Magistrates courts which cover that constituency, introduced procedures based on the Narey proposals. This means that all adult defendants charged with a criminal offence in Cornwall should make their first appearance before either Truro or Bodmin Magistrates court within eight days. This is in line with the Government's policy of speeding up and modernising the criminal justice system.

  On 18 December 2000, the Cornwall office of CPS Devon and Cornwall finalised its structure in line with proposals in the Glidewell Review. This represents a policy of more effective working between the police and prosecutors. A CPS Crown Court Unit based in Truro deals with serious crime at Truro Crown court. The CPS has set as a goal the better handling of serious cases in the interests of justice and the victims. A fast-track procedure began on 15 January 2001 throughout England and Wales. It ensures that offences which can only be tried in the Crown court normally come before a judge within eight clear days of their first hearing in the Magistrates court.

  The CPS together with other agencies has been working to speed up youth justice, particularly persistent youth offenders. The time taken for persistent youth cases has fallen in the CPS Devon and Cornwall area from 141 days in 1997 to 65 days in the third quarter of 2000. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the criminal justice system.

  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office effect the hon. Member's constituency only indirectly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people (i) in England and (ii) from north Somerset(a) entered and (b) completed higher education courses in each of the past five years. [149901]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information is shown in the table. Prior to the reorganisation of local government, north Somerset was included within Avon local education authority and therefore cannot be identified separately prior to 1997–98.

  Entrants and completers from higher education courses1 in HE institutions

  Thousand

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Entrants

  Postgraduates:

  England2

  104.6

  105.8

  106.0

  109.7

  110.7

  North Somerset3

  n/a

  n/a

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Undergraduates:

  England2

  374.2

  366.2

  378.0

  376.0

  389.6

  North Somerset3

  n/a

  n/a

  1.5

  1.3

  1.1

  Qualifiers

  Postgraduates:

  England2

  50.2

  52.8

  55.4

  57.6

  59.1

  North Somerset3

  n/a

  n/a

  0.2

  0.3

  0.1

  Undergraduates:

  England2

  222.6

  225.5

  225.0

  231.9

  233.8

  North Somerset3

  n/a

  n/a

  0.7

  0.8

  0.8

  1Full-time and part-time courses excluding the Open University.

  2Students studying in institutions in England.

  3Students whose normal home residence is in north Somerset.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152644]

  Mr. Wills
  Development of departmental logos and branding often takes place as part of the development of advertising and publicity campaigns and costs are not easily separated out. However, where logo or brand development can be isolated, expenditure since May 1997 was:

  1997–98

  European Social Fund Standards and Effectiveness Unit, New Deal, Rebranding the Employment Service and Jobcentres —£829,000

  1998–99

  Beacon Schools, Beacon Colleges, Childcare Link, General Teaching Council, National Childcare—£39,900

  1999–2000

  Education Action Zones, Excellence in Cities, Sure Start, Training Schools, Work-Life Balance, Age Diversity, Community Champions, Individual Learning Accounts, Millennium Volunteers, One—£381,200

  2000–01

  Children's Fund. Read, Write, Plus (Adult Basic Skills provision), Science Year. The Children and Young People's Unit, National
  332W
  Professional Qualification for Headteachers, Connexions, Employment Zones, Foundation Degrees, Overseas Labour Service, WorkTrain —£189,800.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to enable young people above the age of 16 years to benefit from modern apprenticeships. [154402]

  Mr. Wicks
  Modern Apprenticeships (MAs) are an important part of the new vocational framework for young people in England. Many more young people will benefit from MAs as a result of an entitlement we are introducing to a place for those who have the necessary aptitude, ability and enthusiasm for work-based training. As an aid to this, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced plans for an expansion of MA places in England, from 220,000 this year, to 320,000 by March 2004. In addition, both my Department and the Learning and Skills Council will continue to promote MAs, to ensure that Careers Companies and the new Connexions Service are able to provide accurate and up-to-date information about the opportunities MAs offer.

  Physical Education
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many physical education teacher vacancies there were in secondary schools, broken down by region, in each year since 1995. [154480]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is as follows:

  January:

  Government Office region

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  North East

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  North West

  0

  0

  1

  5

  3

  3

  Yorkshire and Humber

  0

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1

  East Midlands

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  2

  3

  3

  4

  6

  5

  South West

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  East

  4

  4

  3

  5

  2

  7

  London

  6

  7

  10

  13

  2

  7

  South East

  4

  10

  6

  4

  8

  3

  Total

  19

  27

  27

  34

  29

  30

  The estimated vacancy rate for physical education in each year since 1995 is as follows:

  Vacancy rate

  January

  1995

  0.2

  1996

  0.2

  1997

  0.2

  1998

  0.3

  1999

  0.3

  2000

  0.2

  The number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2000 was 404,600, the highest for 10 years and 6,900 higher than January 1998.There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.
  333W
  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

  Basic Skills Provision (Inspections)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the continuation of inspections of performance by full-time and part-time education providers in the programme area of basic skills. [154675]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]The Government attach high priority to improving adults' literacy and numeracy skills. On 1 March, we published our national strategy for achieving this in Skills for Life, which set out how regular monitoring and robust inspection will raise standards among basic skills providers and improve the achievement of learners.

  From April 2001 'all' providers of adult literacy and numeracy provision funded by the Learning and Skills Council or a local authority will fall within the general arrangements for inspection by Ofsted and/or the Adult Learning Inspectorate, as defined by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. In addition, we will conduct a review of the quality and inspection criteria is for basic skills provision.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the annual cost, and on whom it will fall, of additional external moderation and examination needed to fulfil the requirement of Curriculum 2000. [154676]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]The Government have provided additional funding of £103 million for schools and colleges for Curriculum 2000 in 2000–01. This includes the costs of external moderation and examination.

  Post-16 Educational Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to integrate the award of educational qualifications post-16 with individual pupil records. [154678]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]There are no plans to integrate the award of educational qualifications post-16 with individual pupil records.

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to give recognition to schools with consistently high standards of achievement in both 1997 and 2000; and if he will make a statement. [154741]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]School Achievement Awards are being given for the first time this year. In this first round we are giving priority to improvement. We are also giving excellence awards to schools that achieved better results last year than most other schools in similar circumstances. The Department also recognises sustained achievement in other ways,
  334W
  notably through the Beacon Schools scheme. There are now nearly 600 Beacon Schools across the country and the number is set to grow.

  University Students
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the unit of resource per full-time student at English universities in(a) cash, (b) real terms and (c) indexed to a base of 1989 = 100, in (i) 1989, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1997, (iv) 2000–01, (v) 2001–02 and estimated for (A) 2002–03 and (B) 2003–04. [154814]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information relating to the unit of publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent student at higher education institutions in England is shown in the table:

  Publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent higher education student in England (in £)1 in cash terms, and in real terms at 1989–90 prices

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Real terms index

  Outturn

  1989–90

  5,350

  5,350

  100

  1992–93

  5,060

  4,280

  80

  1997–98

  4,580

  3,410

  64

  Planned

  2000–01

  4,860

  3,380

  63

  2001–02

  5.020

  3,410

  64

  2002–03

  5,150

  3,410

  64

  2003–04

  5,290

  3,420

  64

  1Unit funding per student is rounded to the nearest £5

  The Government are investing an extra £1.7 billion in higher education in England over the six years to 2003–04. The increases in publicly planned funding announced last November coupled with planned increases in student numbers imply estimated real terms increases in funding per full-time equivalent student of 0.7 per cent., 0 per cent. and 0.4 per cent. over the next three years.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation on the future national training organisation representation for the telecom industry. [155081]

  Mr. Wicks
  The consultation ends on 30 March 2001. We will make an announcement on future arrangements as soon as practicable after the end of the consultation period. Details will be published on the internet in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Public Consultations.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the annual membership fee of each of the national training organisations. [155082]

  Mr. Wicks
  NTOs are independent employer-led organisations and it is for them to decide whether they wish to operate a membership arrangement with employers in their sector and if so what the appropriate annual membership should be. The Department does not keep information on the membership schemes that operate.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were excluded from school(a) temporarily and (b) permanently (i) in each of the London education authorities and (ii) nationally during the past 12 months, broken down by ethnic origin. [155000]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is currently collating information on the number of permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools in

  Number of permanent exclusions from Primary, Secondary and Special1 schools by ethnic orgin 1998–99

  Number of exclusions

  While

  Black Caribbean

  Black African

  Black other

  Indian

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Chinese

  Any other ethnic group

  Total

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  14

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  5

  19

  Greenwich

  51

  2—

  5

  7

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  12

  75

  Hackney

  15

  8

  2—

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  35

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  18

  13

  6

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  46

  Islington

  16

  7

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  28

  Kensington and Chelsea

  11

  6

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  23

  Lambeth

  2—

  23

  9

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  37

  Lewisham

  20

  13

  2—

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  62

  Southwark

  22

  48

  22

  10

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  2—

  102

  Tower Hamlets

  13

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  14

  0

  2—

  27

  Wandsworth

  22

  30

  9

  11

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  2—

  72

  Westminster

  17

  10

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  34

  Barking and Dagenham

  35

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  35

  Barnet

  19

  12

  6

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  37

  Bexley

  54

  2—

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  59

  Brent

  15

  27

  14

  10

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  6

  72

  Bromley

  74

  6

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  85

  Croydon

  67

  46

  2—

  8

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  7

  128

  Ealing

  28

  21

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  8

  63

  Enfield

  44

  15

  2—

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  75

  Haringey

  13

  16

  2—

  6

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  35

  Harrow

  20

  6

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  33

  Havering

  37

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  37

  Hillingdon

  55

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  55

  Hounslow

  43

  5

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  0

  0

  8

  63

  Kingston upon Thames

  23

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  23

  Merton

  13

  8

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  21

  Newham

  23

  8

  8

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  0

  9

  48

  Redbridge

  21

  6

  5

  2—

  2—

  0

  2—

  0

  5

  37

  Richmond upon Thames

  35

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  35

  Sutton

  33

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  33

  Waltham Forest

  40

  25

  2—

  9

  2—

  5

  0

  0

  2—

  79

  England

  8,791

  593

  157

  268

  71

  165

  42

  6

  320

  10,413

  1Includes maintained and non maintained special school

  2Fewer than 5 pupils

  School Meals
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many local education authorities provide(a) hot and (b) cold meals; [154919]

  (2) what consultation he has initiated with schoolchildren about their preferences in respect of school meals and if meals should be hot or cold; [154920]

  (3) what guidelines he issues to local education authorities about the nutritional value of hot school meals; [154921]

  (4) which authorities have changed school meal provision from hot meals to cold in the last year. [154922]
  336W
  England in the school year 1999–2000 and provisional figures will be published in a Statistical First Release in May 2001 (provisional date). The Department does not collect data on the number of fixed period exclusions.

  The latest available information, which is for the school year 1998–99, on the number of pupils permanently excluded from school in each of the London education authorities and in England as a whole, broken down by ethnic origin, is shown in the table.

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on hot and cold school meal provision is not collected centrally. Under current education legislation, it is entirely up to local education authorities and schools in England to decide on the presentation and content of school meals. However, from 1 April this year. the Government are introducing compulsory minimum nutritional standards for school lunches—the first for over 20 years—along with a new duty to provide paid meals on request. Although there is no requirement that lunches should be hot, all school lunches, whether hot or cold, will have to meet the new standards.
  337W
  I accept that hot food may be comforting, particularly in cold weather. In our guidance for caterers on the new standards, there is a strong recommendation that some hot food should be available on the school meal menu.

  We consulted widely on the new standards, including a sample of schools. My officials have also visited schools and spoken to children to ask their views on school lunches.

  Bullying
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on tacking bullying in schools. [154998]

  Jacqui Smith
  We attach a high priority to helping schools prevent and combat bullying. We want all schools to treat bullying seriously and deal with it promptly and firmly whenever and wherever it occurs. That is why since September 1999 we have required heads by law to draw up measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. To help them do this, last December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched our new anti-bullying strategy. This includes a revised pack for schools, an accompanying video aimed at pupils, a new anti-bullying website and a new public information film to raise awareness. The key message is that pupils should report bullying to someone they trust and not suffer in silence. The Department is also funding an expansion of the Parentline Plus free helpline for parents of victims.

  We have, however, made it clear that when necessary Heads can permanently exclude pupils responsible for serious or persistent bullying.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were recorded as the subjects of bullying at school(a) nationally and (b) in each of the London education authorities over the past 12 months, broken down by ethnic origin. [154999]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what payments were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund over the past year. [151770]

  Dr. Reid
  I believe my hon. Friend is referring to funds allocated by the Victims Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office which provides support to victims of the Troubles.

  In the past year, the Victims Liaison Unit allocated £1 million to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, bringing the total paid to the fund to date to £2 million. The fund will receive a further £3 million over the next three years.

  £3 million was also provided for the scheme to core fund victims and survivors groups over a two-year period from 2000–02. To date £2,987,938 has been allocated from this scheme. The allocation of grants to individual groups is shown in the table.
  338W

  Allocation of grants from core funding for victim/survivors groups grants scheme as at 12 March 2001

  £

  Group

  Grant

  Aisling Centre

  20,900

  Alanna Consultancy Associates

  1.070

  An Crann/The Tree

  86,100

  Ardoyne Commemoration Project

  3,000

  Ballymurphy Womens Centre

  67,697

  BASE 2 (NIACRO)

  50,750

  CALMS

  112,530

  Coleraine/Ballymoney Branch Regimental Association UDR

  73,660

  Colleague Support Group

  3,100

  Corpus Christi Services

  67,046

  CRUSE

  58,000

  Cunamh

  92,489

  Derry City Council

  2,500

  FACT

  68,780

  FAIR

  91,500

  Fermanagh South Tyrone Terrorist Victims

  85,400

  Firinne

  60,446

  Greater Twinbrook and Poleglass Community Forum

  3,000

  HAVEN

  22,600

  Holy Trinity Centre

  76,600

  Institute for Counselling and Personal Development

  123,990

  Lenadoon Counselling Project

  40,000

  Lifeways Psychotherapy and Counselling

  84,380

  Make Your Mark

  4,190

  New Life Counselling

  66,205

  NOVA

  80,000

  Omagh Independent Advice Services

  19,986

  PAIN

  88,718

  Psychotherapy and Counselling Network

  27,825

  Relatives for Justice

  99,000

  Restorick Group

  750

  SAVER

  5,000

  Shankill Stress

  126,680

  South Down Action for Healing Wounds

  87,800

  Strabane Befriending and Counselling Association

  72,554

  Streetbeat Youth Project

  54,620

  Survivors of Trauma

  110,000

  Tara Counselling and Personal Development

  40,000

  The Cross Group

  1,550

  The Samaritans

  8,000

  The Wider Circle

  30,000

  Victims and Survivors Trust

  83,950

  WAVE

  596,572

  West Tyrone Voice

  89,000

  Police Service Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reasons underlay his decision not to advertise RUC recruitment(a) on Irish state television and radio and (b) in Irish language newspapers. [152870]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State did not take decisions in relation to the matter mentioned. Advertising was carried out by the police recruitment agent in accordance with the recommendation of the Patten report.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) phone responses and (b) applications have been received in responses to the recruitment campaign for the police service; what assessment he has made of the responses in terms of (i) perceived community origin, (ii) gender and (iii) age; and what the timetable is for the implementation of the Consensia Partnership Scheme. [152867]

  Mr. Ingram
  The advertising campaign commenced on 23 February 2001. In the region of 20,000 requests have been received for application packs. No assessment of applications received has yet been made in respect of
  339W
  perceived community origin and gender. This analysis will be carried out following the closing date for the competition, which is 30 March 2001. No analysis will be made in respect of age. The Consensia Partnership aims to identify a pool of qualified applicants in September 2001, from which police trainees will be appointed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what process the Consensia Partnership was selected to conduct police recruitment in 2001; how many staff are employed by bodies comprising the Consensia Partnership, broken down by perceived community origin of employees; and if he will make a statement. [152866]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Consensia Partnership responded to an Invitation to Tender in accordance with EU procurement guidelines. Information about the perceived community origin of the Partnership's employees is not available to the Government or the police. It is a condition of contract that Consensia must comply with equality of opportunity as defined in Northern Ireland law.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Long-term Disability Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of(a) men, (b) women and (c) people who are in receipt of long-term disability benefits, broken down by (A) each region and nation of the UK and (B) by the (i) 45 to 49, (ii) 50 to 54, (iii) 55 to 59 and (iv) 60 to 64 age ranges. [154809]

  Mr. Bayley
  Relevant information for people who receive Disability Living Allowance, the long-term rate of Incapacity Benefit, or Severe Disablement Allowance is in the tables.

  Percentage of people aged 45 to 49 who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, long-term rate of Severe Disablement Allowance

  Country/region

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  6.9

  6.7

  7.0

  England

  6.4

  6.3

  6.4

  North East

  10.1

  11.0

  9.3

  North West

  9.5

  9.4

  9.7

  Yorkshire and Humber

  7.6

  7.7

  7.4

  East Midlands

  6.3

  5.6

  7.0

  West Midlands

  7.0

  6.6

  7.5

  East

  4.7

  4.4

  5.0

  London

  5.7

  5.9

  5.6

  South East

  3.9

  3.9

  4.0

  South West

  4.9

  4.9

  4.8

  Wales

  10.6

  9.8

  11.5

  Scotland

  9.2

  9.1

  9.3

  Percentage of people aged 50 to 54 who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, long-term rate of Severe Disablement Allowance

  Country/region

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  9.6

  9.5

  9.7

  England

  8.7

  8.6

  8.8

  North East

  14.8

  14.9

  14.6

  North West

  13.4

  13.7

  13.1

  Yorkshire and Humber

  10.6

  10.9

  10.3

  East Midlands

  9.0

  9.1

  8.9

  340W

  Percentage of people aged 50 to 54 who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, long-term rate of Severe Disablement Allowance

  Country/region

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  West Midlands

  9.0

  8.6

  9.5

  East

  6.2

  5.8

  6.7

  London

  7.4

  7.6

  7.2

  South East

  5.2

  4.9

  5.6

  South West

  7.0

  6.7

  7.3

  Wales

  16.3

  16.2

  16.4

  Scotland

  13.7

  13.4

  14.0

  Percentage of people aged 55 to 59 who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, long-term rate of Severe Disablement Allowance

  Country/region

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  16.2

  18.8

  13.6

  England

  14.8

  17.2

  12.5

  North East

  24.6

  31.0

  18.2

  North West

  22.4

  26.7

  18.1

  Yorkshire and Humber

  17.5

  20.9

  14.2

  East Midlands

  15.4

  17.6

  13.1

  West Midlands

  16.1

  18.0

  14.2

  East

  10.1

  11.1

  9.0

  London

  13.4

  14.4

  12.4

  South East

  8.7

  9.5

  7.9

  South West

  11.6

  14.3

  9.0

  Wales

  27.3

  32.8

  21.9

  Scotland

  21.7

  25.2

  18.4

  Percentage of people aged 60 to 64 who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, long-term rate of Severe Disablement Allowance

  Country/region

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  Great Britain

  15.1

  19.3

  11.1

  England

  14.0

  17.7

  10.3

  North East

  23.5

  32.2

  15.2

  North West

  21.2

  26.8

  15.8

  Yorkshire and Humber

  17.3

  22.2

  12.7

  East Midlands

  13.8

  17.7

  10.0

  West Midlands

  15.6

  18.9

  12.3

  East

  9.2

  11.8

  6.7

  London

  12.2

  14.5

  9.9

  South East

  8.2

  10.6

  5.8

  South West

  10.1

  13.2

  7.1

  Wales

  25.6

  32.9

  18.6

  Scotland

  18.8

  24.4

  13.8

  Notes

  1. Some people receive Disability Living Allowance in addition to one of the other two benefits.

  2. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for social security in Northern Ireland.

  Sources

  1. Client Group Analysis of the Working Population as at August 2000 and Client Group Analysis of the Population over State Pension Age as at May 2000.

  2. 5 per cent. sample of beneficiaries and ONS mid-1999 population estimates.

  Incapacity Benefits
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the therapeutic work rules that apply to incapacity benefits; and if he will make a statement. [155577]
  341W
  Mr. Bayley
  From April 2002 we propose to introduce new rules for people who receive incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support based on incapacity who want to undertake some form of paid work which may ease their way back into full-time employment. We are aware of concerns that the current therapeutic work rules may be of limited use where it is difficult to demonstrate that a particular job would be beneficial to a person's medical condition. The current rules also do not help someone who wants to work on a limited basis in order to have social contact if they do not satisfy the therapeutic requirement. This is why we have reviewed the current position and are, introducing some improvements.

  Under the proposed changes, the therapeutic work rules will cease to exist. Instead we intend to introduce rules which will allow any person receiving incapacity benefits to:
  (a) work for less than 16 hours a week and up to £60.50 for up to six months; with a six month extension for those working with a Personal Adviser, Job Broker or Disability Employment Adviser;
  (b) work for maximum earnings of £20 a week with no time limit and no hours limit.

  Claimants who undertake sheltered work or are undergoing a hospital treatment programme which includes work, will, as now, be able to earn up to £60.50 a week (April 2001 rates) with no limit on the number of hours they work.

  We believe that these rules are much fairer than those that currently exist. Because we are opening up the rules to anyone on incapacity benefits we are giving more people the opportunity of trying paid work. This, together with our other measures to help people find suitable work, will enable people to move off benefits and into work. Also, by allowing all claimants to do some paid work without time limit, we will be encouraging those who are otherwise excluded to take part in activities which will help them feel part of, and play a more active role in, their local community. Additionally, of course, there are the rules which we already have in place to allow claimants to try full-time work or training and return to benefit at the same rate if they have to give up that work or training.

  These changes do not affect the position whereby people receiving Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance may do unpaid voluntary work for an unlimited period.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many representations he has received concerning delays in payment of Winter Fuel Payment since May 1997; [153583]

  (2) how many people received their Winter Fuel Payment on time in (a) 2000 and (b) 1999; [153582]

  (3) how many people have experienced delays in payment of Winter Fuel Payment lasting over (a) one month, (b) three months, (c) six months and (d) 12 months. [153584]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.
  342W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated 21 March 2001:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many representations he has received concerning delays in payment of Winter Fuel Payment since May 1997; how many people received their Winter Fuel Payment on time in (a) 2000 and (b) 1999; and how many people have experienced delays in payment of Winter Fuel Payment lasting over (a) one month, (b) three months (c) six months, and (d) 12 months.

  The information is not available in the format. requested, but I hope the following explanation of when payments were made might be helpful.

  The Winter Fuel Payment scheme was introduced in the winter of 1997/1998 as one of the Government's initiatives to tackle fuel poverty in Great Britain.

  In the first three winters of the scheme (1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000) around 10 million people were eligible in each winter and paid automatically, where entitlement was established. These payments were made within the expected timetable.

  In response to a European Court of Justice ruling in December 1999 the Government decided to equalise the age from which the Winter Fuel Payment is payable. The majority of people from age 60 could now benefit from the payments.

  Following the court ruling, people who were newly eligible for a payment last winter, and were not in receipt of a social security benefit during the relevant qualifying week, apart from Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit or Child Benefit, should have made a claim for their payment.

  Last winter around 11 million payments, where entitlement was established, were made automatically before Christmas, as was the intention. So far we have also made payments in respect of successful claims determined by 12 January 2001. It is up to the individual to decide when and whether to make a claim. We are still receiving and processing claims for winter 1999/2000 payments. Claims for winter 2000/01 must be received before 31 March 2001.

  Although the ruling was given in December 1999 it applied from the beginning of the scheme and payments in respect of past winters are being paid to those who are now entitled. People who think they are eligible for a payment for past winters must make a claim for their payments. There is no time limit for making claims for past winters.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Medical Examinations
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical examination reports were graded A, B and C in each of the last three years in each of the three Sema contract areas; and if he will make a statement. [153573]

  Mr. Bayley
  Medical Services conduct a national programme of audit on a random selection of cases. This yields results that are statistically significant by contract area, at benefit level and on a quarterly basis. Viewed across all areas of work carried out by Medical Services, an analysis of this audit shows the following results:

  Grade

  Contract area

  A

  B

  C

  September 1998 to August 1999

  North

  78.8

  14.0

  7.4

  South West

  82.6

  12.1

  5.4

  South East

  78.4

  16.9

  4.8

  September 1999 to August 2000

  North

  78.0

  15.6

  6.4

  South West

  81.6

  12.5

  7.0

  South East

  74.2

  19.6

  6.3

  343W

  Grade

  Contract area

  A

  B

  C

  September 2000 to February 2001

  North

  77.9

  15.2

  6.9

  South West

  83.6

  10.7

  5.7

  South East

  80.0

  13.9

  5.3

  Note:

  Figures may not add up to 100 per cent. because of rounding up or down to one decimal place.

  It should be noted that during 1999, Medical Services were refining their quality audit system, and as a result applied more stringent quality criteria. This is a factor in any apparent deterioration in performance between 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made with Sema to ensure doctors making medical examinations are given reports on(a) appeal outcomes and (b) grading of their medical reports; and if he will make a statement. [153575]

  Mr. Bayley
  In response to the recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee (SSSC) in its report on Medical Services, the Department of Social Security's Chief Medical Adviser and the President of the Appeals Service are establishing a formal process for feedback on the quality standards of medical reports in appeal cases. Interim arrangements for feedback have been in place since July 2000 and five cases have so far been referred.

  All cases referred to the Chief Medical Adviser are forwarded to Sema for information, further investigation and remedial action with the doctor concerned, if appropriate.

  Sema Medical Services monitor the quality standards of medical reports of all their doctors on a rolling programme, to volumes which are statistically significant over a three-month rolling period. The outcome of monitoring is recorded, and feedback given to each individual doctor on his or her performance. Where this has fallen below the standard expected, the doctor is given appropriate advice by an experienced full-time colleague; if necessary, arrangements are made for remedial training.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of doctors have completed the required training in(a) mental health, (b) disability awareness and (c) musculo-skeletal examinations in each of the last three years in each of the three Sema contract areas; and if he will make a statement. [153557]

  Mr. Bayley
  These training modules were all developed during 2000 (year two of the contract). Training in these topics has been delivered in 2000 and 2001. The proportion of doctors who are currently carrying out work on the Benefits Agency contract and who have completed the training are as follows:

  Percentage of doctors who have completed the required training

  Contract area

  North

  South East

  South West

  Assessment of people with mental health problems

  91

  85

  86

  Behaviours, attitudes and sensitivities for dealing with people with disabilities

  89

  85

  86

  Clinical skills in the assessment of musculo-skeletal problems

  92

  87

  91

  344W
  Any doctor who started with Sema Medical Services before 31 December 2000 will have completed their training by the end of June this year.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of DLA applications were decided after(a) medical examination and (b) scrutiny in each Sema contract area in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [153574]

  Mr. Bayley
  This information is not available.

  Doctors
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many doctors have been(a) suspended, (b) required to retrain and (c) had their contracts terminated by Sema in each of its three contract areas in each of the last three years; and if ha will make a statement. [153576]

  Mr. Bayley:
  The information is in the table.

  1–9–1998 to 31–8–1999

  1–9–1999 to 31–8–2000

  1–9–2000 to 28–2–2001

  North

  Suspended

  2

  3

  6

  Retrained

  22

  14

  Terminated

  17

  11

  4

  South East

  Suspended

  0

  0

  2

  Retrained

  5

  5

  5

  Terminated

  6

  4

  0

  South West

  Suspended

  0

  0

  4

  Retrained

  15

  17

  6

  Terminated

  8

  9

  4

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Policies
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if she will make a statement. [152033]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146931]

  Mr. Stringer
  The policy recommendations in Cabinet Office reports relate to England as a whole and it is therefore not possible to say what their specific impact is on a particular constituency. Additionally any policy changes arising from Cabinet Office units, such as the Social Exclusion Unit and the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, reports are implemented by the appropriate Government Department, rather than by the unit itself.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Creative Industries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the distribution of employment in the creative industries in the regions and

  Employees and self-employed people working in creative industries

  As percentage of total employed in all industries in UK

  As percentage of total employed in all industries in the region and nation

  As percentage of total employed in all creative industries in UK

  United Kingdom

  4.8

  4.8

  100.0

  Great Britain

  4.7

  4.9

  98.8

  England

  4.3

  5.1

  90.2

  North East

  0.1

  2.9

  2.4

  North West

  0.4

  4.0

  9.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.3

  3.3

  5.8

  East Midlands

  0.2

  3.4

  5.2

  West Midlands

  0.3

  3.3

  6.1

  East of England

  0.4

  4.6

  9.3

  London

  1.3

  10.3

  26.3

  South East

  0.9

  6.1

  18.7

  South West

  0.3

  4.0

  7.1

  Wales

  0.1

  3.1

  2.9

  Scotland

  0.3

  3.2

  5.7

  Northern Ireland

  0.1

  2.3

  1.2

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (average autumn 1999 to summer 2000; not seasonally adjusted), Office for National Statistics, and Creative Industries Mapping Document 2001. Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice was given by NMEC to the Hinduja brothers in respect of matters relating to the applicability of VAT to their donation to the faith zone of the millennium dome. [153735]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]In seeking to recognise the charitable status of the Hinduja Foundation, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) sought the advice of its tax consultants, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). NMEC passed on to Mr. S. P. Hinduja's office advice it received from PwC in December 1998 on the normal basis in such circumstances that neither NMEC nor PwC were liable or responsible for any reliance the Hindujas placed on that advice. In essence the advice indicated that if the terms of the Hinduja Foundation's contribution mirrored that of the sponsorship agreements drawn -up for commercial sponsors of the Dome then VAT would apply. In early February 1999 NMEC submitted to the Hinduja Foundation a donor agreement that mirrored agreements drawn-up for the other charitable trusts contributing to the faith zone. At that time the donation was not liable for VAT.

  Departmental Policies (Clwyd, South)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  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 Clwyd, South constituency, the effects on Clwyd, South of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151911]
  346W
  nations of the UK, indicating the number employed in these industries (a) as a percentage of the total employed in the UK and (b) as a percentage of the total employed in each region and nation of the UK. [154810]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Estimates of the distribution of employment in the creative industries in the regions and nations of the UK are shown in the table.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high-quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secured funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made it clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future.

  The Government have also introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year. Information on the number of beneficiaries by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 census indicate that there were approximately 4,800 people aged 75 or over living in the Clwyd, South constituency.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA), which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Clwyd, South.

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 112 national lottery awards to Clwyd, South, totalling £2,021,757 since 2 May 1997. Twenty five Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Clwyd, South and between them they have received grants totalling £75,188.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many adjudicators are available to her Department to deal with asylum appeals; and how many she plans to have available by 1 April(a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003 and (d) 2004. [154846]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 76 full-time and 226 part-time adjudicators available to hear asylum appeals. It is planned to have the following number of adjudicators available to hear asylum appeals by:(c) April 2001—76 full-time and 323 part-time.
  (d) April 2002—80 full-time adjudicators and 383 part-time.

  There are currently no plans to extend recruitment beyond the 2002 level. The number of adjudicators is, however, under constant review to ensure that sufficient are available to meet incoming appeals. The Immigration Appellate Authority is working closely with the Home Office to ensure that any changes in workloads are identified at an early stage.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average(a) cost and (b) duration is of training someone to serve as an adjudicator for immigration and asylum appeals. [154843]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average cost to the Immigration Appellate Authority of training an adjudicator to serve on both immigration and asylum appeals, excluding travel costs, is currently £2,248 per adjudicator. The average time taken by the authority to train an adjudicator is currently five and a half days.

  This answer excludes any subsequent training offered to adjudicators by the Judicial Studies Board.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what qualifications are required of a person recruited to serve as an adjudicator for asylum and immigration appeals. [154844]

  Mr. Lock
  Immigration adjudicators may be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on a full or part-time basis.

  Schedule 3(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, stipulates that an adjudicator must hold a seven-year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (i.e. a right of audience qualification in relation to all proceedings in any part of the Supreme Court or all proceedings in the county or magistrates courts); or be an advocate or solicitor in Scotland, or a barrister or solicitor in Northern Ireland, of at least seven years' standing; or have such legal and other experience as appears to the Lord Chancellor to make him or her suited for appointment as an adjudicator.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average unit cost to her Department is of an asylum appeal. [154845]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average cost of an asylum appeal to the Lord Chancellor's Department at the end of February 2001, including accommodation and overheads, was £1,289.

  Libel
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many libel actions arising from e-publications, websites and list serve subscription services have been started in the past two years; what proportion were settled in advance of a hearing; and what proportion were found(a) for and (b) against the plaintiff. [154539]

  Mr. Lock
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Restrictive Practices (QCs)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's recommendations concerning restrictive practices in the legal profession with particular reference to the QC system. [153628]

  Mr. Lock
  The Report by the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, on competition in the market for professional services, raises a number of complex issues which need to be considered. The Government will issue a consultation paper in due course inviting comments.

HEALTH

  North Cheshire Health Authority
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been allocated to North Cheshire health authority for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99,(c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [148850]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]The final cash-limited allocations to North Cheshire health authority for the past four years are shown in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  166.7

  1998–99

  183.5

  1999–2000

  208.1

  2000–01

  228.7

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority joined the Paddington Regeneration Partnership; [151261]

  (2) what fees and benefits Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority has received from the Paddington Regeneration Partnership; [151327]

  (3) how many meetings of the Board of the Paddington Regeneration Partnership have been attended by members of the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority and on what dates; [151259]

  (4) which board members and officers of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority have served on Paddington Regeneration Partnership and received emoluments from it; [151326]
  349W
  (5) on what dates the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust and the St. Mary's Paddington NHS Hospital Trust applied to Westminster city council for outline planning permission for the construction of a new cardio-thoracic hospital alongside St Mary's Hospital, Paddington. [151457]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority, together with St. Mary's Hospital National Health Service Trust, joined the Paddington Regeneration Partnership from its inception in January 1998. The Paddington Regeneration Partnership's stated aims are to establish Paddington as a premier business and residential district of London, facilitating sustainable economic vitality for the area and ensuring the products of .regeneration benefit the surrounding communities.

  The health authority and St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust joined the Paddington Regeneration Partnership board to ensure that the benefits of regeneration and the potential substantial investment in the area are shared by the surrounding communities and promote the interests of the health service and its delivery in the area.

  The health authority representative on the Paddington Regeneration Partnership was an assistant director, not a board member, although for six months of the period in question he acted at that level. He attended meetings of its Board on 15 occasions between 18 June 1998 and the present time. The dates were: 18 June 1998, 2 July 1998, 16 July 1998, 10 September 1998, 12 November 1998, 10 December 1998, 14 January 1999, 8 April 1999, 6 May 1999, 9 September 1999, 9 December 1999, 8 June 2000, 6 July 2000, 11 January 2001, 8 February 2001.

  No member or officer of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority has or will receive any emolument from the Paddington Regeneration Partnership Board. No fees or financial benefits have been or will be received.

  The application for the building of a Paddington Basin Health Campus was submitted to Westminster city council on 29 June 2000.

  NHS Expenditure (North-west)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) planned and (b) actual expenditure was in the NHS in the north-west in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 [151874]

  Name of NHS Trust

  Type of investment

  Year full business case submitted for approval

  Whether full business case has been approved

  Date of approval (where relevant)

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient Administration System and some Departmental systems

  1999

  Yes

  December 1999

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  Order Comms/Results Reporting and Departmental systems

  1999

  Yes

  February 1999

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient Administration System

  19991

  Yes

  January 1999

  Royal Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Integrated Patient Management System

  19991

  Yes

  August 1999

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust and Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  2000

  No, but decision imminent

  n/a

  350W
  Mr. Denham
  The planned and actual expenditure in the National Health Service in the north-west from 1997–98 up until 1999–2000 is as follows:

  £ billion

  Planned expenditure

  Actual expenditure

  1997–98

  3.68

  4.11

  1998–99

  4.01

  4.51

  1999–2000

  4.61

  5.27

  Notes:
  There are three main factors to consider in reviewing these figures: Unlike the actual figures shown, planned expenditure collected at the beginning of the year does not include expenditure on services that are treated as non-cash limited;
  Secondly, significant allocations are received during the year, after plans are submitted. These allocations comprise new money to the NHS, and also changes to the way in which funding to NHS trusts is provided; and
  One-off items of expenditure can effect comparisons with related plans and previous years.

  Specialist Health Services
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of how many NHS specialist health services a person's health authority postcode affects the type of treatment that is available. [152684]

  Mr. Denham
  Our policy is to secure access to specialist services which is based on the patient's clinical need, not on the patient's postcode.

  NHS Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, columns 47–48W, if he will list the NHS hospital trusts which have submitted full business cases since January 1999; and which have since been approved by the NHS Executive; [153122]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001, Official Report, columns 47–48W, on computer systems, if he will list the NHS hospital trusts which were the subject of full business cases for computer systems submitted in (a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [153123]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]The information requested is given in the table. The table includes one full business case (for the scheme at Kettering General Hospital National Health Service Trust) which was not given in my answer of 29 January 2001, Official Report, columns 47–48W.
  351W

  Name of NHS Trust

  Type of investment

  Year full business case submitted for approval

  Whether full business case has been approved

  Date of approval (where relevant)

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Picture Archiving and Communication System

  2000

  Yes

  November 2000

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  2000

  No

  n/a

  Luton And Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  2000

  Yes

  December 2000

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  Picture Archiving and Communication System

  2000

  Yes

  August 2000

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust

  Patient Administration System

  2000

  Yes

  September 2000

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records and Picture Archiving and Communication System

  2000

  No

  n/a

  Tameside Acute Services NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  2000

  No

  n/a

  1The full business cases for the schemes at Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust and Royal Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust were first received in their Regional Offices of the NHS Executive in December 1998.

  West Country Ambulance Service
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent to which the West Country Ambulance Service has met its response times targets in each of the last 10 years; if he will provide a statistical breakdown in relation to response times in(a) Somerset, (b) South Somerset and (c) the Yeovil constituency in this period; and if he will make a statement. [153377]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]Information about ambulance response times for each National Health Service ambulance trust and nationally for 1991–92 is contained in the Department's statistical bulletin "Patient Transport Services 1981 to 1991–92, Summary Information from Forms KA32 and KA34". Information for 1994–95 is contained in the Department's statistical bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 1994–95". Information for the period 1995–96 to 1999–2000 is contained in the Department's statistical bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 1999–2000". Copies are in the Library.

  Our policy is to save more lives by providing faster, more responsive and effective emergency ambulance services. In July 1996, we announced revised standards for ambulance service responses to immediately life-threatening incidents where more rapid intervention would have a significant impact on saving lives.

  Clinical evidence indicates that 1,800 lives could be saved each year in people under 75 years of age suffering heart attacks through the achievement of the standard that immediately life-threatening emergency calls (Category A calls) should be responded to 75 per cent. of the time within eight minutes irrespective of location. We are determined that every NHS ambulance trust must achieve the 75 per cent. milestone as quickly as possible.

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were invited for interview for chair of the North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust; how
  352W
  many of those invited for interview lived in Runcorn and Widnes; and if the acting chair of Halton Hospital NHS Trust was invited for interview. [153771]

  Mr. Denham
  Five people were invited for interview for the post of chair at the new North Cheshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust, two of whom lived in the Runcorn and Widnes areas. The names of the candidates involved are held in confidence. The Department always attempts to ensure that the non-executives appointed to NHS boards represent the communities they serve. This will remain a prime consideration in the appointments made to the board of the newly merged North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the reasons for the delay in responding to letters from the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey relating to constituents; and if he will make a statement. [153965]

  Mr. Denham
  The delay in replying to the right hon. Member's letters of both 29 February 2000 and 14 June 2000 resulted from both administrative problems and the original correspondence being lost within the Department.

  The delay in reply to the right hon. Member's correspondence of 29 February concerning Mrs. Clay was due to administrative problems within the Department. The delay to the correspondence of 14 June 2000 concerning constituent Mrs. Clay was due to the original correspondence being lost within the Department. Replies to both letters have been sent. I know that the Permanent Secretary/Chief Executive of the National Health Service has written to the right hon. Member to apologise for the unacceptable delay involved in both these cases. New operational procedures have been introduced in the Department to ensure that this sort of delay should not happen again.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, for answer on 26 February 2001 relating to proposed hospital development in Paddington. [154842]
  353W
  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member's questions today.

  Respiratory Problems (Doctors)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) registrar and (b) consultant physicians practising in respiratory problems there are in England; and if he will make a statement. [154191]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Hospital medical staff within the respiratory medicine specialty, England at 30 September 2000

  Number

  Consultant

  440

  Registrar group

  240

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and denial workforce census

  Revenue

  Capital

  Total

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  £000

  Percentage

  1997–98

  25,670

  6.79

  16,071

  133.93

  41,741

  10.69

  1998–99

  32,920

  8.15

  15,498

  55.21

  48,418

  11.21

  1999–2000

  39,393

  9.02

  17,319

  39.75

  56,712

  11.80

  2000–01

  23,699

  4.98

  33,445

  54.93

  57,144

  10.64

  2001–02

  121,682

  32.17

  82,333

  686.11

  204,015

  52.27

  Total capital and revenue resources

  Capital and revenue sources taken together provide an analysis of total resources invested in Liverpool over the period 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Revenue resources

  The table shows the annual increases in NHS income by value and in percentage terms taken from the published accounts of the individual trusts in Liverpool. The 2000–01 figure is based on the most recent forecasts produced by the individual organisations. Non NHS income has been excluded from the information provided.

  Note:

  The health authority increase over the .same period, excluding secondary care which is already included above, is £2.2 million which is an increase of 33.32 per cent. between 1997–98 and 2000–01. The trust increments do not all relate to investment by Liverpool health authority or services specifically for Liverpool residents, particularly in the case of tertiary centres and specialist services in acute hospitals where services are provided for a much larger catchment area.

  Capital resources

  The table shows the annual increases in capital investment in Liverpool trusts since 1996–97.

  Note:

  Percentage relative to block capital issued to Liverpool trusts in 1996–97 of ↓12 million.

  Wigan and Bolton Health Authority
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was allocated to the Wigan and Bolton health authority in each of the last 10 years; and if he will indicate the distance from target for health expenditure that each annual allocation represents. [154543]

  Nurses
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the setting of staffing levels in nursing, with particular reference to the DRAGON method. [153792]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]Staffing levels in nursing are a matter for local determination. The Department has not made an assessment of the DRAGON method.

  NHS (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much new(a) capital, (b) revenue and (c) total funding has been invested in the National Health Service in Liverpool since May 1997. [154465]

  Mr. Denham
  The data available, which are provided in the table, are in complete financial years which start from 1 April 1997.

  Mr. Denham
  The allocations to the Wigan and Bolton health authority since 1996–97 have been listed. Wigan and Bolton were represented by separate health authorities prior to 1996–97.

  Allocation

  Target

  Distance from target

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Percentage

  1996–97

  247,380

  256,701

  09,321

  3.63

  1997–98

  258,518

  267,613

  09,095

  3.40

  1998–99

  273,219

  287,141

  13,922

  4.85

  1999–2000

  373,322

  385,390

  12,068

  3.13

  2000–01

  401,902

  414,252

  12,350

  2.98

  2001–01

  441,616

  454,575

  12,959

  2.85

  Waiting Lists
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) the status is and (b) how many patients are on, each of (i) live waiting lists, (ii) planned waiting lists and (iii) suspended waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [154566]

  Mr. Denham
  At January 2001 there were 1.039 million people waiting for admission to hospital, 119,000 fewer than at March 1997. The published waiting list only includes those who are ready for treatment. Patients who are planned admissions will initially be admitted from the waiting list, but will also require subsequent planned episodes of care. Patients are only "suspended" if they are unfit for treatment. The number of patients suspended at end December was 76,6601.

  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of patients awaiting planned sequences of care.

  1 This figure is the Trust based total

  Source:

  KHO7A quarterly return

  Free Eye Tests (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pensioners have benefited from free eye tests in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154656]

  Mr. Denham
  Eligibility for National Health Service sight tests was extended to all those aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. Figures for the number of over-60s who have received free eye tests in particular areas are not collected centrally.

  However, there was an increase of around 40,000 in the total number of sight tests paid for by Shropshire health authority in the 18 months following April 1999 compared to the 18 months before April 1999. It is fair to assume that the majority of this increase was due to newly eligible people aged over 60 obtaining NHS sight tests.

  Source:

  Department of Health—General Ophthalmic Services Activity Statistics

  Hospital Building Costs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of building a new district general hospital is. [154172]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]Each hospital development is unique, reflecting local requirements and circumstances. We are therefore unable to give an overall average cost. The capital value would be dependent on many factors, such as location, with the land and construction costs varying considerably, with inner London prices at over 25 per cent. higher than in many other parts of the country. Other factors include the geography and nature of the site chosen, and whether it is new build on an existing hospital site, a greenfield site or a major refurbishment project.

  Hepatitis C
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to build on the strategic approach to hepatitis C. [1555401

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department of Health is setting up a steering group with the following terms of reference:To oversee development of the Department's strategic approach to hepatitis C by bringing together issues relating to prevention, control and treatment and to produce a document within the year, for consultation with the NHS, professional bodies and the voluntary and community sectors.

  The proposed membership of the group is as follows:

  Steering group membership

  Chairman
  Professor Howard Thomas, Imperial College School of Medicine, London and Chairman, Advisory Group on Hepatitis

  Members
  Jim Camp, Needle Exchange Forum
  Ms Hannah Cinamon, Health Promotion England
  Professor Chris Day, Medical School, Newcastle University
  Ms Jo Guy, Hepatology Nurse Specialist, Southampton General Hospital
  Dr. Paul Hatton, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Leeds Health Authority and member. Advisory Group on Hepatitis
  356W
  Ms Lorraine Hewitt,Action on Hepatitis C and member, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Nigel Hughes, British Liver Trust
  Dr. Will Irving, Department of Microbiology, University of Nottingham and member, Advisory Group on Hepatitis
  Grant McNally, National Drug Users Development Agency
  Dr. Mary Ramsay, Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
  Professor Gerry Stimson, Centre for Research on Drugs and Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, London
  Professor John Strang, Director of the National Addiction Centre, Maudsley Hospital, London and member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Ms Monique Tomlinson, Mainliners
  Dr. Martyn Wake, General Practitioner, south west London.

TREASURY

  Children (Northern Region)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children there are in the Northern Region. [155046]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Fraser Kemp, dated 22 March 2001:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of children resident in the Northern Region (155046).

  ONS produce statistics for Government Office Regions. In 1999 the estimated number of children (0–15 years) in the North East Government Office Region was 519,000.

  Population Statistics (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged over 65 years were resident in Wales in 1997; and how many are resident today. [154817]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 22 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of persons aged 65 and over in the resident population of Wales in 1997 and today (154817).

  Below is a table showing the information requested for mid-1997 and mid-1999 which is the most recent year for which a population estimate is available.

  Estimated resident population of Wales aged 65 years and over

  Thousand

  Number

  Mid-1997

  478.5

  Mid-1999

  479.1

  Pensions (Annuities)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of removing the requirement for people to purchase an annuity with their retirement pension fund. [154419]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 21 March 2001,Official Report, column 236W.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the rules on the conversion of tax supported money purchase pension funds into annuities and publish his conclusions. [154777]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to Sections 5.66 to 5.69 of our Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published on Budget Day which sets out our views on annuities.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the rate of tax on the pension fund of a person who dies before purchasing an annuity is set at its present rate; and if he will make a statement. [148738]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Contributions to, and the investment build up of, pension funds benefit from deferred taxation to encourage people to save for a secure retirement income that will last for life. Where, following the death of a personal pension schemne member during income drawdown, the remaining pension fund capital is paid to a beneficiary, it is subject to a tax charge of 35 per cent. This charge broadly recovers the pension scheme tax reliefs given earlier on fund contributions and investment growth.

  With-profit Bonds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department has issued to insurance enterprises on the potential effect on reserves of with-profits bonds. [154804]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The reserving requirements for with-profits bonds are set out in the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and in subsequent regulations, and in the equivalent legislation for friendly societies.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to take steps to allow financial services company representatives to sell the products of other companies; and if he will make a statement. [155067]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I welcome yesterday's announcement by the Financial Services Authority of their conclusions on the work they had undertaken in their Consultation Paper 80, "Reforming Polarisation: First Steps".

  That Consultation Paper was issued following the exchange of letters with the FSA. Chairman, Sir Howard Davies, at the time of the pre-Budget report, when I welcomed their proposals for polarisation reform.
  358W
  The FSA will seek views later this year to inform its continuing wider review of polarisation.

  Insurance Providers (Solvency)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times in each year since 1992 his Department issued advice to insurance providers on possible breaches of solvency requirements. [154806]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Solvency requirements for insurance companies are set out in the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and in subsequent regulations. and in the equivalent legislation for friendly societies.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to freeze national insurance and income tax payments for zoos closed due to the foot and mouth outbreak. [154069]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]There are currently no such plans, but the Government keep all taxes under review.

  In his statement to the House, the Minister for the Environment announced a preliminary package of measures to alleviate the immediate financial hardship of small businesses in rural areas which have been badly hit by the sudden decrease in visitors and other knock-on effects of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the estimated annual cost to the UK economy would be if foot and mouth disease became endemic; [154083]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total cost to the UK economy to date of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [154081]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]Government policy is to eradicate foot and mouth disease from the UK. All efforts are being made to achieve this. It is not possible at this stage to make a robust assessment of the economic impact.

  Pension Plans (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total annual cost to the Treasury was of providing tax relief on personal pension plans at(a) the starting rate, (b) the standard rate and (c) the higher rate in each of the last three years; [151767]

  (2) how many people paid into personal pension plans and how many schemes attracted tax relief at (a) the starting rate, (b) the standard rate and (c) the higher rate in each of the last three years. [151766]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 1 March 2001]Estimates of the cost of tax relief for contributions to personal pensions and such information as is available on the number of contributors by rate of income tax are given in the tables.
  359W

  Number of employees1 making contributions to personal pensions

  Approximately

  3 million2

  Of which:

  higher rate taxpayers

  200 thousand

  1Based on aggregate information provided by plan managers and survey data

  2All benefit from repayment of basic rate tax claimed by their pension provider including those who are non-taxpayers or pay tax at less than the basic rate

  Number of self-employed1 making contributions to personal pensions

  Thousand

  Rate of income tax

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Non-taxpayers

  150

  160

  110

  Starting2 rate

  180

  30

  60

  Basic rate

  680

  800

  800

  Higher rate

  250

  250

  260

  Total

  1,260

  1,240

  1,230

  1Based on relief claimed on tax returns. 1999–2000 and 2000–01 figures are provisional

  220 per cent. lower rate 1998–99; 10 per cent. starting rate 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Cost of tax relief, for personal pension schemes

  £ million

  Source of contributions and rate of income tax relief

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Employees' contributions

  Basic rate

  550

  580

  590

  Higher rate

  270

  290

  310

  Employers' contributions1

  Basic rate

  300

  300

  300

  Higher rate

  140

  150

  160

  National Insurance rebates2

  Basic rate

  175

  271

  287

  Contributions by the self-employed

  Starting rate3

  30

  5

  5

  Basic rate

  210

  240

  240

  Higher rate

  490

  520

  550

  1On the basis that under present arrangements employers' contributions are not taxable as a benefit in kind of the employees. Figures assume that the proportion related to higher rate taxpayers is the same as that observed for employees' contributions.

  2Basic rate tax relief in respect of the employees' part of the National Insurance rebate received by around 3.7 million employees with appropriate personal pensions.

  320 per cent. lower rate 1998–99; 10 per cent. starting rate 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Public Sector Wage Bill
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total managed expenditure was directly attributable to the public sector wage bill in the last five years for which figures are available. [151303]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]The figures are available from the national accounts produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Further detail can be found in table 11.2 of
  360W
  ONS' s "United Kingdom National Accounts 2000" (the Blue Book) tables 11.2 (paybill) and 11.4 (total managed expenditure).

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155285]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Chichester, 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 504, or 41 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 77 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 63 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic 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 251 young people in Chichester constituency gain valuable skills and experience-138 (55 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 midde-income families. In August 2000, 1,400 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 25,500 in Chichester, 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 16,400 in Chichester.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he estimates the new Children's Tax Credit will have on the incomes of working families. [155127]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new Children's Tax Credit will be worth up to £520 a year or £ 10 a week for hard-working families when it is introduced from April.

  Mapeley Ltd.
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 569W, whether the technical details have now been finalised; and if he will announce the date upon which the contract is to begin. [155098]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The technical details have been finalised. The contract was signed on 6 March and is on schedule to commence as planned on 2 April 2001.

  Departmental Policies (Ynys Môn)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information
  361W
  relating as directly as possible to the Ynys MÔn constituency, the effects on Ynys Môn of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154935]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Ynys Môn, 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 631, or 24 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 74 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 41 per rent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic 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 1,091 young people in Ynys Môn constituency gain valuable skills and experience—580 (53 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,300 families in Ynys Môn constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 14,600 in Ynys Môn 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 9,100 in Ynys M£n.

  Departmental Policies (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ceredigion constituency, the effects on Ceredigion of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154934]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Ceredigion, 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 384, of 24 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 73 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 26 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic 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 704 young people in Ceredigion constituency gain valuable skills and experience—341 (48 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,800 families in Ceredigion constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 13,700 in Ceredigion, will receive an above-inflation increase in the
  362W
  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 8,800 in Ceredigion.

  Departmental Policies (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency, the effects on Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154933]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 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 179, or 14 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 77 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 53 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic 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 443 young people in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency gain valuable skills and experience-253 (57 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,000 families in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 10,600 in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 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 6,400 in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

  Departmental Policies (Caernarfon)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Caernarfon constituency, the effects on Caernarfon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154932]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Caernarfon, 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 708, or 30 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 90 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 57 per cent.
  363W
  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic 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 818 young people in Caernarfon constituency gain valuable skills and experience—497 (61 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, 2,000 families in Caernarfon constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 13,400 in Caernarfon, 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 8,900 in Caernarfon.

  2000–01 Liabilities

  Million

  Number

  (la) The number of taxpayers who have income tax liabilities from dividends income of less than £50

  5.5

  (lb) The number and proportion of taxpayers who do not have liability to income tax from divid ends income

  20.5 (73%)

  (2a) The number of people who have income tax liabilities from savings income of less than £50

  14.75

  (2b) The number and proportion of taxpayers who do not have liability to income tax from savings income

  8.5 (30%)

  2000–01 Liabilities

  Number (Million)

  Proportion of all taxpayers (Percentage)

  Mean tax liability from savings/dividends (£)

  Median tax liability from savings/dividends (£)

  (3i) Taxpayers with income tax liabilities from dividends income

  7.5

  27

  370

  6

  (3ii) Taxpayers with income tax liabilities from savings income

  19.5

  70

  240

  12

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Tax Liabilities
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the number and (b) the proportion of taxpayers in 2000–01 who have income tax liabilities from (i) dividends income and (ii) savings income; and what the mean and median of liabilities are; [149606]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the number of people in 2000–01 who have income tax liabilities from dividends income of less than £50 and (b) the number and proportion of taxpayers who do not have liability to income tax from dividends income; and if he will make a statement; [149604]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the (a) number of people in 2000–01 who have income tax liabilities from savings income of loss than £50 and (b) the number and proportion of taxpayers who do not have liability to income tax from savings income; and if he will make a statement. [149605]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Estimates for 2000–01 are given in the table.

  Some investment income data from the, SPI are based on estimated rather than reported values so are less reliable than other elements of the survey.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Wakefield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act 2001,

Capital Allowances Act 2001,

Alliance Leicester Group Treasury plc (Transfer) Act 2001,
Colchester Borough Council Act 2001.

Iraq: Exports
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the income received by Iraq in respect of exports of (a) oil and (b) raw materials and foodstuffs, during the last three years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, in the past three years legal oil exports have earned Iraq approximately 40 billion dollars. This revenue is controlled by the United Nations. We estimate illegal oil exports were worth a further 600 million dollars last year. The UNSCR 661 prohibits the export from Iraq of other raw materials and foodstuffs. However, we are aware that Iraq does export those goods, despite claiming that the UN's humanitarian programme does not provide for the basic needs of the Iraqi people. We have no figures for the income generated by this illegal trade.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that those who condemn sanctions, or the no-fly zone, should appreciate that, even with those sanctions, Iraq could have fed its children, treated the sick and secured a much higher level of general prosperity? However, it has chosen instead to maintain armed forces comprising almost 1 million personnel, which is far in excess of the level that would be appropriate for a country with a population of 21 million people. Indeed, it has provided a plethora of presidential palaces, and pursued the development of horrid weaponry that can only threaten international and regional stability.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that is the position. Sanctions are
1530
not responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people; Saddam Hussein is. The UN humanitarian programme is worth billions of dollars per year, but Iraq manipulates and obstructs the programme to deny the Iraqi people maximum benefit. I shall give your Lordships one example. Over 4 billion dollars is currently available to Iraq for the purchase of vital humanitarian goods. That money lies unspent in a UN account.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, although agree with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that there is no question about the possibility that Iraq could meet many of the needs of its civilian population, does the noble Baroness recognise that in moderate Arab capitals the propaganda argument is largely being lost? I was in Jordan two days ago. It was quite clear there that the view is that sanctions are the responsibility of the Western powers. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what is the position of Her Majesty's Government towards the review of sanctions, with a view to moving towards smart sanctions specifically against the Iraqi regime" Can the noble Baroness also tell the House why some 3 billion dollars-worth of humanitarian contracts have been held up by the UN Sanction Committee's SCR661?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may stress that we wholeheartedly understand what the noble Baroness says in relation to the propaganda argument. It is a matter of shame that those who have propagated that do not relay the correct facts. From all the information available to us it is clear that Iraq could feed its people. The medicines are available, but Saddam Hussein is choosing not to avail himself of that aid.
In relation to smart sanctions, I can tell the House that the sanctions regime is already targeted at military and other issues that are destructive. The food for oil programme was meant to do precisely what the noble Baroness suggested; namely, to allow humanitarian aid through so that the Iraqi people do not suffer. We shall continue to pursue that policy. The noble Baroness also referred to hold-ups in this respect. We have been clear in our approach to ensure that those matters are dealt with smoothly and swiftly. As for our participation, I can certainly reassure the House that we are doing everything that we can to make sure that we are not the problem. Indeed, I can further reassure the House that we are not the problem: Saddam Hussein is.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we strongly support, the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and, indeed, reinforced by the noble Baroness herself? It is clear that stronger and more effectively targeted sanctions are needed against this evil man who is depriving his own people of both medicine and food. What chance does the noble Baroness see of us persuading our French allies and partners of the same view? Is not the problem the fact that, when it comes to the common foreign and security policy, France

1531
regards the current situation quite differently, as it does in regard to Zimbabwe and as it does, apparently, in NATO? Is it not time to try to reinforce the CFSP, or, alternatively, should we just give up on the matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to the attitude adopted by France. However, I should remind the noble Lord that the current UN sanctions are adhered to by everyone. It is our common position that the UN sanctions should bite on Iraq. To the best of our knowledge and belief, all our partners are adhering to that line. I know that it is an issue as to whether there should be further review on the matter. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that this is often a matter of discussion. Nevertheless, I should reinforce the fact that the current regime is working. It is controlling Saddam Hussein; it is preventing him from using weapons of mass destruction; and it can facilitate proper humanitarian aid if he chooses to avail himself of it. That is something about which both we and our partners are in agreement.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in 1988 Saddam Hussein's regime earned 18 billion dollars of oil revenue and spent 13 billion dollars on weapons? Can she also confirm that, in 1998, Iraq earned 16 billion dollars and ordered no medicines at all? Therefore, given the inadvisability of lifting military sanctions, does the Minister agree that the time is ripe to take the distribution of food and medicines, and their ordering, out of the hands of the Baghdad regime and to place them in the hands of a neutral body, such as the United Nations or the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the factors raised by the noble Baroness in relation to the way in which Saddam Hussein's regime has, historically, spent its money. I also know that there is a very active debate as to how sanctions could be reviewed. At present, the sanctions will remain as they are. However, I can certainly reassure the House that those discussions will continue. I daresay those issues will be considered by all of us to ascertain how we can better manage the situation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, when replying to the debate on the humble Address at col. 350 of Hansard of 12th December 2000, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in answer to a specific point that I made in my speech, said that,
"we support the efforts by the World Health Organisation to work with the Iraqis on a proper study"—
of the apparent epidemic of leukaemia, other cancers and birth defects that are, perhaps, due to the use of depleted uranium in southern Iraq. Can my noble friend report any progress on organising this important, overdue study?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we understand that the World Health Organisation is
1532
considering a report into the health situation throughout Iraq. We should encourage any initiative to tackle the lack of detailed information on the subject. Only then can any particular health problems be addressed. We therefore encourage Iraq to cooperate with the WHO on the issue. There is no credible research data to support allegations that the use of depleted uranium-based ammunition is to blame for the upsurge in cancers throughout the Iraqi population.

Young Offenders' Institution, Brinsford
3.10 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the recent report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on H M Young Offenders' Institution, Brinsford.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, in accordance with the protocol agreed between Ministers and the Chief Inspector, the Prison Service will produce an action plan addressing the report's recommendations within 30 working days of its publication.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that degree of reassurance. But, of course, only three weeks after finding Brinsford "quite disgraceful" the Chief Inspector had to look for even more dire epithets for Birmingham Prison. So would the Minister join with me in congratulating the Chief Inspector, Sir David Ramsbotham, on so resolutely exposing bad practice wherever he finds it, for example the fact that getting on for two-thirds of the 500 youngsters in Brinsford get no education or training at all? Does he perhaps connect this with the equally startling fact that the per capita spend on education and training at Brinsford is less than one-third of that at YOI Werrington which is only half an hour's drive in the same county?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we take great note of the inspector's reports which are most valuable. They provide a pathway to improving the quality of regimes in the prison estate. Obviously Brinsford must improve. Having met the governor of Brinsford today, I am most heartened by the progress that has been made since the inspector's report of last summer. While last year there were 17 hours of purposeful activity per prisoner per week, there are now 25.6 hours. While there were criticisms of juveniles and young offenders being in mixed living units, there is now no mixing of juveniles and young offenders. While last year at the time of the visit 65 attended education per day, there are now 140 attending education per day. While last year the auditor criticised education provision, the audit in February of this year stated that educational provision was acceptable. There were problems at the time of the inspection. We have a vigorous and active governor in

1533
place. He is addressing the many issues raised in the 154 recommendations of the inspector's report. We expect, and are seeing, some improvements.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that not so long ago, in order to reassure everyone about the state of the youth estate in the Prison Service, there was appointed a head of the Young Offenders' Group? In the foreword to the report we now discover that that influential person has no executive authority whatever and does not even report to the Director General of the Prison Service. Similarly, today the Minister has asked us to be reassured by the prospect of an action plan. But is the noble Lord aware that the contents of that action plan will reflect in some detail what has been produced in action plans following similar inquiries for Feltharn, Glen Parva, Werrington and Portland? There really is need for a central figure in the system with authority and responsibility to discharge our duties under human rights conventions, the United Nations convention on the child and the provisions of the European Treaty to defend our children in what is becoming a generally abusive system.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his considerable support for our system. I also congratulate the noble Lord on taking—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has a record in regard to the prison estate and in particular the youth offender estate. Of course we recognise that there are problems. The reports to which the noble Lord referred bear good testament to that. We inherited a pretty poor level of investment—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that happens to be the case. When we came into government there had been significant under-investment in the educational and training side of the prison regimes. We have had to put that right. I am delighted to tell your Lordships' House that record numbers of qualifications are now being attained in our prison estate and, of course, within the youth offender estate. Those matters needed to be addressed. Over the past year there has been a 10 per cent increase in the number of teaching hours delivered. I think that we should celebrate and be proud of that. Noble Lords opposite who shake their heads ought to be ashamed of some of their records during their time in office.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that nearly 50 per cent of the children in YOIs are either still in local authority care or have come out of local authority care? Will he ensure that the new provisions under the Children (Leaving Care) Act will apply to those children and that they will receive all the new benefits that are now being made available to other children leaving care?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Youth Justice Board has done an outstandingly good job and has begun to raise standards for juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders are beginning to receive record levels of education and training. That is most important. Of course, we must be very mindful of the standards of care in the local authority sector and ensure that they are matched, perhaps exceeded, in the juvenile offender sector.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his self-satisfied response to the recitation by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the five successive severely adverse reports by the Chief Inspector is deeply offensive to your Lordships? Will the noble Lord say which of the 23 recommendations made by the Chief Inspector in the thematic review of young offenders' institutions of October 1997 have been implemented and whether or not in particular a chief inspector has been appointed to monitor the treatment of children throughout the youth justice system which is so necessary?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not dispute the necessity of ensuring that standards within our estate are raised. I should like to have had advance notice of the noble Lord's second question, but I am certainly more than happy to give it detailed consideration. As regards the noble Lord's first point, I am not self-satisfied about conditions in the prison estate, whether those concern juvenile offenders or young offenders. We know that there is much more to do. That is why we raised the level of investment as a result of the spending review that was undertaken last year. There is more to do and more to get on with. What we should try to do is build on the strengths that are apparently there.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my original question? When will we have an individual in the Prison Service with executive authority reporting directly to the Director General?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that precise point.

Football Disorder Report
3.17 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that. the recommendations contained in the report of the working group on football disorder are implemented.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the report of the working group on football disorder identifies the key agencies in respect of each of the 54 recommendations. The Home Office will monitor progress and will convene meetings with all agencies concerned on a regular basis. We also intend to hold regional seminars involving all the key players—if that is not a pun—including the fans.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I as a veteran of numerous inquiries, task forces and working groups looking at football disorder over the years pay tribute to my noble friend and his officials in the Home Office for the leadership they gave, the expeditious way in which this inquiry was conducted and the fact that it managed to come to an agreed set of conclusions in under six months? Does my noble friend agree with me that two of the most important recommendations are, first, that the Football Association has agreed to disband the existing England Members Club and intends to relaunch it with the exclusion of people who have records of violence or racist activity? That is a significant step forward in dealing with the problems of the England team travelling overseas. Secondly, will he confirm that it is the Government's intention that the involvement of supporters will be maintained in the implementation of the remaining recommendations?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about my stewardship of the working group. As regards the recommendations, the agreement of the Football Association to take apart the England Members Club and reconstitute it with much improved standards of membership is a significant improvement and recommendation which we should all welcome. The England Members Club needs to reflect much more broadly our wider society. It ought to be more multiracial and to reflect the broad range of interests that now support English soccer. As to consultation with supporters' organisations, that was, and will continue to be, a key feature of the implementation of the report.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what has happened to the idea of an American style soccer commissioner to drive through reforms in the game? Will he also take this opportunity to disassociate himself from the absolutely barmy idea of the Minister of Sport to bring back terraces to football grounds, which would be a recipe for further hooliganism?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the nature of the controversy over terracing. I believe that the situation that we have developed in our football grounds over the past decade or so, with an increasingly larger number of all-seater stadia, is greatly to be welcomed and has made a major
1536
contribution to the reduction of hooliganism and violence in our football grounds. Reflecting on the statistics, it appears that this year the number of arrests has fallen, as it has over the past decade or so, and that is to be welcomed.
With regard to the idea of an American style commissioner, although I am not sure that that is how I would describe it, I believe that there would be some merit in that approach. Nevertheless, that is not necessarily a matter for me; it is a matter for wider debate in the sport itself.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the warm welcome that will be given to this report throughout the football industry by supporters, clubs and football organisations for the thoughtful and long-term view that it takes of the problems? Meanwhile, will the Minister tell the House how many orders to date have been made against individuals under the Football Disorder Act? Secondly, will he assure the House that all necessary arrangements will be in place for the three away international games that England has in the World Cup during the course of this year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am again grateful for the noble Lord's support for the report. I hope that the report will be widely welcomed by supporters' organisations. We certainly intend to work very closely with them.
I do not have precise figures for the number of orders made under the legislation that we put in place last year. However, I understand that approximately 40 such banning orders are in place. The police believe that they have played an important part in curbing the attendance of those intent on hooliganism at away matches involving English clubs in European competitions and, of course, the England side itself. We believe that the legislation has had a salutary effect and will continue to do so. It will be kept under review as per the requirements of the sunset clauses.
With regard to the policing of future international matches that take place abroad, we are in close contact with the countries against whom we shall be playing. I recently visited Germany to look at the arrangements that are likely to be in place for the England v Germany match in September. As a product of that visit, we shall no doubt make a number of suggestions which I believe will necessarily improve the level of security for that match.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I understand that a Written Answer was recently provided on the number of orders. With regard to the matter of terracing, was the Minister or the Minister of Sport expressing the Government's view?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was expressing my own view, which also happens to be the view of the Government.

Learning Disabilities: White Paper
3.24 p.m.
Lord Rixasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the new initiatives in the White Paper Valuing People: a new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century (Cm 5086), and what extra funds are available to underpin it at local level.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department: of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century sets out proposals for improving the life chances of people with learning disabilities. A new learning disability development fund of up to £50 million per year is being set up to support the proposals in the White Paper for adults. There will also be an implementation support fund of £2.3 million per year for three years from April 2001 to provide central support for key aspects of the new strategy.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I also thank the Government for a most helpful and far-reaching White Paper. I commend it to your Lordships' House as ideal bedside reading!
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to turn to page 125 of the White Paper. Sub-objective 4.1 refers to proposed performance indicators in regard to short-term breaks. Will the Minister confirm that if the proposed performance indicator indicates a shortfall, as I am sure it will, steps will be taken to make good that particular shortfall?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for that question. I am sure that the House would wish to acknowledge his contribution to this field over many years. In many ways, I feel that this White Paper represents the culmination of that dedication.
With regard to the question of performance indicators, if we are to make a success of the White Paper, it is very important that targets are set and that a performance management framework is in place to ensure their implementation. We shall ensure that that happens.
As far as concerns resources, it is worth bearing in mind that, between health and local government, approximately £3 billion is spent on the provision of services for people with learning disabilities. Part of the answer to the problem is to ensure that those resources are used effectively. In addition, I believe that the development fund that we have announced will greatly help in encouraging local statutory agencies to develop the kind of services that the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in accepting what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said, I ask the Government to bear in mind that many children with learning difficulties who go to mainstream schools are unhappy, some are bullied, and their presence sometimes interferes with the education of normal
1538
children. Will the Government therefore ensure that the needs of those who require special education are met, whenever possible, by their attendance at schools with special educational needs facilities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a little outside my area. However, I certainly agree that paramount to any decision about education are the needs of individual children and the wishes of their parents. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill makes changes to the existing law to strengthen the right of children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools. But I can tell the noble Lord that, although the proportion of pupils in special schools fell from 1.3 per cent in 1991 to 1.2 per cent in 1995, it has remained constant in each of the past six years. I can assure the noble Lord that the Bill does not make it more difficult for parents whose children have statements of SEN to gain a special school place.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am very impressed by this thoughtful, sensitive and wide-ranging White Paper. It reflects great credit on the Government. I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Rix and to Mencap for the work that they have done over the years. But would my noble friend agree that special educational needs services are ultimately delivered by local authorities, some of which are good, some of which are appalling? Although the White Paper states that an inspection will take place in 2001–02, will my noble friend assure the House that regular monitoring will take place to ensure that those services are delivered to the people who need them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the record of statutory agencies is at the moment patchy. There are some very good services, some excellent committee people, and some services that are not so good.
I believe that the most important building block in the development of this policy is the proposal to develop what are called learning disability partnership boards at local level. The aim is to bring together statutory and voluntary organisations to give the necessary impetus to implement the effective provision of services. That will be backed up by our performance management arrangements in the health service and the performance assessment arrangements in social services to ensure that it happens properly.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister recognise some of the concern that has been caused to people with Asberger's and their carers by the way in which learning disability is defined in the White Paper? Many people with Asberger's get their support from learning disability services. Can he guarantee that they will continue to be able to get their support from learning disability services until there are specialist support services for them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is important that people with Asberger's get the right help and

1539
support. The noble Lord is right that they are not covered by the definition used in the White Paper. It covers those with autism who also have a learning disability, but not those with a higher level autistic spectrum disorder. The noble Lord will be glad to know that we have commissioned a report from Cambridge University on the issues surrounding Asberger's syndrome. We shall consider its recommendations and I shall write to the noble Lord when the outcome is known.

Health and Social Care Bill
3.31 p.m.
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.]
Clause 24 [Remuneration of general medical practitioners]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 161, I point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 162.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 18, line 16, leave out from "services)," to end of line 18 and insert "in subsection (4), for the words "not, except in special circumstances," there is substituted "have regard to the quality and outcome of the services provided and shall not ordinarily""
The noble Earl said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 162. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the general medical services payment system appropriately rewards quality and service outcomes. Clause 24 ends the requirement that the majority of a GP's remuneration should be linked to the number of patients on his list. At present there is a provision that ordinarily GPs will be paid for the number of patients on their list. The clause removes that provision and changes the criteria on which they are paid to the quality and outcome of the services that they provide.
It may be of help to the Committee to know that the British Medical Association's General Practitioners Committee supports the move away from the majority of GP remuneration being capitation based. That move weakens the dependency on list size. The emphasis of the amendment is on GPs being paid for their work rather than being paid a fixed monthly salary. Clearly, their workload varies with the number of patients on their list. It is appropriate that the
1540
amount that doctors are paid should continue to reflect their workload as well as the quality of the services that they deliver. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand and sympathise with the thrust of the noble Earl's comments. The Committee will know from my remarks during earlier Committee days that we are working with the profession and its representatives to produce a revised national GP contract. We want to reflect the emphasis on quality and improved outcomes, which form a key feature of the locally agreed personal medical services contracts. Our aim is to secure greater convergence between the two contractual frameworks, which will build on the best of both approaches.
There is the prospect of significant progress on the way in which GPs work for the NHS. Initial discussions have begun with the BMA to scope the work. Those discussions have been constructive and there has been an encouraging start in addressing a major challenge for both parties.
Clause 24 contributes modestly to that task by removing an unnecessary statutory impediment to progress. That makes me reluctant to accept the amendments, which would impose constraints, specifically by providing that the remuneration of GMS GPs should be linked to quality and outcomes of service and should not consist wholly or mainly of a fixed salary. While that is in line with the aim in the NHS Plan to link GPs' remuneration more closely to improved quality and outcomes—I very much agree with the noble Earl on that—my worry is that using legislation would create a constraint that might be unhelpful in discussions and negotiations. We want to work with GPs and their representatives to revise the national contract. That is the best approach.
Amendment No. 161 would also require that if a fixed salary was paid, it should be referenced to the number of patients. Amendment No. 162 would ordinarily prevent wholly or mainly fixed salary payments. It is true that no GPs in the GMS are on a fixed salary and we have no plans to introduce such a category, but we do not want to rule out that possibility for all time. We are concerned about the constraints that the amendment would put in place.
I hope that the noble Earl recognises that we strongly agree with the thrust of what he said.
Earl Howe: I entirely accept the Minister's point. The BMA's attitude to the general direction in which the Government are moving is based on the belief that it is helpful to make GPs' contracts more dependent on quality by making it easier to reduce list size. That is also fairer to GPs who necessarily have a low list size, such as those in rural areas. The Minister has given a useful answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical etc. lists]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
"(2BC) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2BA) shall not have effect unless the Secretary of State has consulted any person appearing to him appropriate to consult as representing the profession subject to the regulation.""
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 164. The amendments were suggested to me by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. As the Committee will know, among the many responsibilities of the RPS is the maintenance of the register of pharmaceutical chemists for Great Britain. I understand that the society supports the intention of the proposals in the Bill to enhance scrutiny of the profession.
I understand from my discussions with the society that it is concerned to ensure that any lists established by health authorities are transparent and practical. It is therefore of critical importance that criteria, particularly for exclusion from such lists, should be developed in partnership with the relevant professional regulatory body or bodies.
I have been in touch recently with the RPS. It was surprised to hear that, according to health Minister Mr Denham, the list of criteria to be considered before determining unsuitability—and therefore exclusion from a list—may include such matters as the impact on the National Health Service of a practitioner's action. That sounds somewhat open-ended and unclear. That leads me to ask whether the clause sufficiently differentiates between practitioners who operate single-handed and those who practise through companies. I am sure that the Government have every intention of consulting all the professional bodies concerned, but the amendment would make such consultation obligatory. Such a safeguard seems entirely appropriate and I would be a little disappointed if the Government were inclined to resist the suggestion.
I further understand that the society is concerned that the criteria, which will be listed in the statutory instrument, may not be exhaustive, again, as the Minister, Mr Denham, said, in order to allow health authorities to apply other criteria that are relevant to each case.
By allowing local discretion, which may have some arguments in its favour, the very real possibility will arise that local variations in eligibility criteria for practitioner lists will develop; for example, a pharmacist could be eligible for employment in one health authority but not in another. I wonder whether the Government want such a situation to develop, not least because it militates against the development of clear and consistent national standards. My amendment to Clause 28 would prevent such variability, and I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Perhaps I may add a quick comment on the Government's statement made in Committee in another place that there will be an independent appeal
1542
process. I believe that that is absolutely essential. However, I believe that it will also be important to ensure that any such appeal system is consistent with the existing professional regulatory framework. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is so. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly take the point that consultation with the appropriate groups would normally be expected to take place. I can assure the noble Earl that we shall consult as necessary. I do not believe that it is necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill, but I can assure him that, so far as concerns the Department of Health, consultation is the name of the game. With regard to many of the matters that we are discussing in the Bill, it is essential to implement ownership among all the people involved.
I also understand the point that the noble Earl raises in relation to variability between different health authorities. I understand why his amendment requires that the imposition of conditions by health authorities—for example, when conditionally including a practitioner in a list—must be carried out with a view to preventing local variability in criteria for inclusion in the list.
I want to make it clear that it is the responsibility of health authorities to make decisions conditionally to include a practitioner in a list. It is absolutely right that that responsibility is placed at health authority level. I can assure the noble Earl that the department will issue guidance to all health authorities in order to facilitate consistency in their decision-making. Again, I very much accept that point. The FHS Appeals Authority will also have a role in ensuring consistency of decisions between health authorities.
As with all the issues that we have discussed so far, clearly a tension exists between the aims of devolving responsibility and ensuring consistency. Both are important. Sometimes the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wishes us to decentralise; perhaps more than occasionally he wishes us to centralise. A problem arises when we become over-centralist and over-prescriptive. I hope that the Committee will consider that we probably have the balance right in relation to this matter, particularly in view of the safeguard that we shall give guidance to health authorities and in view of the fact that the FHSAA, through its judgments over the months and years, will itself clearly ensure consistency.
Earl Howe: The Minister must have his little jibe. I take the point. Nevertheless, he has given a helpful answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Conditional inclusion in medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical lists]:
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 24, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) If regulations provide for a practitioner's removal from the list for breach of condition—

(a) the regulations may provide that he may not withdraw from the list while the Health Authority are investigating whether there are grounds for exercising their power to remove him, or after the Health Authority have decided to remove him but before they have given effect to that decision; and

(b) the regulations must include provision—

(i) requiring the practitioner to be given notice of any allegation against him,

(ii) giving him the opportunity of putting his case at a hearing before the Health Authority make any decision as to his removal from the list, and

(iii) requiring him to be given notice of the Health Authority's decision and the reasons for it and of his right of appeal under subsection (4)."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 165, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 166, 184, 204 and 210. Through these amendments we are seeking to be explicit in ensuring a consistent approach across the administration of the main, supplementary and services lists maintained by the health authority.
Paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 165 relates to limiting the circumstances under which a person can withdraw from the health authority main lists while he is under investigation by that authority. That ensures that the same limitations apply to any person whose continued presence on a list is subject to the completion of a health authority investigation and the implementation of any subsequent decision, whatever the reasons for that investigation and whatever the list. Similar provisions are made in relation to the supplementary, main and services lists respectively.
At paragraph (b), the amendment sets out certain mandatory processes that must be followed by the health authority in reaching a decision to remove a person from its list for breach of a condition imposed on that person's inclusion in the list. Again, we are ensuring consistency on the face of the Bill rather than merely in regulations by spelling out the same mandatory processes that must be followed in relation to those decisions as are already prescribed for removal, suspension and conditional inclusion decisions in relation to the supplementary, main and services lists.
Amendment No. 166 is technical and ensures that the appeal provisions in new subsection 43ZA(4) are accurately cross-referenced to subsection 43ZA(1), which sets out the range of decisions available to the health authority.
Amendments Nos. 184, 204 and 210 relate to certain mandatory processes that must be followed by the health authority in reaching decisions to suspend, remove or conditionally include a person on its supplementary or services lists. Again, by spelling out the same mandatory processes that must be followed in relation to these lists as are already prescribed for
1544
the main lists at Clauses 28 and 32, we are placing a consistency of approach on the face of the Bill rather than simply in the regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 24, line 37, leave out "do so provide" and insert "provide as mentioned in subsection (1)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 24, line 42, at end insert
"(ca) on any review of an earlier such decision of theirs,".
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 167, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 168 and 169. This group of government amendments concerns Clause 28. This clause further modernises the management of the primary care list system by providing a new power for health authorities conditionally to accept a practitioner on its medical, dental, ophthalmic, pharmaceutical or dispensing doctor lists. That will be in similar circumstances to those in Clause 32, which allow the health authority contingently to remove a person from a list.
This new power will apply only in fraud and efficiency cases. It does not extend to suitability cases on the basis that an individual is either suitable or unsuitable for inclusion on a health authority list.
In some circumstances, a health authority may conclude that the risk posed by a practitioner is not so great that his application to the list should be refused. The person's clinical practice may not be in question, but it would be inappropriate to allow him to practise without additional restrictions or closer monitoring by the health authority.
In such a case, a health authority will be able to impose conditions on that person to ensure that the identified risks of prejudice to the efficiency of the service or to the prevention of further fraud are eliminated. If a practitioner subsequently fails to meet such conditions, a health authority will be able to vary them, impose new ones or remove the person from the list.
The amendments are all aimed at delivering a consistent approach to the administration of the three lists. Our aim is that, so far as the different contractual positions allow, the lists should operate in a consistent manner.
Amendment No. 167 corrects an oversight in the provisions for appeals connected with conditional inclusion in the main health authority list. It introduces at new Section 43ZA(4) a right of appeal against the decision of the health authority following a review of the conditions imposed upon a practitioner.
Amendment No. 168 makes explicit on the face of the Bill that a decision to remove a practitioner for breaching a condition imposed on his inclusion in the health authority list cannot be implemented until, the

1545
practitioner having appealed against that decision, the FHSAA reaches a determination in respect of that appeal.
Amendment No. 169 deals with the sharing of information about conditional inclusion decisions. It is vital to the operation of those new list systems, and to the associated health authority powers to admit, conditionally admit, remove, contingently remove or suspend, that information on such decisions is shared. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
Page 25, line 2, at end insert ", and must so provide in relation to a decision referred to in subsection (4)(d)".
Page 25, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under this section may provide for the disclosure by a Health Authority, to prescribed persons or persons of prescribed descriptions, of information of a prescribed description about persons whose inclusion in the lists referred to in subsection (3) is subject to conditions imposed under this section, and about the removal of such persons from such lists for breach of condition."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Dental corporations]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No.170:
Page 25, line 12, after "practitioner" insert "who".
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. It simply corrects a typographical error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Declaration of financial interests, gifts, etc.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 171 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 172.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 25, line 43, leave out from "about" to end of line and insert—

"(a) financial interests;

(b) gifts above a prescribed value; and

(c) other benefits received."

The noble Lord said: It may be helpful if I speak to Amendment No. 171 and allow the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, to speak to opposition Amendment No. 172. After that, I could respond to that amendment.
I begin with a few general remarks. This group of amendments concerns Clause 30. The provisions in that clause seek to apply more consistent rules across the NHS on the declaration of financial matters and in doing so will create a system in which financial benefits or potential financial benefits that are available to a practitioner are handled in an open and honest way. We are attempting to apply consistent standards of
1546
conduct right across the NHS. Such standards should apply to a hospital doctor as much to a general practitioner and to a pharmacist as much to a dentist.
The guidance that we published recently, entitled Commercial Sponsorship—Ethical Standards for the NHS, requires, among other things, that gifts and other forms of sponsorship that are valued at more than £25 should be declared. Under that provision, for example, it is clear that gifts from pharmaceutical companies must be declared. I understand that we have the support of the BMA in that regard. It said:
"the vast majority of GPs would be more than willing to comply with the code of conduct".
The guidance complements the existing guidance that is issued to the NHS, which is entitled, Standards of Business for NHS Staff. That document addressed in particular what can be the difficult issue of receiving gifts from patients and it makes it clear that NHS staff should decline gifts from patients unless those gifts are of low intrinsic value.
Our intention is to bring the contractor professions into the same general regime as that which applies to the rest of NHS. They will be required to declare sponsorship, such as gifts from pharmaceutical companies, and they will be required to declare ownership of a pharmacy or a nursing home. Given that fundamental drive towards a consistent but fair scheme, it is clearly inconsistent when we have a situation where a doctor in a hospital has to refuse gifts from patients or where a GP has to declare a gift from a drug representative, but if we do not address the question of GPs receiving gifts from their patients, there would be no requirement for them to declare a gift from a patient.
We recognise the powerful and special doctor-patient relationship that exists in primary care. It is a force for good but there can be misunderstandings and difficulties. There should be no problem about patients providing tokens of gratitude to a GP but we need transparent procedures to prevent that from being abused. For that reason, we concluded that it would not be appropriate to ignore, within those new procedures, the declaration of gifts from patients to general practitioners and therefore for completeness we have included such a provision in the clause.
My dilemma in speaking to Amendment No. 171 is that it is in a sense a response to opposition Amendment No. 172. Perhaps it would be best if the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, spoke to Amendment No. 172 and, if it would be helpful, I could respond to his comments. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the amendment. To speed things along, I shall ask him three quick questions. I also want to make it clear that we agree with his comments on transparency, as long as that system is not too bureaucratic—that is very important. What are the Government's intentions in relation to the recording procedure and the level of gift that has to be declared? Is it £125? What are their intentions in relation to the level of bequests that have to be declared? Does the

1547
Minister intend that the identity of the donor should be revealed to the health authority? If so, what steps does the Minister intend should be taken in order to seek the consent of patients before disclosure takes place? Some patients may not wish such information to be conveyed to third parties.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I accept the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Our legal advice is that the amendment is ambiguous about whether the financial interests mentioned in Clause 30 are also, as well as being gifts, to be subject to the phrase,
"above a specified value".
In order to give effect to the noble Lord's amendment, we have tabled four amendments—Amendments Nos. 171, 177, 179 and 180—to achieve what he intended and to extend the provision to the other three practitioner professions.
Opposition Amendment No. 176 repeats the question that was raised by the noble Lord about the figure that will be agreed. The suggestion is that it should be £140, in order to be consistent with the ministerial code. We are not going to go down that route because we believe that it is better for doctors to be treated in a manner that is consistent with that which applies to other NHS employees.
The guidance to which I referred in relation to commercial sponsorship provides that all gifts over £25 must be declared and that below that level, if gifts from a similar source aggregate to a value of more than £100 in a year, they should be declared. We are also looking at existing NHS guidance in relation to patient gifts. It is well known that in that context the figure of £25 has been mentioned in discussions with the BMA in recent months. However, the figure has not been finalised so I cannot give a definitive response to the noble Lord.
I understand the noble Lord's point on reporting and bureaucracy. We want the system to be as unbureaucratic as possible. It is not my understanding that that information would be published in the public domain, but a report would be submitted to the health authority. A balance is needed in that context. I understand that no one wants to inhibit the giving of small gifts as a token of appreciation. Equally, we have to ensure that the proper procedures are in place and that they are consistent.
I understand that the question of bequests has been raised. The Bill's provisions are currently wide enough to allow the regulations to deal with that issue. We assume that the level of bequests should be the same as that for gifts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 26, line 3, at end insert "or personal medical services"
The noble Earl said: This is a small, probing amendment. Proposed new subsection (5B) requires the Secretary of State to consult the profession before
1548
finalising the regulations, but it omits to mention personal medical services doctors. I do not understand that, given that the purpose of the clause is to require all doctors working in general practice to declare financial interests and gifts. My amendment merely seeks to probe that point. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The part of the 1977 Act to which the amendment relates deals specifically and only with the declaration of financial interests and gifts by general medical services practitioners. That is why clause 30 provides for General Practice Committee consultation rights with respect to declarations about financial interests and gifts. We have every intention of mirroring for personal medical services and personal dental services the regulations on financial interests and gifts, as they apply to general medical services.
A PMS implementation group has recently been established, which represents all the professions involved in PMS. The GPC has membership of this group.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 26. line 7, leave out from "about" to end of line and insert—

"(a) financial interests;

(b) gifts above a prescribed value; and

(c) other benefits received.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 179 and 180:
Page 26, line 15, leave out from "about" to end of line and insert—

"(a) financial interests;

(b) gifts above a prescribed value; and

(c) other benefits received."

Page 26, line 22, leave out from "about" to ", and" in line 23 and insert—

"(i) financial interests;

(ii) gifts above a prescribed value; and

(iii) other benefits received.""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Supplementary lists]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 26, line 35, after "services," insert "personal medical services,"
The noble Earl said: Clause 31 seeks to make regulations for the publication of lists of professionals who can assist in the provision of various aspects of community health services. Subsection (1) lists the services concerned. This point is related to the point I made about gifts.
My amendment would clarify that "personal medical services" are either general medical services or personal medical services, as the medical skills and experience of the practitioners is the same. Patients should be assured of exactly the same protection, whatever administrative arrangement their doctor has signed up to. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. His amendment is well-intentioned, but unnecessary. We have made it clear that supplementary lists are needed to ensure that all practitioners in the family health service professions are included on lists, so that they can be properly regulated. This is important because existing health authority lists apply only to those principal practitioners approved to provide and perform their respective services—general medical services, in other words. Practitioners who assist these GP principals are therefore included in the supplementary list.
The approach in personal medical services is different. All doctors who work in PMS are regarded as PMS performers, so, consequently, one list is sufficient for all practitioners who work in and perform PMS.
In the context of other health care professionals, such as nurses, who assist in the provision of PMS, we believe that 'there are adequate mechanisms in place to regulate the performance of such persons, in addition to their own regulatory arrangements. The Secretary of State has to approve a PMS scheme and significant variations to the PMS contract. In addition, the commissioner, whether dealing with a health authority or a primary care trust, has a role in overseeing performance in the overall contract negotiation and performance management of a PMS scheme.
In the last resort, the Secretary of State has the right to terminate a PMS scheme. We intend to put in place similar approval and contractual arrangements and provisions for permanent schemes.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his answer and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 27. line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person employs a relevant practitioner who is included in the relevant supplementary list, that person may be confident of the suitability of the practitioner without making further enquiry.
( ) Exclusion from one Health Authority supplementary list does not automatically imply exclusion from all Health Authorities' supplementary lists.
( ) Under exceptional circumstances a practitioner may be allowed to practise whilst his application is being processed."
The noble Earl said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 182 as briefly as I can. This part of proposed new Clause 43D sets out provisions that may be included in the regulations on supplementary lists.
I shall speak to each subsection of my amendment in turn. The first is best illustrated by way of an example. Let us suppose that a GP needs to employ a locum so that he can attend court or have a holiday. At present, locums may be recommended by colleagues or perhaps found through a locum agency. It is then the practitioner's responsibility to satisfy himself that the locum is suitably registered, qualified, indemnified and experienced. If the locum is subject to a complaint while he is employed by the GP, the practitioner will he liable if the locum is found to be unsuitable.
The purpose of a supplementary list system is to ensure that practitioners assisting in general medical services are assessed as suitable to provide patient care. The responsibility of assessing and maintaining that suitability is transferred from the practitioner to the health authority. The amendment would clarify that the person employing a practitioner who is included in the supplementary list can be confident of the employee's suitability without making further inquiries. If the locum proves to be unsuitable, responsibility for mistakes would rest with the health authority.
The second paragraph of my amendment refers to supplementary lists, which are to be held and published by health authorities. Each health authority will rightly have local discretion when deciding who to include, or exclude from the list. They will doubtless share their information about applicants—indeed, that would seem to be one of the main purposes of such lists. It is easy to imagine that exclusion from one health authority's supplementary list would lead to national exclusion. The amendment would provide health authorities with discretion, in perhaps rare circumstances, to consider an applicant who may not be suitable elsewhere.
I turn now to the third part of my amendment. The supplementary list system will protect patients from unsuitable practitioners. Nevertheless, one can imagine exceptional circumstances when it may deny patients adequate care because there is no one available on the list. In some parts of the country, it is difficult to recruit healthcare staff. There are simply not enough people with the right qualifications available. The checks required to assess a practitioner's suitability must be rigorous, and they therefore take time to complete. During a major flu epidemic, for example, more practitioners may be needed to cover sickness and to cope with the extra workload. Why prevent perfectly capable practitioners from working in a time of need, simply because they are not on the relevant list? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He has raised some practical issues, which it is important to clarify. It is accepted practice that when engaging a deputy or an assistant, the principal practitioner is responsible for ensuring that the person engaged is suitably experienced and

1551
qualified to undertake the tasks for which he is engaged. In applying to join a health authority supplementary list, a person's suitability and qualifications will be tested against a number of criteria. As the Committee would expect, those are factual issues such as the person's registration with the appropriate professional body, a criminal record check and a check on necessary qualifications. But I must stress that it is not a check on clinical performance or whether the person will be a good addition to the practice team. In the end, it will be for the principal practitioner to test those matters.
Not only is the test limited to factual issues, they are issues which are tested once on application. As a person moves between geographical locations, he may remain on the list for a number of years. So reliance on tests carried out on admission, even if they were widened to take account of clinical performance, might become unreliable.
I believe that the supplementary lists will ease some of the burdens of employment but they cannot take away all the responsibilities which rest with a practitioner engaging in the system.
We very much share the noble Earl's aim in relation to the second proposed subsection but we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. A decision by any health authority applies only to lists maintained by that health authority, whether it be a principal, supplementary or services list. Such a decision does not prevent an application to another health authority. We should expect the second health authority to consider the circumstances of the original removal in reaching its decision. But the second authority would be free to reach its own decision. So a national disqualification—that is, one which applies to all health authorities—can be applied only by the FHSAA. I believe that that meets the noble Earl's concern.
The third proposed subsection is very much a practical issue. I am sure that the noble Earl is right to say that many of those registered on a supplementary list will move from position to position across health authority boundaries—the point the noble Earl made. It would not be in anyone's interest to be unable to take up a position for which he was otherwise suitable because of some bureaucratic delay in the NHS or elsewhere. We recognise that and want to make the process as straightforward as possible. To work as an assistant in one GMS, a doctor will have to register on only one health authority list. That will qualify him to work across health authority boundaries in England. We believe that that better addresses the needs of a person who needs to move quickly to fill a position. However, it ensures that we continue to protect the public by ensuring that a person is properly registered on the supplementary list before he begins to treat patients.
We recognise also that some of the health authority checks before admitting a person to the list rely on third parties. For example, if a person declares an overseas regulatory body to the health authority but through no fault of that individual, the health
1552
authority has difficulty in obtaining confirmation, we shall seek to provide provisions which allow the person to be placed on the list while the confirmation is being actively sought. The individual would, however, still need to be on a supplementary list to provide family health services and we intend that the regulations will provide for that.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply, particularly as regards the second and third parts of my amendment. His answer on the first part took me rather by surprise. What he said was extremely interesting and certainly expanded my understanding of what is intended here. I shall read very carefully what he said and perhaps return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 27, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) The imposition of such conditions must be with a view to—

(a) preventing any prejudice to the efficiency of the services to which the supplementary list relates; or

(b) preventing any acts or omissions of the type described in section 49F(3)(a) below."

The noble Lord said: This is another set of amendments which concerns consistency in the administration by health authorities of their main, supplementary and service lists. It should mean that health authorities will have a robust system in relation to conditional inclusion to protect the interests of patients and of the NHS.
It is important that each health authority administers each of its lists in a similar way to ensure that there are no loopholes. In that way, patients will be assured that their interests are being safeguarded. Clause 28 provides for conditional inclusion in the main lists. This clause also contains express provisions at subsection 43ZA(2) limiting the circumstances in which those provisions can be used to considerations, as I said in an earlier debate, which involve fraud or matters which are prejudicial to the efficiency of the service.
Amendment Nos. 183, 203 and 209 make the same express provision in relation to the supplementary and service lists. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 27, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) If the regulations provide under subsection (3)(e) or (4) that a Health Authority may suspend or remove a person from a supplementary list, they must include provision—

(a) requiring him to be given notice of any allegation against him;

(b) giving him the opportunity of putting his case at a hearing before the Health Authority make any decision as to his suspension or removal: and

1553

(c) requiring him to be given notice of the Health Authority's decision and the reasons for it and of any right of appeal under subsection (6) or (7)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 28, line 28, at end insert—
"(10) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such bodies as he may recognise as representing persons who, in his opinion, are likely to be included in supplementary lists.""
The noble Earl said: Clause 31 seeks to make regulations for the publication of lists of professionals who can assist in the provision of community health services.
While the clause details the regulations for supplementary lists, it makes no specific mention of which professionals are to be included. Perhaps I may raise one specific example which is that of practice nurses. It is now universally accepted that we do not have enough GPs in the country to satisfy the demands of the NHS Plan, a deficit made more apparent by the publication of the national service framework for coronary heart disease.
A sensible solution would be for doctors to delegate responsibility for chronic disease management to practice nurses through a protocol. To my mind, that is a perfect example of,
"assisting in the provision of general medical services".
Unfortunately, there is no accepted definition of a practice nurse nor is there a recognised qualification, although that has never prevented a large number of excellent nurses from working efficiently in general practice. The post of nurse practitioner is often quoted but there, too, there is no definition.
In this particular example, if the Secretary of State consulted the Royal College of Nursing, then he could save the health authorities considerable time and, dare I say, raise still further his stature in community services by helping to clarify exactly what is meant by practice nursing and who should be qualified to undertake it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to pay tribute to the role of practice nurses. It has been very pleasing to see how their professionalism has developed. Perhaps the noble Earl will clarify for me that his amendment deals with whether nurses can be placed on these lists.
Earl Howe: That was by way of an example. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant professional representative body, the problem being that the clause makes no specific mention of which professionals will be included. I was really probing the Government as to whether, for example, practice nurses might be included in the regulations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl. The position is that practice nurses do come within the ambit of this clause but at the moment, we have no proposals to list nurses or nurse practitioners.
1554
As regards the specific issue of consultation, the noble Earl will know that I am very reluctant to be drawn to lists or to be too specific. But I assure the noble Earl that we should be committed to very detailed consultation with the appropriate bodies. I have made that clear throughout the passage of the Bill.
Earl Howe: I am grateful for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Suspension and disqualification of practitioners]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 28, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) a supplementary list, or
( ) a services list,"
The noble Earl said: The clause seeking to establish supplementary lists and the clause seeking to establish services lists make specific mention of disqualification but states that those grounds may not be necessarily those stated under the clause. I do not understand why not. If new regulations for suspension and disqualification of practitioners are required, surely patients deserve the protection of all practitioners being treated equally. The practitioners, too, deserve that clarity. The amendment adds to the list those practitioners named on lists created under the Bill. In doing so, it seeks to ensure that all practitioners working in the community are subject to the same disqualification conditions. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl. The problem arises because we are seeking to amend the 1977 Act and on occasion the different lists appear to be treated in a different way. The words in parenthesis "but need not" are only included in the subsection in a technical capacity to amplify the word "may" which precedes them. The words are necessary to emphasise the fact that it may not be possible to duplicate exactly for supplementary and services lists every aspect of the removal and suspension regime that applies to main contractors under Clause 32. That is due to the fact that there are different contractual arrangements inherent in the various lists and that certain parts are not applicable. For example, Section 49H will not apply to persons on the supplementary list who will all be individuals.
As the Bill already makes provision for the removal and suspension regime in Clause 32 to apply to doctors on supplementary and services lists, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that the position is covered.
Earl Howe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 29, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In sections 29B, 36, 39, 42 and 43 the expression "grounds of unsuitability" means, in relation to each such person, grounds as would enable the Health Authority, or on appeal the FHSAA,

1555
to be satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interest of such person, that such person is unsuitable for inclusion in the respective list, and elsewhere in this Act the word "unsuitability" shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Earl said: During the Commons Committee stage on 25th January, the Minister, Mr Denham, undertook to introduce an amendment on Report setting out the circumstances in which a health authority may suspend a practitioner. An amendment to Clause 33 was introduced. However, I thought that it was the aim of the Government to define the term "unsuitability" on the face of the Bill. They do not appear to have done so.
The wording of the amendment reflects that in new Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, which governs the work of the GMC's Interim Orders Committee: for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest or in the interest of the GP deemed to be unsuitable. Such a definition of "unsuitability" would help to ensure that health authorities do not remove or suspend a GP or refuse to include a GP on the medial list for spurious reasons. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government's position and explain why they are not willing to be as specific with the definition as I had understood they intended to be. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government's view remains as it was in the other place; that is, that "unsuitability" is properly capable of a wide interpretation and should be left so. We believe that there are precedents in other legislation—for example, in employment rights—and that any definition set out on the face of the legislation might constrain the consideration of health authorities inappropriately. The approach that we favour, and which we shall seek to adopt, is to set out in regulations the criteria which health authorities must consider, without preventing them from applying other criteria where the particular case warrants it.
I know that the BMA's GPC has been pressing for a definition of "unsuitability" on the face of the Bill. I am not unsympathetic to the thrust behind that. However, we believe that this is the wrong approach. Amendment No. 187 draws on wording from the order last year—the Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000—which established the GMC's Interim Orders Committee with the power to make interim suspension orders and the circumstances in which a medical practitioner may be suspended and not disqualified. The definition which the amendment borrows defines the circumstances in which the GMC committee may suspend a doctor, not disqualify.
The substantive point I want to make is to distinguish carefully between the grounds for removal and those for suspension. Grounds for removal need to be broad enough to capture all the potential risks to patients or the NHS that might arise. The grounds for suspension need to be drawn more narrowly to protect the practitioner from inappropriate action by the health authority—at suspension, no case against him
1556
or her has been proven—but to allow the health authority to act quickly where it considers that there is a serious and immediate risk to patients or to the NHS.
In the context of suspension, the drafting of Amendment No. 187 is helpful in assisting to define the circumstances in which suspension may be appropriate. The drafting captures both the notion of risk to the patient and the wider risk to the NHS or the public good. The noble Earl is right to say that in Committee in the other place we promised to bring forward on Report an amendment based on the wording of a similar opposition amendment. That would set out the circumstances in which a health authority may suspend a practitioner. We made that amendment on Report. It appears at lines 32 to 35 of page 28, or as new Section 49F(1) of the 1977 Act as inserted by Clause 32.
I hope that I have answered the points raised. I believe that, in general, "unsuitability" is capable of a wide interpretation. But that relates to a system in which there are appeals to the FHSAA. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards alongside the advice and guidance we shall give in relation to the criteria to be issued to health authorities.
Earl Howe: I am not entirely satisfied with that answer. It seems to me that there are two degrees of unsuitability. There is unsuitability because somebody is dangerous, either to himself or to patients, and unsuitability because the person is not up to the standard that the health authority might like. I believe that the issues need to be addressed separately, whether in the context of suspension or disqualification. My amendment would cover the situation on page 29, line 17 of the Bill, for example, which as I read it is not covered in the amendment tabled in another place on Report.
I do not want to detain the Committee on a matter of this kind. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and reserve the right to come back to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 31, line 35. leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
"(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for payments to practitioners who are suspended.
(10) Those regulations may include provision for the amount of the payments. or the method of calculating the amount, to be determined by the Secretary of State or by another person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 188 deals with payments to suspended practitioners under Clause 32, to mirror the wording in similar provisions in Clauses 31 and 32 relating to supplementary and services lists. Amendments Nos. 189, 190, 196, 197 and 200 are minor, technical and of a clarificatory nature. They are necessary to ensure that the provisions for suspension and removal are consistent and coherent.
Amendment No. 189 clarifies that suspension of a practitioner has effect until its revocation by the health authority or the FHSAA. Amendment No. 190 extends the health authority decisions which may not be subject to review to include continued suspension pending an appeal against removal. Amendment No. 196 is a minor technical amendment necessary to substitute the reference to "practitioners" in Section 49R with "persons". Use of the term "persons" ensures that non-practitioners, such as corporate bodies, are also covered by the provisions in these sections.
Amendment No. 197 clarifies that national disqualification by the FHSAA prevents any health authority including that person in any of the lists from which he or she has been disqualified. Amendment No. 200 extends the circumstances in which practitioners may not withdraw from a list to persons awaiting removal after breaking conditions of their contingent removal. That closes a loophole.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 are more substantive. They both concern the time limit before a practitioner can request a review of the FHSAA's decision nationally to disqualify him or her from health authority lists. Clause 32 currently provides that, except in prescribed circumstances, a person may not request a review of FHSAA's national disqualification decision before the end of certain time limits. That is two years from the date on which the national disqualification was imposed or one year from the date of the last decision.
These amendments ensure that, in prescribed circumstances, the right to request a review will be either less than two years or one year—for example, where a relevant decision of a court or a regulatory body is changed or is overturned—or greater than those periods.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 provide for the right to request a review to arise either earlier or later than the periods specified in the Bill. That provision is along the same lines as that operated by the General Medical Council. In summary, doctors removed by the GMC may not apply for reinstatement for five years from the date of disqualification or for 12 months from the date of the last application.
The Bill adopts the principle of the GMC approach but specifies different time limits to recognise the different circumstances of GMC and FHSAA cases. The FHSAA, like health authorities, may remove a practitioner on grounds of fraud or inefficiency as well as their unsuitability. In some such cases a five-year prohibition on application for review may be excessive and the Bill recognises that.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 will permit a review of a national disqualification imposed by the FHSAA to be requested after either a longer or shorter period than that specified in the Bill in prescribed circumstances.
In essence, the amendments provide flexibility to ensure that practitioners who are considered suitable to work in the NHS are given the opportunity to do so
1558
as soon as possible, at the same time as providing better safeguards for the public in the most serious cases. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments 189 and 190:
Page 32, line 6, leave out "or" and insert "under subsection (5) or (6) or, if later,"
Page 32, line 26, after "FHSAA" insert ", or a suspension imposed under section 49J above"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 33, line 5, after "49G(3)" insert "or under subsection (5)(b) of this section"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. A practitioner has a right of appeal to the FHSAA against a health authority decision to remove or contingently move them from a health authority list. In determining such an appeal the authority may uphold the health authority decision, impose different conditions or overturn the decision.
These amendments deal with minor and technical amendments to the appeals procedure under the suspension and removal regime. Section 49M of the 1977 Act in Clause 32 of the Bill provides that the FHSAA may decide to remove a person contingently following an appeal against a health authority decision. The clause does not currently provide for the removal of that person if they fail to comply with the contingent removal conditions imposed by the FHSAA.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 therefore provide for a health authority to remove that person from a list if they breach the conditions of their contingent removal. Amendment No. 191 provides an appeal to the authority against that health authority action. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 192 and 193:
Page 33, line 17, after "contingently," insert—
"(a)"
Page 33, line 20, at end insert "and
(b) the Health Authority may remove him from their list if they determine that he has failed to comply with a condition."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 33, line 36, leave out from "lists" to "prepared" in line 37.
The noble Lord said: Clause 32 includes provision for the FHSAA to remove a practitioner from all health authority lists. That is known as national

1559
disqualification. That could be principal lists, supplementary lists, services lists or any combination of the three. That will include any practitioner—and in the case of dental lists, corporate bodies—with whom the health authority has arranged to provide general or personal medical or dental services or general ophthalmic or pharmaceutical services in their area.
Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 deal with minor technical amendments which are necessary to remove references to individual practitioners within health authority lists. Clause 29 enables health authorities to make arrangements with dental corporate bodies to provide general dental services as well, with individual dental practitioners. In doing so a dental corporate body may be included in a health authority list. But it is inaccurate to refer to lists of individuals. Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 substitute the reference to "practitioners" in Section 49(3) of the Act with "persons". The use of that term ensures that non-practitioners such as corporate bodies are also covered by the provisions in the section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 195 to 202:
Page 33, line 39, leave out "of individuals of the practitioner's description"
Page 34, line 11, after "(1)" insert "(a) to (c)"
Page 34, line 18, leave out "referred to in subsection (1)" and insert "from which he has been disqualified from inclusion"
Page 34, line 24, leave out "Except in prescribed circumstances" and insert "Subject to subsection (9)"
Page 34, line 29, at end insert—
"(9) The Secretary of State may provide in regulations for subsection (8) to have effect in prescribed circumstances as if the reference there to "two years" or "one year" were a reference to a different period specified in the regulations."
Page 34, line 42, after "49F" insert "or 49G,"
Page 35, line 20, leave out "corresponding to a practitioner"
Page 35, line 21, leave out "practitioner" and insert "person"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [PMS and PDS lists]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 203 and 204:
Page 36, line 49, at end insert—
"( ) The imposition of such conditions must be with a view to—

(a) preventing any prejudice to the efficiency of the services to which the services list relates; or

(b) preventing any acts or omissions of the type described in section 49F(3)(a) below."

Page 37, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) If the regulations provide under subsection (3)(e) or (4) that a Health Authority may suspend or remove a person from a services list, they must include provision—

(a) requiring him to be given notice of any allegation against him;

(b) giving him the opportunity of putting his case at a hearing before the Health Authority make any decision as to his suspension or removal; and

1560

(c) requiring him to be given notice of the Health Authority's decision and the reasons for it and of any right of appeal under subsection (7) or (8)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 37, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) In this section "perform" includes "provide"."
The noble Earl said: Clause 33 refers to health authorities preparing lists of medical practitioners who perform personal medical services (PMS). However, my suggestion to the Committee is that the term "perform" is too narrow. That is a point raised by the BMA, which believes that there is a genuine distinction between providing personal medical services and performing them. The amendment ensures that both providers and performers are covered in this section of the Act. The National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 makes that distinction. The use of the word "provide" is consistent throughout Part I of the Act where reference is made to a person with whom a pilot scheme agreement may be made.
The distinction between a provider and a performer can be seen clearly in Section 11(1). Under the 1997 Act a provider is defined as a PMS contract holder and a performer is a medical practitioner who performs PMS work and who may or may not be the contract holder. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or at the very least agree to reflect carefully on it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have given consideration to what I agree is a well-intentioned amendment to extend the services list to include also providers of PMS and PDS as well as performers. The provisions of the current clause prevent that because subsection (1) of Section 28DA limits the persons to be included in the services list to medical and dental practitioners. Providers of PMS and PDS might be included by being on a medical or a supplementary list. However, it is inappropriate for providers, which include organisations such as NHS trusts and primary care trusts, to be included in such lists. For that reason I consider the amendment unnecessary.
There are adequate mechanisms in place to regulate the performance of the providers. I believe that I went through them previously. The Secretary of State has to approve a pilot scheme and significant variations of the PMS contract. Similarly, the Secretary of State has the ability to vary a term of a contract and the commissioner has a role in the overall contract negotiations and performance management functions. In the final resort the Secretary of State has the right to terminate a pilot scheme.
Earl Howe: I am grateful for that answer. It is a fairly technical point and I would not want to press it. No doubt the BMA will find the Minister's comments helpful. I shall take its advice and, if necessary, return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 37, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) After section 6(1) of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (making of pilot schemes) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall, in making directions applicable throughout England regarding the implementation of proposals for plot schemes, consult such organisations as he may recognise as representing persons with whom arrangements for the provision of personal medical or dental services may be made.""
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 207 concerns the terms and conditions of service of doctors providing personal medical services, rather than those contracted to provide general medical services. Clause 33 concerns those doctors who provide PMS— personal medical services. Practitioners providing PMS are classified under a different category from GPs who provide general medical services, although they do the same work: some individuals may work part-time in both categories.
The British Medical Association therefore feels that matters relating to conditions of employment with the health service—remuneration and so on—should be negotiated with the same body as GMS practitioners. That is the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association. By an agreed terminology, the Secretary of State should consult,
"such organisations as he may recognise as representing persons with whom arrangements for the provision of personal medical or dental services may be made".
That means the BMA's General Practitioners Committee. It is a formula that is understood between the BMA and the Government.
The negotiations to achieve this uniform status for both categories of doctors providing general practitioner services are in progress between the department and the British Medical Association. So far these negotiations have been inconclusive.
Perhaps my noble friend can outline the reasons why the BMA General Practitioners Committee cannot negotiate a settlement with Ministers so that its members who have chosen the PMS option have their conditions negotiated by the same body as other GPs. Even if my noble friend cannot accept the amendment, his words will be extremely helpful in taking the negotiations forward. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to break my vow of silence and to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The Minister in the Commons Committee stage said that the reason there could not be the same kind of consultation with the GPC over PMS was that, because of the voluntary nature of the contract,
"it would not be right for us to agree a framework in which the general practitioners committee nationally could determine the contract that someone could enter into at local level through his formal negotiating rights".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 25/1/01; col. 191.]
It has been put to me—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, knows the position—that this is a rather misleading portrayal of the situation. The national
1562
framework of PMS contracts is set by nationally determined implementation directions and a core contractual framework. Therefore, there is a strong national context. It would be perfectly right and feasible for the General Practitioners Committee to be consulted. So the questionmarks remain despite the Commons Committee stage. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I found my right honourable friend's arguments wholly persuasive. I recognise the issue. I know that the GPC is exercised about the matter.
It is important to remember that the key element of PMS and PDS schemes are their scope and flexibility to negotiate individual local contracts tailored specifically to meet local needs. On a local level the appropriate way for that to be done is through the relevant medical or dental committees. Indeed, government amendments to the Health Act 1999 ensured that LMCs and LDCs could be recognised as representing doctors in PMS and dentists in PDS who so wished. I cite that as a movement to a local level of representation in line with many of the provisions of the Bill, which sees a devolution of power from the centre to the locality. The PMS or PDS contract is therefore individually tailored between the commissioner and the PMS or PDS provider.
Furthermore, there is the standard national contract between the Secretary of State with all GMS GPs and general dental practitioners. That is concerned with the remuneration and provision of general medical services and general dental services. It is an inherently different concept from PMS and PDS contracts. That is why the emphasis must be on local development and negotiation. The consultation process for those matters needs to be more flexible and wider. For example, key stakeholders in PMS arrangements are not exclusively general practitioners. They can include a range of primary care professionals and organisations such as primary care trusts, NHS trusts and nurses.
We have established an implementation group for personal medical services to replace the present national consultative group. That group will be the key forum for consulting and advising on arrangements for PMS. The knowledge and experience of its members will be drawn on to provide advice and better inform PMS developments. The GPC has membership of the group.
That is the most appropriate approach to consulting on the overall development of PMS. It is not through a duty on the Secretary of State to consult a single stakeholder group over a particular aspect of PMS. The BMA is an organisation with influence and the ability to make its views known. We have very well established consultation procedures with the medical and dental professions. There is no intention to weaken those arrangements in any way.

1563
It is not right to go down the route of the GPC for this particular development of LMS and PDS in relation to dentists.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Many of the new developments will be taking place through PMS. Is that not really just a rather crude attempt to marginalise the GPC in the process?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot see any reason why we should want to marginalise the GPC. It is an important body which represents a large number of general practitioners. It is worth making the point that its core responsibility is to cover pay and terms and conditions. PMS goes much wider than that and covers the quality of service and so on. A PMS core contract, which the noble Lord mentioned, sets out the minimum requirements as to quality. I believe that our approach is the right one. There is certainly no slight intended towards the GPC.
Lord Rea: I do not think that the British Medical Association will be terribly pleased with my noble friend's answer. Although the type of contract that PMS doctors have throughout the country will differ, there is a basic level of remuneration and terms and conditions of service which cover them all. As circumstances will differ, there can be local variations. But it is very important for a national body to continue to be able to negotiate with the Government for PMS practitioners as a whole.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry if I have to disappoint the BMA, which I hold in the highest respect. However, just occasionally it is one's duty to disappoint it. All I can do is to reiterate my previous remarks. We need to reflect on the fact that we are considering here a very much more flexible approach at the local level. For that reason, the arrangements for discussions at the national level need to reflect the differences encompassed within PMS. Furthermore, it should be recognised that, through this approach, the role of the local medical committee will assume more importance because it will have the capacity to discuss PMS schemes locally with the local health authority. Surely that is the right approach; namely, to push those discussions down to the local level.
Lord Rea: I do not think that we shall reach agreement on this. However, my noble friend's words will prove extremely useful when carrying this discussion further, either once the Bill has been passed or, possibly, at a later stage in our deliberations. However, in order to speed matters along, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 209 and 210:
Page 38. line 38, at end insert—
1564
"( ) The imposition of such conditions must be with a view to—

(a) preventing any prejudice to the efficiency of the services to which the services list relates; or

(b) preventing any acts or omissions of the type described in section 49F(3)(a) below of the 1977 Act."

Page 38, line 49, at end insert—
"( ) If the regulations provide under subsection (3)(e) or (4) that a Health Authority may suspend or remove a person from a services list, they must include provision—

(a) requiring him to be given notice of any allegation against him;

(b) giving him the opportunity of putting his case at a hearing before the Health Authority make any decision as to his suspension or removal; and

(c) requiring him to be given notice of the Health Authority's decision and the reasons for it and of any right of appeal under subsection (7) or (8)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 211 to 213 not moved.]
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [The Family Health Services Appeal Authority]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 39, line 37, leave out "facilities and persons" and insert "the services of persons employed by a Special Health Authority and"
The noble Lord said: This important clause provides contractors with an independent body to whom they can appeal against health authority decisions. We have encountered it before in earlier amendments. It reconstitutes the Family Health Service Appeals Authority, which is currently a special health authority, into an independent appeals body. The members of this reconstituted authority will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Membership will include people with a lay background, those with legal expertise, and members with relevant professional expertise. As well as performing its existing functions, the reconstituted authority will have adjudicative powers to hear appeals from contractors removed by health authorities. The FHSAA will come under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
Amendments Nos. 214, 215 and 216 deal with the provision of administrative staff and premises to the authority. Amendment No. 216 allows the Secretary of State to make the staff and facilities of a special health authority or NHS trust available to the FHSAA, even though he does not employ them. Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 make technical corrections to Section 49S(7), which imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the staff affected.
In order to protect the existing staff of the authority, they will be transferred to an SHA or NHS trust and arrangements will be made for that body to make them available to the reconstituted FHSAA. Not only will this allow them to retain their Whitley terms of service and entitlement to participate in the NHS pension scheme, but also to retain their expertise in handling appeals. That will be invaluable to the newly appointed president and members.
Amendment No. 217 provides for the Lord Chancellor to be responsible for also determining the terms of their appointment. Amendment No. 218 is consequential and deletes the reference which allows the Lord Chancellor to set the terms of appointment for the members only. Amendment No. 219 is also consequential. It provides for the Lord Chancellor to determine the qualifications which members, other than the president and any deputy president, must have in order to be eligible for membership of the FHSAA.
Amendment No. 223 is a technical amendment which allows time limits on appeals to the existing FHSAA to continue to apply when the determination of those appeals is transferred to the reconstituted authority. Amendment No. 224 provides for regulations to be made providing for a minimum period to elapse before an application or further application can be made for a condition to be varied, replaced or revoked. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 215 to 219:
Page 39. line 38, leave out "to facilities and persons" and insert "in relation to the services of officers of Special Health Authorities to be"
Page 39, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (6)—

(a) the Secretary of State may give directions to an NHS trust requiring it to make facilities or the services of persons available as mentioned there; but

(b) subsections (1) and (2) of section 27 above apply in relation to the services of such persons as they apply in relation to the services of officers to be made available by virtue of section 26 above by a Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust."

Page 40, line 16, at end insert "on terms to be determined by him"
Page 40, line 19, leave out "The terms of appointment of the other members, and"
Page 40, line 20, leave out "they" and insert "the other members"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 40, line 32, leave out from "services" to end of line 34 and insert—
"(aa) medical practitioner performing personal medical services under section 28C arrangements;"
The noble Earl said: As introduced in the other place, paragraph 6(a) of Schedule 9A, which deals with the constitution of the FHSAA, read that the members must include at least one,
"medical practitioner providing general medical services".
An amendment was tabled in Committee that GPs providing personal medical services should also be represented on the new appeals authority. That was accepted by the Minister. However, when tabled at the remaining stages in the Commons, the government amendment made the situation worse. I believe strongly that the two categories of GPs—namely, those providing general medical services and those
1566
providing personal medical services—should both have representation on the appeals authority. The 'way that the paragraph now reads, it will be either one or the other category. We could end up with a situation where a GP providing personal medical services is represented, while a GP providing general medical services—that is, someone who would be representing the majority of GPs—is not represented. I believe that there is an urgent need to correct this anomaly. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I should like to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 in this grouping. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 9A does not specify the precise intention so far as concerns lay representation Amendment No. 221 proposes that that representation should be equivalent to at least 50 per cent of the total membership of the FHSAA. I do not know why the Government have chosen such a terrible acronym; it is very difficult to pronounce. In our view, the right level of lay representation would be a t least 50 per cent. I shall be interested to learn the Minister's view on that.
As regards the annual report of the FHSAA, the Bill currently specifies that the body is entitled to publish only some of its cases. We, along with others, would prefer the FHSAA to publish all its case reports in an anonymous form. Amendment No. 222 is designed to achieve that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I appreciate the aims of each of the amendments in this group, certainly so far as concerns Amendment No. 220. I understand clearly what the noble Earl seeks to achieve here. However, I want to make the point that the FHSAA will not be a representative body. What we are trying to achieve is to ensure that its members and panels have the expertise and experience relevant to the profession of the person who is making the appeal. I think that it is right that we should refer to PMS and GMS general practitioners alongside each other, but I do not believe that, ultimately, it matters one jot whether medical practitioners serving on the authority or the panels are GMS or PMS doctors. The fact is that they will be doctors with good experience of medical practice.
I can assure the noble Earl that we shall want to ensure that there is a good balance of professional members of the authority, including a mix of both GMS and PMS GPs. However, we are reluctant to go down the path of specifying each and every potential variation of primary healthcare worker.
I am sympathetic to the noble Lord's intention in tabling Amendment No. 221. The problem is that each additional separate category of professional member would require a corresponding increase in lay members. I believe that if we were to accept the amendment it would cause practical difficulties for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In practice, even counting legal lay members as lay members, we expect that a majority of the authority's members will need to be professional. That is because the members represent the pool from which panels will be drawn to hear individual cases.

1567
There are four categories of professions within the purview of the authority. Because of that, it seems inevitable that the pool of authority members from whom panels will be drawn will have to include a majority of professionals. But the point is that the authority will not be professionally dominated, because professional membership of each panel will be limited to one.
Amendment No. 222 relates to the requirements in paragraphs 12 and 13 of new Schedule 9A to publish decisions on national disqualification or removal or contingent removal from a health authority list and such other decisions as may be prescribed. I should have thought that that covered the point raised by the noble Lord. I believe that it is an appropriate way for the authority to report its decisions as part of its report on its activities over the year, which will be set out in its annual report. That is provided for in paragraph 19. Sub-paragraph (1) in particular provides for the Secretary of State to specify the topics to be covered in the report. I can confirm that we intend to require the details specified in the noble Lord's amendment to be among the matters on which the authority will report. We simply believe that it is more appropriate to leave such matters to directions rather than place them on the face of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may reply briefly to the Minister's helpful statement on Amendment No. 222. I thank him for a very useful response. As regards Amendment No. 221, we should hate to cause difficulties for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—even though they are only mild difficulties.
As I understand the Minister, he is saying that although he cannot quite comply with the requirements set out in the amendment for lay representation of 50 per cent or over on the authority, the panel will have an overwhelming proportion of lay members. Am I correct?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I refer the noble Lord to paragraph 10 on page 41 of the Bill, which relates to panels which hear appeals or national disqualifications. The panel will be split into three: one lawyer, one professional and one lay member.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister. I am somewhat horrified, speaking as a lawyer, that the FHSAA will be stacked with legal members, and that the panels will also have a very high legal preponderance. I dare say that is the way of the world and one has to accept it. However, I urge the Minister to seek to provide the maximum lay representation both on the authority and on the panels.
Earl Howe: I must say that that was one of the Minister's less convincing answers, however emollient he contrived to sound in delivering it. The FHSAA may not be a completely representative body; however, I do not think that what he said accords with the undertaking given in another place. Although this
1568
is a point of detail, it is a point of principle too, because it concerns a miniterial undertaking. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 220) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79, Not-Contents, 104

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mancroft, L.

Biffen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blaker. L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Blatch, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boardman, L.

Moynihan, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Naseby, L.

Byford, B.

Noakes, B.

Caithness, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cope of Berkeley. L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranborne, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Prior, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe. L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Kingsland, L.

Vivian, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Ahmed. L.

David, B.

Alli, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Amos, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Andrews, B.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dubs, L.

Bach, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Erroll, E.

Billingham, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gale, B.

Burlison, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Carter. L. [Teller]

Gilbert, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Christopher, L.

Grabiner, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grenfell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hardy of Wath.L.

1574

Haskel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Healey, L.

Molloy, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Northfield, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Paul, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rea, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Richard, L.

Rix, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sawyer, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Scotland of Asthal.B.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Levy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lipsey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Warner, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller].

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Weatherill, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Whitaker.B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Whitty, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wilkins, B

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 223 and 224:
Page 42, line 29, after "in" insert "or by virtue of"
Page 42, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) for a period which must elapse before an application, or a further application, may be made under section 49M(5) (a)above:".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Pilot schemes]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 44, line 26, leave out "(other than practitioner dispensing services)".
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 227 and 227AA, which follow it. Clause 35 deals generally with local pharmaceutical services pilot schemes. Clause 35(8) seeks to describe the terms "pharmaceutical services" and "local pharmaceutical services".
The amendment seeks to clarify that dispensing doctors' administrative arrangements for prescription dispensing may also be included in the consideration
1570
of local pharmaceutical services. Local pharmaceutical services pilots are an experiment to investigate more efficient contractual arrangements for dispensing prescriptions. There will be an opportunity to diversify beyond pure dispensing. Health authorities have a duty to make arrangements for prescriptions to be dispensed. In rural areas a retail pharmacy business tends to be unprofitable, so the duty to dispense prescriptions falls on the GP's surgery. In fact all GPs can provide personally administered items such as injectables to patients.
There are approximately 4,300 dispensing doctors in the United Kingdom, serving some 3.5 million patients from around 1,100 mainly rural practices. Dispensing doctors make profits from their dispensing in a slightly different way from pharmacies. These profits are essential in ensuring the provision of GPs in rural areas. I believe that dispensing doctors and their patients should be allowed the same choice of contractual arrangements. It would be a shame if sensible co-operation between dispensing doctors and their neighbouring pharmacies were specifically prohibited.
This amendment would allow for that co-operation in providing local pharmaceutical services. Excluding dispensing doctors from local pharmaceutical services pilots may cause unfair competition in the rural pharmacy market, with the resulting loss of much-needed medical services to the rural community. It could also result in the closure of small independent pharmacies which are so valued for the personal service that they provide. As I understand them, local pharmaceutical services pilot schemes are not intended to open up the market for existing business. If that is the unintended result, then dispensing doctors should be allowed to compete.
On Amendment No. 227AA, in Committee in another place the Government introduced an amendment to Schedule 2, which is now paragraph 5(1). This means that proposals for a pilot scheme must, quite rightly, include an assessment by the health authority of the likely effect of the pilot on existing services.
My suggested amendment—suggested to me in fact by the BMA—takes the process a little further. I believe that the pilot should not be given approval if it prejudices existing arrangements, be they in respect of an existing community pharmacy or a GP dispensing arrangement. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: These clauses are very important. They will allow us to use community pharmacists in a more effective way than we have done in the past. I have always believed that they have been an under-used profession. In order to help us to do that, we need to look closely at improving the current contractual framework for community pharmacy.
At present we have a national framework which provides insufficient incentives for good quality and service performance. We are committed to reforming that national framework, but we also want a more flexible alternative. We want to build on what I think

1571
has been a really successful programme in the personal dental service and the personal medical service. The intention of local pharmaceutical service pilots is to allow local authorities to agree innovative local contracts for pharmacy services tailored to specific local needs.
Participation in those schemes will be voluntary and discretionary. We hope that there will be very exciting proposals from pharmacies not only supplying medicines but managing them, working with local GPs to make sure patients receive the right medicines and the help they need to make the best use out of the medicines which is a big problem at the moment. There are many examples of local schemes involving pharmacists in providing enhanced services. Local pharmaceutical services will help us to develop those services.
I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in terms of the amendment and the effect it would have to allow dispensing doctors' services to fall within the scope of local pharmaceutical service pilot schemes. The development of LPS does not in any way signal a change in our approach to dispensing by doctors. As a general rule, it is best for patients to have access to the skill and expertise of both GPs and pharmacists. It has long been recognised that in some rural areas community pharmacists are unlikely to be viable. Dispensing doctors' services provide an important service in such areas, and we know that that is highly valued by patients.
I can assure the noble Earl that the introduction of LPS and the decision to keep dispensing doctors' services separate are not an indication that the Government take a negative view towards dispensing doctors. The point is that dispensing doctors who wish to take part in an innovative local contract can already do so through personal medical services. There are already a number of dispensing practices involved in the PMS pilot. PMS is clearly based on family doctor services and LPS is largely about community pharmacy services. We think that it would create a muddle to allow dispensing doctors services to be provided through PMS and LPS.
In terms of the general relationship between community pharmacists and rural dispensing doctors, agreement has been reached between the PSNC and the General Practitioners Committee about the regulations governing rural dispensing; this was announced only last week. I believe that it will go a very long way to getting rid of some of the disturbing disputes between doctors and pharmacists about dispensing rights in rural areas. I believe that in that spirit it would be wrong to include dispensing doctors within LPS schemes but right to acknowledge that they can take part in PMS schemes.
I turn to Amendment No. 227A. Under the existing national contract health authorities are obliged to consider applications from people wishing to provide pharmaceutical services in their area. In practice, providing those applications satisfy certain tests health authorities have no choice but to grant them. Essentially, this current system is reactive. Local
1572
pharmaceutical services is a two-way process. We want something much more pro-active. On the one hand, existing contractors and other prospective pilot scheme participants will come forward with ideas they want to discuss with health authorities. At the same time health authorities will be looking for opportunities of their own, stimulating places and situations where an LPS pilot scheme may be the best way to expand and improve local services.
I believe that it will be wasteful if health authorities work out possible LPS pilot schemes and at the same time have to deal with applications to open pharmacies in the same place under national arrangements. It would put unreasonable pressure on the health authority and its prospective partners. My real concern is that it could open the way for blocking applications from people who have no interest in better services. For that reason we want health authorities to be able to designate places as being ones in which LPS is temporarily to have priority. Once they have made the designation they will be able to defer applications under national arrangements. It will give health authorities and their prospective partners in the LPS pilot schemes time to develop proposals and establish schemes which offer the greater benefit to prospective participants and patients.
The effect of the amendment by the noble Earl will be to prevent health authorities deferring applications and rendering much of the clause purposeless. I believe that it would present a significant stumbling block to the development of the LPS. A pharmacist or a company keen to open a new pharmacy in an area which currently lacks a proper service would think twice about proposing an LPS pilot scheme if they knew that their discussions with the health authority would always be under threat from an application from someone else under the national arrangements. I hope that I have answered that point for the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: The Minister's reply to Amendment No. 227AA gives me pause for thought. I will consider what the Minister has said.
I am far from happy with his reply to my other two amendments. The main point I sought to make was that under the situation envisaged there could be unfair competition. I do not see that there is any reason to create a differential between those two types of practitioner—GPs on GMS and GPs who have signed up for PMS. It seems perverse that the opportunity is going to be made available to one group of GPs and not the vast majority. It will be possible in an LPS scheme to provide additional services such as diagnostic testing and investigative procedures. A GP may wish to apply to provide these services, and it is important that the patient's care is properly coordinated and integrated.
The Minister said that the opportunity to take part in pilot schemes already exists within personal medical services and it would create a muddle to include them in local pharmaceutical services as well. I do not think that is true. I believe that GPs who wish to remain in

1573
general medical service schemes should have the same opportunity. I should like to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 226) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Con tents, 99.
5.37 p.m.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Making pilot schemes]:
[Amendment No. 227A A not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Designation of priority neighbourhoods or premises]:
[Amendment No. 227A not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Reviews of pilot schemes]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 45, line 21, at end insert "and
(c) any provider of pharmaceutical services locally,'"
The noble Earl said: Clause 38 sets out conditions for the review of "each pilot scheme" established for local pharmaceutical services. Such a review is necessary to ensure that the pilot scheme is achieving its objectives. The results of all reviews of pilot schemes will, presumably, be collated in a way that ensures that permanent arrangements for local pharmaceutical services will follow.
Clause 38(3) seeks to describe the persons who must be consulted when reviewing the pilot scheme. The intention behind the amendment is to give an opportunity for those persons providing pharmaceutical services locally to contribute to the review. Local pharmaceutical services pilots are an experiment to simplify contractual arrangements for dispensing medicines. However, what they should not

1575
do—indeed, are not intended to do—is to provide a mechanism for predatory chemists to take over existing business. Small, local pharmaceutical businesses are already being taken over by larger companies in a fiercely competitive market. The local chemist, or dispensing doctor, may be less able to take part in a pilot scheme, but he provides a valued local service and should be allowed to comment if he sees his business being unfairly taken away. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl referred to predatory chemists. The whole approach that we have taken in the pharmacy strategy is to draw a careful balance. There is no doubt that the community pharmacy environment is highly competitive and very much reflects the intensely commercial environment for retail trade generally.
It would have been possible for the Government to have opted for a wholesale deregulation and, for instance, to have removed control of entry rules completely to allow for ever more competition. However, we decided not to do that. We decided to adopt a middle way which recognises the important network of community pharmacies that we have but also, through mechanisms such as local pharmacy services, develops some incentives to help focus attention on improving quality.
No one can say that every current community pharmacist will thrive and prosper in the future. But what we can say is that those who are up to the challenge of providing higher quality services will be in the best position to ensure their future prosperity. The noble Earl said he thought that LPS might not relate to very small community pharmacies. I see no reason why that should be the case. I assure him that we shall look for imaginative proposals from community pharmacies of all sizes. I believe that that is relevant to the question of review. It is important that we have inclusive and thorough reviews. However, I am not convinced that the noble Earl's amendment is the right approach to securing such thoroughness.
The review and evaluation of a pilot scheme will involve seeking the views of people well beyond the scheme itself. That will include other local pharmacies. Having required health authorities to assess the likely effects of pilot schemes on local services before they put them forward for approval in the first place, it naturally follows that our reviewers of schemes will also be interested in what those effects have been in practice. However, I do not believe that putting on the face of primary legislation the detail of who would be involved in those reviews is the best way forward.
I also believe that there is a danger of giving an impression that these reviews concern primarily the health authority and the provider, the LPS, lobbying to keep the scheme going, with, on the other hand, the scheme's commercial competitors arguing for it to cease. Clearly we need to go beyond that to provide rounded reviews which give a much more impartial and sensible summary of the effectiveness of the scheme, its impact and how well the public interest has been served. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that
1576
I recognise the competitive environment in which community pharmacists operate, but we cannot put a ring fence round that. The environment is competitive. LPS is an important way of investing in higher quality services. However, I believe that we have adopted the right balance between leaving the control of entry regulations as they are—apart from some specific areas where we want to see flexibility—and encouraging new investment and innovation.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I did not in the least mean to suggest that there should be a protectionist flavour to this part of the Bill. The Minister is right to suggest that no one has an automatic right to be in business and it is a competitive world out there. However, he said earlier that consultation was part and parcel of the department's way of proceeding. That was the only suggestion behind the amendment. Nevertheless I take comfort from what he said about wishing to conduct rounded reviews. I am sure that what he said will be reassuring in that context. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 47 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [LPS Schemes]:
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 228A:
Page 82, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The regulations shall provide for setting service standards, imposing conditions (including conditions as to qualifications, training and experience) to be satisfied by persons providing LP services, and for National Health Service redress mechanisms to be available in relation to the provision of LP services."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 228A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 229A and to the section more generally in the interests of time. We welcome much that we see here, especially the extension of prescribing rights. We hope that there will be flexibility in the way that that is implemented in terms of any lists to be used. However, we are concerned to ensure that in any new arrangements high standards will apply and that there is full professional accountability.
Where pilots are concerned, we are anxious to see the same standards apply that we see elsewhere in the National Health Service, for example as regards the rights of patients to redress should things go wrong. In addition, where online services are concerned, it is vital that information on patients is secure and that a high standard of service is offered. How is that system to be policed? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We shall certainly expect contracts for local pharmaceutical services to include service standards. We shall also expect them to reflect specific local needs and circumstances, but also national priorities and standards.
On training, qualifications and expertise, we shall expect local contracts to make clear what is expected of the people taking part. Similarly, on what the

1577
amendment calls "redress mechanisms", we intend that local pharmaceutical services will fall within the ambit of NHS complaints mechanisms. Where I disagree with the noble Baroness is on the question of how much detail should be included on the face of the Bill. In this schedule we are dealing with the substantive arrangements for LPS, which will follow the pilot stage, if—as I am confident it will—piloting shows that the continuation of LPS is in the best interests of the National Health Service. It will be at least two years—and it could be more—before those powers are used. By then we shall have learned much more from pilot schemes. For that reason we have made the regulation-making powers in the schedule deliberately wide. I believe that that is the best approach.
Amendment No. 229A concerns the provision of pharmaceutical services by remote means. Clause 50 provides substantive new powers. In particular, subsection (4) confers an explicit reserve power to require providers' mail order or e-pharmacy services to be accredited for that purpose. Some of the other changes are rather more technical. For example, subsection (6) would allow local pharmaceutical committees to continue to represent pharmacists based in their area, even if they provide services to people in another area.
I believe that subsection (3), to which the noble Baroness's amendment relates, falls into the latter category of essentially technical changes. Its effect is to allow us to exempt from control of entry rules those who intend to supply services exclusively by remote means. I stress that they would not have to show that their service was necessary or desirable to secure adequate pharmaceutical services in the neighbourhood in question, which is part of the criteria in relation to control of entry. I stress that it does not mean that such providers will have an advantage over other pharmacies. Their business will not be dependent on the local population. People would always be able to find a location where their application would be granted. They would merely have to find somewhere where there was no local pharmacy. Because they are not primarily serving the local population, we think that it is rather odd to judge their application by reference to the needs of the population. The general thrust of control of entry rules is to limit the number of pharmacies serving any given neighbourhood. That concept is obviously not relevant to services being provided mainly by remote means.. That is why we have taken a power to exempt from the rules, if that seems appropriate.
I should add that that new power applies only to people who provide all their services by remote means. Furthermore, in an attempt to avoid that system becoming a way of evading control of entry rules, we are taking an explicit power by which we would require health authorities to make the grant of such applications subject to conditions; and I emphasise that the health authorities would be responsible for overseeing that. One condition for a health authority may be to ensure that the service did not subsequently change to a more traditional service in which patients
1578
would visit the premises. We want to make sure that this would not be a back-door way of evading the control of entry rules.
Baroness Northover: I am very reassured by what the Minister has said on Amendment No. 228A. Although Amendment No. 229A is more specific than the issue that I addressed, I hope that the system of which the Minister speaks in terms of health authorities does work satisfactorily. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Corresponding provision and application of enactments]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Remote provision of pharmaceutical, etc. services.]
[Amendment No. 229A not moved.]
On Question, whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I initiate a very short debate on Clause 50. In doing so, I make it clear at the outset that I harbour no desire whatever to frustrate its very positive proposals.
My concern arises because I believe that the concept of remote dispensing raises a number of fundamental issues relating to patient care. If one asks a pharmacist what his role is in dispensing a prescription, he will always say that it is primarily a checking role. He would include in that definition the role of making sure that patients understood how to take their medicine, the purpose of it, and the instructions relating to the dosage.
During that process, a pharmacist occasionally will discover a doctor's prescribing error. Doctors' errors of that sort are rare; I do not want to suggest otherwise. These days computer systems in GPs' surgeries are very sophisticated. At the time of prescribing, the computer checks the compatibility of the medicine with the patient's medical condition and any other medicines being prescribed. Despite that, however, a computer will never provide a pharmacist's full service.
My concern—a nagging worry more than anything else—is that when remote dispensing gets under way, it will turn into a van-delivery service, perhaps run by a large national pharmacy chain, with electronic transfer of prescriptions. We need to look carefully at what we shall gain and what we shall lose by that sort of streamlining. We will obviously gain convenience and speed. What we may lose will emerge only over time—perhaps the livelihood of the local chemist, or even that of the local dispensing doctor, and the sort of face-to-face professional advice that a pharmacist is able to give. In that regard, there is a risk, however small, to patient safety. Beyond a certain point, that

1579
would be an unacceptable price to pay for progress. I would welcome any comments that the Minister has to make.
Baroness Northover: I should very much like to associate these Benches with the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the concerns, which are well expressed. Although I do not believe that mail order or on-line pharmacies will suddenly sweep away traditional community pharmacy services, they can provide a useful service and an extra option for some people. Ideally, the choice should be made by patients themselves. Equally, I accept that the public must be assured that mail order and on-line pharmacies meet the same legal and professional standards as any other pharmacy. Legally, that means that all pharmacy and prescription-only medicines must be supplied only from registered retail pharmacy premises. Those premises are regularly inspected by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which I have always found to be a particularly rigorous regulating authority.
In addition, pharmacy and prescription-only medicines may be supplied only by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. For prescription-only medicines, there must also be a prescription. A breach of any of those conditions would amount to a criminal offence. On-line pharmacies must also meet the standards expected of the profession as a whole, as well as the particular standards set by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in relation to Internet-based services.
Given those standards, the Government's view is that if legal and ethical safeguards are met, there is no reason at all why on-line pharmacies should not be safe and provide patients with new choices when obtaining their medicines. However, we have made it clear that if additional safeguards prove to be necessary, or if providers of on-line services cannot demonstrate their own quality and security of service, we shall work with the professions and patient groups to introduce further controls. We have not taken any decision as to whether such further controls will be needed. We shall have to assess that in the light of our experience, following discussion with patient and professional groups.
In conclusion, we believe that on-line pharmacy services would be useful to a number of people, but we accept that we must ensure that they are provided professionally and safely.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that very fair reply. I particularly endorse the sentiments expressed at the end of his reply. This is obviously an experiment which needs to be kept under review. From what the Minister has said, I am confident that the department will do that. I also share his view that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society will play its part in ensuring that the experiment works as well as we all hope.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Extension o f prescribing rights]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 71, line 17, at end insert—
"(9) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall, after a period of three months beginning with the publication of the draft—

(a) consult persons appearing to him appropriate to consult as representing the professions listed in subsection (3)(1A)(a) to (h), and

(b) publish a report detailing the results of such consultations and advice given by the relevant Committee of the Medicines Control Agency,

and may lay the draft as published, or with any modifications he considers appropriate, before both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to reassure those organisations which, as a consequence of this Bill, will be provided with prescribing rights. There is no doubt that the extension of prescribing rights to a wide range of health professionals will free up medical practitioners' time, allowing them to deal with other cases and reduce costs in the NHS; and we very much welcome that.
However, some of the relevant health professionals are concerned that the measures, when introduced, may not be appropriate for their specific organisation. Clause 68 only enables legislation. We understand that the Government will not introduce any secondary legislation until an advisory group has been set up under the remit of the Medicines Control Agency.
Before that committee is set up, the importance of reporting and proper consultation with all the health professionals affected, including ensuring that they are fairly represented on the committee, cannot be overstated. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord has tabled an interesting amendment, particularly in view of the fact that some quite important decisions will have to be made under Clause 68, which we very strongly support. It has long been awaited and represents a very positive move forward. But questions are raised by the professions in this context, and I suspect that consultation will be more than usually important in relation to who will retain clinical responsibility; the independence of prescribing rights; whether those rights are dependent on an existing prescriber or are truly independent; and appropriate safeguards. Strong professional views will be expressed during the process. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has raised an important issue in that respect.
6 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: On the face of it, the amendment is very reasonable. I would welcome the opportunity for professionals such as osteopaths, chiropractors, chiropodists, podiatrists and others to be able to prescribe under appropriate circumstances. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the question of ultimate clinical responsibility is important, as is the definition of the range of drugs

1581
that can be prescribed by such individuals. For that reason, the amendment would be a useful addition to the clause and it should be generally welcomed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to Clause 68. I am sure that Members of the Committee all recognise the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in developing nurse prescribing some years ago. We are building on that remarkable development.
The amendment is linked to the Government's plans to enable Ministers by order to grant prescribing rights to additional groups of health professionals and to designate new categories of prescriber and the conditions that may be applied to their prescribing. I understand the sentiments that underlie the amendment, but there is already a legal requirement under Section 129(6) of the Medicines Act 1968 to consult organisations that are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by an order under the Act. In practice, the department and the Medicines Control Agency already consult widely with professional bodies, pharmaceutical organisations, patient groups and NHS organisations. Consultation letters are also routinely published on the Department of Health and MCA websites.
I understand the purpose of the amendment, but I feel that the arrangements that are already in place will be sufficient for consultation. I also have one concern about the amendment, because it would appear to require a three-month standstill period before consultation. I suspect that that would result in an overly long period between the preparation of the draft order and the making of the order.
More generally, my experience is that all the professions and public interest groups involved take an intense interest in extending prescribing rights. There will be no problem in ensuring that we get the views of all the relevant professions.
Lord Clement-Jones: Will the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I have raised be the subject of consultation under the duties that the Minister has mentioned?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I expect the consultation to be wide and to encompass a number of issues along the lines that have been raised in the Chamber tonight.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendment and I am comforted by it. We have been contacted by a number of professional organisations. The Minister's point about the legal requirement and the availability of information on the Internet will give them some comfort. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Care Trusts where voluntary partnership arrangements]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before I call Amendment No. 231, I advise the
1582
Committee that if it is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 232 to 236 because of preemption.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved. Amendment No. 231:
Page 53, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Where

(a) one or more Primary Care Trusts, NHS trusts or local authorities are, or are to be, party to any existing or proposed delegation arrangements, and

(b) the relevant authority is of the opinion that the establishment of a new body would be likely to promote the proper integration of prescribed health-related functions of a local authority in conjunction with prescribed NHS functions of a Primary Care Trust or NHS trust (in accordance with the arrangements),

the relevant authority may establish a Care Trust."
The noble Baroness said: We now move on to one of the most fascinating aspects of our consideration in Committee—the rather curious beasts called care trusts. Much has been said about them in the NHS Plan. Everybody welcomes the principle behind them, which is that there should be much closer co-operation between health and social services, but nobody knows exactly what they are going to do or how they are going to do it.
When I read the report of the debates in another place, I was struck by the fact that it did not become apparent even to some seasoned Members until half way through the Standing Committee stage that the care trusts would be built on primary care trusts. Many issues need to be brought out in our discussions today. The amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 232 and 234, starts that process.
The Explanatory Notes say that care trusts will be partnerships between local authorities and the NTIS. The purpose of the amendments is to establish whether it would be possible for a local authority rather than an NHS body to become a care trust. The thrust of most of the rest of the Bill appears to be that only NHS bodies can do so.
A number of very good partnerships have been developed under Section 31 of the Health Act 1999, featuring voluntary arrangements with pooled budgets, lead commissioning and integrated delivery, particularly on developing services for learning disabilities. The amendments would extend the opportunities for that work. A number of local authorities have developed very high standards of practice for dealing with social care. It would seem wrong not to enable such arrangements to go forward under the new designation of care trusts. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that interesting proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about partnership arrangements. I agree that they have been very successful. I was interested that she mentioned learning disabilities, because that issue is apposite to the White Paper that we published on Tuesday and some good partnership arrangements are being developed around the country. Care trusts are all

1583
about building on that success and ensuring that when arrangements are not so successful, we have avenues to ensure that partnerships get off the ground. I am sure that we shall deal with that later in our debates on care trusts.
The trusts are about partnership and ensuring that it happens in the context of an NHS body. The clauses have been written so that we can make that possible for NHS trusts and primary care trusts, although the new organisations will have a new name—care trusts—to demonstrate their integration. They are mainly about voluntary agreements made locally. They will be set up through those means and, where necessary, dissolved by local agreement.
The aim is to develop new organisations without proliferation, building on what we already have. Most importantly, they build on joint working and flexibility. The department has been notified of more than 40 schemes, with £300 million allocated to them. I believe that that provides a sense of the impact that it is already having.
We want to continue to encourage the use of partnership agreements. We accept that the lead will be taken by different agencies—both local authorities and NHS bodies—in different parts of the country. Care trusts are not the only route that we envisage for the development of the scheme in the future. They are but one option. That is why I have reservations about the amendments that have been put forward tonight. Amendment No. 231 would also require that we establish entirely new and additional stand-alone organisations into which services would be delegated from NHS bodies and local authorities.
We have made it clear that the key building block for care trusts will be NHS bodies formed out of NHS trusts and primary care trusts. However, where appropriate NHS bodies can delegate more services to local authorities using existing Health Act flexibilities, we shall be entirely happy and shall wish to see that take place. Therefore, care trusts do not provide the only route, and it is not the case that the only route down which one can go is an NHS-type body. We are also anxious to encourage local authority leadership through existing partnership arrangements.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 232 and 234. So far as concerns local government, the governance arrangements are already in place with the statutory responsibility of the local authority. The problem is that, if the Health Act partnership arrangement is led from an NHS body, it cannot alter its governance to take account of the additional services. Therefore, appointments from local government cannot be made in the way that we would wish.
The Bill enables us to provide proper governance for partnership arrangements where the NHS is the lead body. In relation to local government, where, as I said, we are anxious to encourage more partnership schemes led by local government, a similar issue concerning governance arrangements does not arise.
1584
That is why we are following this route and why I do not believe that the amendments suggested by the noble Baroness are necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a quick question. Personally, I was heartened by the points that he made in relation to the lead that will be taken by different agencies and the fact that care trusts are not the only route. However, in that case, why follow the compulsion route in Clause 53?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Compulsion does not apply only to care trusts; it applies to the whole partnership arrangement. The compulsion, as the noble Lord rather graphically describes it, in Clause 53 is for the—I am sure, rare—occurrences where it is apparent that partnership is simply not taking place and where, as a result, poor quality services are being provided. In certain circumstances, the Secretary of State will wish to have the opportunity to direct partnership act arrangements. However, they do not have to be trusts.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply, which was helpful. However, the other question which arises is: will not care trusts inevitably be the model on which the delivery of services ultimately is based? In a sense, the use of the mechanism will become a pattern. I understand that the Minister says that, by definition, because of the way in which the department conceives of the scheme, they are NHS-founded bodies because they are based on primary care trusts.
However, would it not be better to conceive of something that effectively was the essence of partnership? One could give that label to partnership and that, therefore, could give rise to a care trust through a joint initiative. Thus, there would be joint governance. It seems that the department is missing a trick by defining care trusts as, in a sense, the sole NHS creature and by then bringing on board local government services. That does not seem to be in the spirit of partnership, which otherwise it could have been.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that two points arise here. First, by making it clear that there are different options and that care trusts are not the only option to be used, I believe that we are showing that we are not seeking to force a particular path on to local government. Secondly—I do not know whether I can tempt my noble friend to join in on this point—it is clear that a number of local authorities are attracted by the care trust mechanism. However, at the end of the day, it is a voluntary mechanism and the arrangements will need to be worked out locally. If local authorities do not consider that it is appropriate, they do not have to go down that route.
Baroness Barker: I did not find the Minister's argument terribly convincing. I still do not see why these have to be primarily NHS bodies and why their

1585
governance must be within the NHS. The Minister said that care trusts are not the only option. In approximately five years' time, I shall look again at that statement in the light of what takes place. I shall be very surprised if other arrangements are still in existence.
The Minister makes a good point in relation to local authorities being attracted by the proposal. I believe that they are attracted by the potential for getting their hands near resources which currently are limited to the NHS. I am not so sure that they are attracted by the Government's arrangements. I understand that the Government—
Lord Smith of Leigh: Resources are always attractive to local authorities. However, essentially local authorities are attracted by achieving the best for the service users. We all want to see the delivery of proper, joined-up services, and that is what will attract local authorities.
Baroness Barker: I accept the noble Lord's point. However, I remain unconvinced about governance arrangements where there is a clear potential for the NHS to be a pre-eminent partner. Therefore, with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I thank the Minister for his answer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 53, line 25, after "authority" insert ", after consultation with other expert health and social services bodies,".
The noble Baroness said: I spoke earlier about the degree of anticipation in relation to care trusts. I believe that the number of amendments in this grouping, and the questions that lie behind them, reflects much of the anxiety about the proposals from the Government in relation to care trusts.
The emphasis of this group of amendments concerns consultation—that is, consultation not only with local authorities but also with users and those who are likely to be service users. At present, the extent to which proposals to initiate care trusts will be subject to widespread consultation is not clear. I hesitate to say this but, given the background to this matter, where some NHS bodies do not have a great track history on consultation, particularly with voluntary groups, I believe that it is necessary to be specific about the method of consultation and about those who have the right to be involved.
I take the Minister back to the creation and reorganisation of certain NHS trusts in the past. Some did not demonstrate a great deal of involvement with those who ultimately would be users. That is the gist of the amendments. I invite Members of the Committee to go further than I have done in probing the
1586
Minister's intention about the degree of consultation and involvement of all parts of the community that will take place. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I take it that this group of amendments has been ungrouped.
Earl Howe: I do apologise. I shall speak to those amendments in the group that appear in my name; that is, Amendments Nos. 237, 241 and 249. They are designed to achieve much the same result as those to which the noble Baroness has just spoken. I agree with her; it is disappointing that there is so little provision for consultation in the Bill and particularly disappointing that such provisions have been omitted from the clause.
One hardly needs to spell out the reasons why consultation before setting up care trusts is so important. The main and most obvious reason is that care trusts, whenever and wherever they are proposed, represent uncharted territory for participants. Parties will be in no doubt that by coming together they face formidable adjustments not simply in terms of the shift in statutory responsibilities but also logistically in terms of staff, money and information systems. There will also be adjustments in the union of two very different cultures. Those involved have to be confident that such adjustments are manageable. Everyone needs to be certain that there are clear-cut advantages in moving to care trust status.
The provisions have significant implications for local government in particular. Although Ministers speak in terms of a delegation of responsibilities, many believe that the transfer of a key set of local government functions involves a dilution of accountability to local people. Local people must feel empowered both through the ballot box and day to day as service users.
There is uncertainty surrounding the Government's arrangements for care trusts, which we shall debate later. It is not clear to me how a change in the control of a local authority will translate into a change in direction at care trust level, should such a change be sought. We debated the fragmentation of the role of CHCs when we discussed earlier amendments. I hope that the new arrangements for patient empowerment recognise the need to have clear pathways for service users who wish to make a complaint. That requires a mechanism with a public profile that does not shunt such service users from pillar to post as they try to find the responsible department.
Perhaps I should also speak briefly to those amendments of mine that relate to Clause 53 and which are in this group of amendments. As the noble Baroness said, Clause 53 will enable the Secretary of State to force a care trust into existence against the wishes of either of the parties to it. That concept immediately raises questions about the workability of such a care trust. It is hard to envisage on the one hand a partnership, which has connotations of good will and voluntary co-operation, and, on the other, an

1587
arrangement that is forced on the parties from the outside. There is something inherently contradictory about that.
One point on which we may all agree is that whatever is or is not done by the Secretary of State in this context, the aim must always be the good of the patient. Care trusts are all about delivering effective and efficient services. I go so far with the Government as to say that if it is necessary to ruffle a few feathers in the process of moving to a better delivery of service, so be it. However, if the aim is the good of the patient, it follows that patients should have the opportunity to sign up to the arrangements that Clause 53 will put in place. That is why it is essential, as Amendments Nos. 254, 257 and 258 make clear, that whichever patients' organisations are in existence when these provisions come into force, those organisations should be consulted on the proposed use of the Secretary of State's powers of direction. The Secretary of State may judge that there has been a failure to deliver adequate services locally and, on that basis, decide to force a local authority to surrender its functions to him. That would be an extremely serious matter on which patients' representative bodies should have a right to comment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I want briefly to back up the comments of my noble friend Lady Barker and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this group of amendments. I also want to discuss Amendment No. 233.
On the proposals relating to care trusts, I am most concerned about the provisions involving compulsion in Clause 53. That raises the issue of "failing". I cannot see a definition of that word, which is highly subjective. The intention of Amendment No. 233 is to introduce a rather less subjective provision; it involves consultation with other expert health and social services bodies. One could choose from a range of bodies in this context, including CHI, the Social Services Inspectorate, NICE and the Audit Commission. I am sure that other noble Lords could propose other bodies. All of those bodies have at least one thing in common; namely, that they would have reported on and reviewed whether a body was not performing as it should, and they would have made a clear statement to that effect. That would give some assurance that the powers would not be used arbitrarily. I am not a fan of the clause, but if it is going to operate, it needs such a safeguard.
Baroness Cumberlege: I inform the Minister that Mrs Archibald would be very pleased with the clauses—she would be delighted that there was a care trust in the offing.
All of us should agree that it is right for health and social care to be brought closer together. To digress for a moment, I chaired the Brighton health authority for five years, where we ran hospitals and community services. We were probably acting illegally—I do not think that there were any provisions at that time that enabled us to do so. We devolved our budgets to the patch teams of social workers and to the
1588
neighbourhood nursing team in a given area. It was magical—the results were absolutely amazing. We delegated revenue budgets and capital assets. The first thing that the group did was to bulldoze a residential home that was long out of date and contained 64 beds that smelt to high heaven. In its place, we built a nursing home and some housing association sheltered housing. The impact was amazing and its effect on Brighton General Hospital was incredible, in that very few people were admitted—they were contained in the local community instead. I am a strong advocate of such an approach.
I went back about 10 years after I had left Brighton and found that the whole scheme had folded and that the system had gone backwards and towards what it had been previously. I sought to find out why that had happened. The scheme folded because the champions had left and budgets had been tightly squeezed. That contains some lessons for us in this context.
I am in favour of the proposed approach but some difficult issues have to be teased out to get social services, local authorities, health authorities and NHS trusts to work together. There is a rumour in the health service—the Minister may not be aware of this—that the Government are already setting targets and that they have decided on the number of care trusts that they want by next year. The rumour is that they want at least one.
I have done much work on current developments in joint services. I have studied three areas in this country and I am enormously impressed by what is going on without care trusts and through other mechanisms, as Members of the Committee have mentioned. A plea that comes to me from the service is, "Please do not make us run before we can walk". We must assess whether we have a shared philosophy and clear principles about what we should achieve. We have to ensure that the outcomes are clear, achievable and agreed. The governance, about which I have serious reservations, needs to be clear and efficient. The finance needs to be set in a framework that is agreed by everybody. Local government is nervous that the money that is set aside for care trusts will be siphoned off to acute services. We are already seeing that happening with primary care trusts and patient care groups.
An important issue involves charges. There are free services in the NHS and charges in social services. There must be an opportunity for organisational development and training, and we must iron out, or at least understand, some of the cultural differences that exist. We are considering two organisations with different histories, different accountabilities and different cultures. Neither is right or wrong; they both have strengths. Bringing them together is a huge challenge. There need to be robust relationships, based on trust. I am sure that the Minister will know the area in the West Midlands, to which I am referring, where huge strides are being made. The schemes have been built over 10 years and there is enormous trust between both bodies. It is interesting that those who pioneered

1589
them are still there 10 years later. That is quite unusual, especially in the health service, where people gyrate round at an alarming rate.
However willing the spirit, the mechanisms are complicated. It is essential that they are worked through with clarity. I have been reading Care Trusts—emerging framework, which was produced by the Department. Interestingly, paragraph 3 states:
"The policy is being developed as the detailed issues emerge and are considered."
I am surprised at that and find it worrying. The Government must decide their basic policy before those involved in the field can respond. Of course, it is right that the people concerned should be involved in the details about mechanisms, and so on, but it behoves the Government to decide their policy before asking Parliament to agree to legislation. It is policy being made on the hoof, which is worrying.
Paragraph 7 of the document states:
"Care trusts can only succeed where partners are fully committed to, and can influence the direction of the new organisation."
I agree with that, which is why I am so concerned about the power being given to the Secretary of State. I have listened to the Minister, who says that there can be other mechanisms besides the care trusts. Surely we have learnt that when a scheme is voluntary, it is much more likely to succeed. I know that the present Government had reservations about GP fundholding, but it was a voluntary scheme, which had great strengths. PMS pilots, which were also introduced by the previous Government, have proved to be a success. People are building on that voluntary scheme. I do not understand how the Secretary of State can think that by forcing two bodies together and forcing a shotgun marriage to take place that will work.
The report continues:
"Care trusts will be a partnership between the NHS and the local council".
On governance, it states:
"The Government is considering how the board can best be constituted given the different streams of accountability … Care trusts will also need to be accountable to the users of their services, and will have representation from the Patients' Forums and the Patients' Advisory and Liaison services."
It continues:
"Links with user groups, citizen's panels etc will need to be made".
Local authority scrutiny committees will also be involved.
I wonder how that board will look—it will comprise councillors, NHS people, and so on. I am afraid that it will be not a board, but a conference. So many people will be chattering away, without decisions being made. There needs to be much more clarity about that issue. I can see the scrutiny committees being mischief makers if, for example, there are one or two disaffected councillors who think that their budgets are being eroded.
I agree with the principle, but I do not think that the Government have thought through the issue. It behoves them to set out their policy clearly before bringing it to Parliament.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I take this opportunity to inform the Minister, so that he does not have to rifle through his notes, that I was speaking earlier to Amendment No. 253, which appears in a later grouping.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is clear that we would have enjoyed a general debate about care trusts before going on to the specific amendments. I know that some of the substantive points that have been made will come up in later amendments.
I shall respond to some of the key points, especially those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I assure her that Mrs Archibald has been very much in the minds of the Department of Health since our debate on Monday. If she were living in Brighton, she could enjoy some of the services that have been developed there. As the noble Baroness knows, Brighton was the forerunner of patient advocacy and liaison services, and it deserves congratulation on having the courage to pioneer it. I agree with the noble Baroness that success in the health and social care field is dependent on having champions who have the guts and leadership to stick with it and change things.
Rumours in the health service are generally to be avoided. I agree that the policy will not work unless there is enthusiastic ownership by the health services and local government. Surely that is the answer to concerns about targets. Unless both partners are willing to go into it, it will not happen.
We shall come to issues of governance and accountability. They are important, but the parties interested in evolving into care trusts must understand the rules of the game at the start, so that arguments can be sorted out in the beginning, rather than being confronted during the process. On cultural differences, I have always accepted that the nursing and medical model and the social care model have not always coexisted effectively.
Like the noble Baroness, I am really encouraged by what has happened in the past few years on the partnership between health and local government. There have been enormous improvements. I always quote the example of our winter planning this winter. I do not believe that we would have withstood the pressures on the health service unless we had the wholehearted support of local government and social services. I am optimistic that there has been a. sea change in attitudes, which will come through in care trusts, enabling us to deal with cultural differences.
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness on the need to set out the rules at the beginning. At the development stage, we need to be open to ideas, and we need to be informed by health and local authorities, so that we get it as right as we possibly can.
On the issue of the amendments before the Committee, I was disappointed by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, when she referred to the record on NHS consultation, particularly in relation to voluntary organisations. The NHS Confederation once produced a very good book on NHS voluntary

1591
organisation relationships which I would commend to her because, again, I believe that we need to encourage the NHS to work much more closely with voluntary organisations. One way to do that is through Clause 11, which imposes a new duty on the NHS to involve and consult patients and their representatives.
I am absolutely certain that in care trusts, with their patients' forums and representation from voluntary organisations, unlike with community health councils, there will be people from voluntary organisations who are able to have access to the leadership of that care trust. I am sure that that will be an enormous enhancement of that dialogue.
I want to assure the Committee that we shall set out consultation arrangements in regulations and directions so that all stakeholders will be able to take an active part in developing proposals for voluntary and, indeed, direct care trusts. I will come back to that when we debate it later.
Like a number of other amendments which have been tabled in relation to consultation, I never think that it is helpful to set out on the face of the Bill those organisations which must be consulted. We know that when those organisations are listed, others are bound to be missed off. It is important for me to make it absolutely clear that there will be full consultation. We propose that through the regulations under Clause 52(7) and (8) and Clause 53(7), which deal with conditions which must be satisfied before an application can be made, we shall ensure that that guarantees effective consultation.
Perhaps I may comment on the wording of some of the amendments. They have tended to focus on patients. Obviously patients' views are important but we need to go wider than that. We need to embrace professionals, employees and other private and healthcare providers.
I hope that I have assured the Committee that consultation will be an integral part of the process by which care trusts are created.
Lord Clement-Jones: Was the Minister speaking in the context of both Clauses 52 and 53?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord is constantly charging on to Clause 53 before we reach it. Obviously arrangements would be different under the directed model because there might be a need to act more quickly than in relation to arrangements under a voluntary trust. But we should not want to establish directed trusts at the expense of proper consultation.
Baroness Barker: I, too, am in something of a dilemma. I believe that we should have had a general and wide-ranging debate on care trusts. I signal my intention to raise more general questions once we have debated Clause 52. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that not only is it difficult to see what the Government's policy is but it is also very difficult to question that policy. Some of us came
1592
prepared this evening to listen to explanations from the Minister and to ask him a series of questions thereafter.
However, I take the point that the Minister made about consultation. It is quite clear that consultation and standards of consultation vary. The process of consultation has become significantly devalued in the minds of users, particularly since it first became prevalent following the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act. There is a real need to restore the confidence of users in consultation. That is probably the motivation behind some of the amendments which have been tabled this evening.
However, I take the Minister at his word that regulations will cover those matters. I believe that eventually we shall have a parliamentary Session which deals with nothing but regulations and there will be no Bills whatever. We shall be kept very busy just discussing regulations for about seven months. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 234 to 236 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 237 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 238 because of preemption.
[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh Lord Smith of Leigh moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 53, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations issued about governance arrangements for Care Trusts shall reflect their partnership nature, as between health bodies and local authorities."
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I must remind the Committee of my interest as leader of a local council. I should like to say how much I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said about the difficulties of setting up care trusts.
However, I believe that there is a principle here, which is that patients should come first. The service should be designed to meet the interests of patients rather than the interests of the organisations. We understand the difference in culture between local authorities and health authorities, but we need to go over that, and that is what care trusts need to do.
Care trusts are bound by their nature to be complex beasts. They need to reflect local circumstances and, indeed, local needs. They may involve primary care trusts, singly or severally, acute hospital trusts as well as local authorities. The degree of involvement may vary according to the nature of the service going into the care trust. So if it is a care trust which deals largely with services for the elderly, it would be a somewhat different configuration from that which deals with people with mental health problems, and so on.
Therefore, the arrangements need a certain amount of flexibility, and in this case I believe that the Government are right not to try to put on the face of

1593
the Bill the detail of the arrangements because there will be different solutions to meet those particular circumstances. In other words, I believe that we can be too prescriptive. I understand and share some of the concerns raised by the later amendments, in particular Amendment No. 247. However, I do not think that we should, for example, stipulate that 50 per cent of the appointments must be local authority members. That may not be appropriate if a particular service was not provided in that way in the past.
As regards governance, we were somewhat reassured by what the Minister said on Second Reading when he referred to a partnership of equals, but there remains a considerable amount of anxiety about governance in the local authority world. The Minister has received letters from the ADSS, the LGA and Unison, to name just a few. Those concerns are not just about status within the new arrangements but they are concerns about confidence and trust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, and the effectiveness of those new care trusts.
If there are to be real partnerships, there needs to be confidence on the part of all the players involved. Each of the bodies has ongoing accountability for the services which it starts to have responsibility for. Local authorities will have to have confidence in the quality and availability of the social care element going into the care trust. There is accountability to the Department of Health and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, to local service users. We need to be accountable downwards as well as upwards. That is very important.
As the noble Baroness also mentioned, we need to be concerned about the relative priority given to social care against more acute medical care, which may get priority.
Securing confidence needs to be done at two levels. The first is at board level. We need to make sure that local authority appointments to the board enjoy the confidence of the local authorities which they represent. They need to have the right both to appoint and then, for whatever reason, to change too. That is important at board level.
At operational level, there needs to be an equal contribution from professionals on both sides. I need to remind the Committee that the benefits of local authority involvement means that it is not just social services which are coming on board, although that will clearly be the main element; but there is wider access to local authority services. Those may be housing, leisure services and, if we believe in lifelong learning, it may be education too. The local authority needs to be able to manage the arrangements by which these wider services are brought in. However, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the key issue is having the confidence of all sides to enter the partnership. I believe that such a partnership can deliver the objectives which I share with the Government. It can deliver the best quality services for patients and service users. If we are to have this partnership of equals, we
1594
need to be careful about the governance arrangements and ensure that partners feel that they are fully part of it. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Can the Minister give an assurance that bringing in care trusts will not be an inroad for means-testing people who need services? Some people are suspicious because, at present, social services use means tests while health services are free. Will patients be worse off?
Baroness Barker: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 245, 246, and 247 in this group. I echo most of what has been said about the reasons behind the amendments. I do not believe that this is a question of status. Those who have been involved before in some of the joint working arrangements with health have a real and genuine concern that these partnerships should be partnerships of equals. That is a matter to which we need to pay particular attention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about two different cultures coming together. However, I think that this issue involves more than that. There are two different approaches to working; two different bodies of knowledge, history and legislation are coming together. Last year I had the pleasure of working with a PCG to discuss its clinical governance arrangements for vulnerable older people. Those of us who were not from the health service spent two-and-a-half hours trying to explain to doctors that not all older people are patients; that they would not want to be called patients, and would not be overjoyed at the prospect of being put on an "at risk" register. That was a wonderful evocation of how we came from different experiences and almost spoke a different language.
I want to concentrate on some of the questions which follow from the comments of the noble Lord about social services being part of the new arrangements. As I have said, so far, legislation has been very different. We need to be concerned that care trusts will work to social services legislation, which governs a great deal of what happens to vulnerable people. I refer to matters such as the Gloucestershire case, the Sefton cases and so on. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what measures will be put in place to ensure that care trusts not only follow that but follow the guidance from case law as it develops for social services.
An interesting question is this: how will care trusts link with other services, such as those for disabled children and adults under 16? Older people do not live in isolation; they have families with whom they are in touch. How is it envisaged that the expertise of social service departments in holistic assessments, not only of users but of carers, will work their way into the care trusts? Perhaps that is more important than the governance arrangements. However, I understand the fear on the part of local government, particularly those

1595
which have not had good experiences of working with the NHS before, of how things will work out in practice.
Earl Howe: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 245. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, got to the heart of a matter which continues to generate a deal of concern and uncertainty, both in local government and the NHS. I find that the same questions are being asked everywhere: to whom will care trusts be accountable; through what precise mechanisms; who will control care trusts; will each one be different in this sense or will the regulations safeguard each party from being railroaded by the other? There is a fear that however much a care trust may be the result of a voluntary arrangement, and despite the Minister's assurances at Second Reading, there is scope further down the track for a hostile take-over.
In the department's recently published document, Care Trusts—emerging framework, referred to by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege a few moments ago, the extent of the work still to be done on the question of governance is all too painfully apparent. The document states:
"A governance framework is being developed".
It goes on,
"The Government is considering how the board can best be constituted".
Those sentences do not exactly suggest a clear sense of direction. If the Minister is in a position to enlighten us now on the detail of the Government's arrangements, the structure of the board, its balance and functions, that would be welcome.
Like my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, I feel positive about the principle of care trusts but there are sceptics out there—not just for the reasons to which my noble friend referred but because many people wonder what extra benefits care trusts can achieve on top of what can already be done under the Health Act flexibilities.
Perhaps I may conclude by asking the Minister a question. Clauses 52(3) and 53(5) read together suggest that a care trust may also take on health-related local authority functions outside the area covered by the PCT or NHS trust which has been redesignated a care trust. Indeed, those subsections would seem to imply that a care trust designated from a PCT or NHS trust in the area of one local authority might be able to take on the health-related local authority functions of part or the whole of an adjacent local authority area. It is difficult to square that prospect with notions of local accountability for local services or the policy intention to enhance collaborative working. It would do the exact opposite. I wonder whether the Minister could comment.
Baroness Barker: Perhaps I may ask a question on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Let us suppose that a patient is under a GP who is within a care trust area which has been agreed between the
1596
NHS body and a local authority. Let us also suppose that the patient lives in a different local authority— some PCTs cover more than one local authority area— which is not yet part of a care trust but which uses pooled budget arrangements with its own PCT. Will that person receive social care from the care trust or the local authority where he or she lives, which is out of the pooled budget area? My question concerns non-coterminous boundaries.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that this is not a way of extending the means test or, indeed, of cost shift between the two parties to any care trust arrangement. We may discuss this in more detail on a later amendment.
I refer to the comments of my noble friend Lord Smith. I know that in Wigan there is a strong partnership between the NHS and local government. I believe that they are keen to take forward the concept of care trusts. That is encouraging in terms of what we are likely to achieve in future. I accept the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Asking two cultures to work together will not always be easy. We know that the medical model and the social care model can be different. However, we also know that there is much to be gained if this can be pulled together. If we can teach doctors to regard people as individuals and not just patients, that surely is an example. I am sure that the NHS can help to teach people in social services about some of the advantages of the way the NHS works.
The great beauty of care trusts is trying to ensure that everything is pulled together. As regards social services legislation, the care trust will have responsibilities delegated to it by the local authority. As regards performance assessment the social services inspectorate will be as involved in those services as it would be if the services were run directly by the local authority. As regards performance assessment, the social services inspectorate will be as involved in those services as though they were run directly by the local authority.
7 p.m.
Baroness Barker: Will the performance indicators used be those of the NHS or the LGA or will there be pew joint performance indicators?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Some of the detail of performance management has still to be sorted out. I would consider that common sense indicates that if one is talking NHS services, one may use its performance indicators. If they are services which can be directly identified with the social services, its performance framework would be applicable. I do not believe that we should become too hung up on that. Equally, in performance management generally, we need to make sure that care trusts are not affected by too many different approaches to performance management. Given that the Department of Health is responsible for both health and social services, it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility for us to ensure that we achieve that.

1597
I take u p the issue of boundaries which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised. There is no doubt that flexibility will be required to cope with different populations covered by local authorities and the NHS. For instance, care trusts may have responsibility for local authority health-related functions only for some sections of the population. We will need some flexibility in the arrangements in order to make sure that the public do not hit some kind of bureaucratic barrier which prevents them from receiving the services they need.
The noble Earl raised the issue of the department developing its policy in these areas. Given that it is a very new concept which involves different statutory organisations, there is a great deal of benefit in working through the policies in co-operation with and with co-ordination with the NHS and local government. That is what we are seeking to do.
As regards governance, we are working with the LGA to ensure that the regulations demonstrate the proper concerns that all the functions which care trusts take on are reflected in the governance arrangements. I can assure the noble Earl that we are not looking for a one-size-fits-all for care trusts. We do not want to be tied into a situation where the numbers of people for health and local government are fixed. That may look like equality but I doubt whether it would meet the needs of individual care trusts. We are looking for a framework in which local partners can agree and propose a locally-negotiated agreement, with the number of executive and non-executive officers being determined within the context of that framework.
So again taking a leaf from the noble Earl's book, we do not want to be prescriptive. We believe that it is about local ownership and negotiation. It very much fits into the voluntary nature of the great majority of the care trusts. We want it to be a partnership of equals, and that is why it is best to leave those matters to he discussed locally as far as we can.
The governance of the care trusts is very important. We want to make sure that the members of the board feel the full spirit of the corporate body. For that reason it makes sense for all non-executive members to go through a similar process of appointment. In that regard, because they are NHS bodies, that will be for the NHS appointments commission. We recognise that local authority members have already been through a selection process of their own, if I may call the ballot box that. So we shall be keen to ensure that the NHS appointments commission does at least the minimum of checks for probity.
We also have to bear in mind that as regards the chair, the Secretary of State must carry out that function in the same way as for all other NHS bodies, through the independent appointments commission, set up expressly to ensure independence. There is a problem that if the local authority is involved in that process we will effectively lose the independence we have sought to develop with the introduction of that commission on 1st April this year.
I agree with Members of the Committee that it is clear that we need a transparent and robust process. I hope that I have answered the points which have been
1598
raised. I emphasise in particular that we are keen to have local agreement within whatever kind of framework we set as regards governance arrangements.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I thank the Minister for his response. I welcome the flexibility which he said would be part of the package. He has told us about a partnership of equals. I accept that the independent appointments commission would want to see who the local authority appoints. But for political reasons or the fact the local authority members were not carrying out their duties in terms of being accountable to that authority, there would need to be some ability for the local authority to determine whether a member continues in that role, subject to the appointments commission.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I shall give it consideration.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 240 to 249 not moved].
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Care Trusts where directed partnership arrangements]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 55, line 27, leave out "adequately" and insert "to a significant extent"
The noble Earl said: In this amendment I come back to the territory that we covered when considering Clause 20. Clause 53 sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly may use powers of direction to bring about the formation of a care trust. One of the prior conditions of doing that would be that the relevant authority has to be of the opinion that an NHS trust, a PCT or a local authority is not exercising any of its functions adequately. We need a little more substance here. As the clause reads, it could mean that if a local authority failed to exercise any of its health-related social services functions or any other of its functions adequately, the Secretary of State could take the situation in hand and impose a care trust structure. The threshold of failure is not specified. Taking it to an extreme, it could result from a difficulty over a single aspect of an individual service.
The scope for a Secretary of State to impose his will on a local authority or on a NHS trust on the basis of a judgment that he appears not to have to justify seems extraordinarily wide. It cannot be right for the Secretary of State not to allow the failing body every opportunity to put its house in order. There should be a requirement for him to make representations in a conciliatory fashion before invoking his Clause 53 powers. As my amendment states, it should be a sine qua non of invoking the powers that the body was failing in its performance to a significant extent and not in a trivial sense. I very much associate myself with

1599
Amendment No. 253 tabled by the Liberal Democrat Benches. I wish I had added my name to it. I am sure that it would help the Committee if the Minister explained the circumstances in which these powers might be used. Furthermore, I hope that the noble Lord can confirm that their use is likely to be rare.
I am sorry to come back to the same theme, but it is very important for all concerned that the whole process is transparent. The reasons for an intervention should be put in the public domain. The local authority should be given a chance to respond. The Secretary of State's opinion really should be based on an independently prepared statement or report—by whom and by what means is the process triggered of assessing and deciding upon failed performance? How transparent would that all be? I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: This is an important clause. We know the disruption which can take place where a health service comes under major scrutiny. Previously in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about the Bedford case.
When the care trusts include social care services the potential disruption to vulnerable people will be immense. Members of the Committee on these Benches have tabled amendments to try to make sure that these measures are taken in consultation with local people. If these powers were invoked, someone would have to step in on an interim basis and provide services while matters were sorted out. For those reasons these powers should be used extremely sparingly. That is the main motivation for our amendments.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The background to the clause and the concept of a direct care trust goes back to a theme that is running throughout our debates, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure high consistency of service. We know that the history of the NHS and social services is one of extremely patchy provision where we can identify the highest possible quality of service being provided alongside neighbouring authorities providing very poor quality services. We have no reason to apologise for trying as hard as we possibly can to iron out some of these inconsistencies. I am absolutely convinced that our approach is the right one.
I have already talked about earned autonomy— incentivising organisations to do their best. Care trusts are an example of earned autonomy. Those good effective organisations which really want to make partnerships work will probably go down the care trust route as voluntary care trusts.
The other side of the coin is that we must be prepared to intervene where it is clear that organisations are not performing satisfactorily. I see the directed care trusts being part of the philosophical approach.
What do we mean by the word "inadequate"? If one says that a person or organisation is inadequate that is a fairly serious allegation. Inadequate means that
1600
services are failing. Failure will normally be identified through the mechanisms that are in place— inspections, reviews and joint reviews, as well as the robust performance assessment process in local government and the performance management process in the NHS. We have in place agreements about when an inspection or a review has identified weaknesses in services.
Once a review of the inspection report has been confirmed, action plans are agreed and appropriate monitoring processes are put in place which can measure whether improvements are being made. If they are not, in the case of social services, a direction can be made which identifies the statutory duties to be met. Although in the NHS the triggering mechanisms may be different, the response —the production of recovery plans—is similar.
We are not using the word "inadequate" lightly. It is perfectly possible to be exercising services to a significant extent, but doing so poorly. In these circumstances we would not be able to address failure, which is an unacceptable situation.
Noble Lords are once again challenging me to describe in graphic detail where and when we might intervene. The reality is that we can all think of cases where local agencies have failed effectively to provide services which could be provided much better under one management or through one pooled budget. We know of examples where there is just poor coordination between acute, community and social service departments: for example, where an NHS body fails to provide adequate services to a client group such as older people, which then has a very difficult impact on social services authorities. One could have a situation where an NHS trust provides poor quality and inappropriate services to people with learning disabilities. There are well-documented cases of local authorities which are definitely failing where there has had to be intervention.
I want to assure noble Lords that the power in the clause will not be used lightly or frequently. However, it gives us an opportunity to act when other methods are not appropriate. This is a power of last resort, to be used where delegating a function to another body would make a positive change and allow the staff and the services to start again on a new lease of life.
The hallmark of care trusts is flexibility. I believe that the ability for the Secretary of State to direct in those cases where it is clear that partnership arrangements either will not be set up or are not working is one tool in our general armoury of improving services. But it will be used sparingly. The overall thrust of care trusts is to encourage a voluntary coming together by health and local governments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask the Minister who will actually do the inspections? Also, one of the problems of social services and health services working together is the problem of finding convenient times to have joint meetings.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I know that in the mythology of health and social care, organizing

1601
meetings involving GPs and social workers has sometimes proved to be difficult. We need to work at that real problem.
In relation to inspections, it is fairly clear that one has inspections through the National Health Service in our performance management regime, the Commission for Health Improvement, and so on. In local government one has the Social Services Inspectorate and all its mechanisms. Clearly in a care trust one is talking about services provided both under the NHS and social service legislation. Therefore, one needs a co-ordinated approach to perform assessment and inspection.
The challenge, which I accept, is for us to ensure that that is a co-ordinated approach rather than the duplication of effort. Clearly we must avoid that.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I share the view of my noble friend that it will be unacceptable for either party to fail. Some clients may not have a second chance if they are let down by these services. For that reason, a directed care trust may be the solution.
I take the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, during her remarks. If one of the parties is not performing well, there will be an interregnum before the directed care trust can be established. During that time, services will remain inadequate. The Committee needs to be reassured that adequate support mechanisms, whether they are for a local authority or a health authority which is failing, will be in place. Thus, when the directed care trust is then set up, it will be in a position to meet the needs of service users.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My noble friend has made a fair point. I agree that one cannot simply come along and say, "That one has got to become a directed care trust". Clearly, proper processes of decision-making must be followed, which would involve, in all cases bar those in which a dire situation had developed, adequate levels of consultation. Of course I accept that in the circumstances of what might be described as a shotgun marriage, it would be necessary to ensure that adequate support was made available for the staff who would have to make the new care trust operate.
Earl Howe: I welcome the Minister's assurance that this power will not be used lightly and that it is to be regarded as a power of last resort. I am interested in his interpretation of the word "adequately". He felt that the word "inadequate" meant something serious and I am glad he feels that it does carries that meaning. However, I am not sure that in everyone's eyes "inadequate" suggests a considerable degree of seriousness. Nevertheless, the noble Lord's point was reassuring, at least in part.
My difficulty here is that I do not believe that we have moved much further forward in our understanding of how these powers might be used in practice. I realise that it is difficult for the Minister simply to conjure up hypothetical examples, but it
1602
would have been helpful if the Committee had been offered a more graphic understanding of what this will involve.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. It is always difficult to cite the "what ifs?". Where I would envisage this power being utilised is where there is clear evidence that a service is inadequate—I confirm that I believe that that word suggests a serious matter—and that, despite intervention and help, things are not getting any better; namely, that the nature of the difficulties make it clear that one of the problems in the service provision stems from the fact that the agencies, at the local level, are simply not working well together. In those circumstances, based on the kind of reporting mechanisms we have established, the clear failure of local leadership to be able to provide remedies would indicate the kind of conditions where one might wish to direct a care trust approach.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful intervention. There are formidable problems involved in the whole idea of bringing people together who may be reluctant partners. Indeed, I shall raise this again when, with the permission of the Committee, we have a general debate on clause stand part. Nevertheless, doubtless the Department of Health and the Secretary of State will approach such an operation with their eyes open and so one hopes for the best. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 255 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 56, line 13, at end insert "within that"
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which clarifies that a care trust can provide social services across a local authority area or to any part of the area covered by a local authority. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Barker: It is evident from our debates on the amendments to this clause that there are a great many misgivings about the circumstances in which a directed care trust may be formed. I shall refer back to some of the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on Clause 20. Exactly what are the conditions under which the Secretary of State would make an intervention? I believe that it is important for those who will try to make a success of care trusts to have a clear understanding of that right from the beginning.
Despite the reassurances given by the Minister today, a great deal of the detail of exactly how care trusts are going to work is still missing and it is extremely difficult to form a complete picture. How

1603
will the relationship between health and social services work? The Minister was not pleased when I put a number of detailed questions to him, but I shall ask him one more, because it illustrates some of the potential problems that may arise in both non-directed and directed care trusts.
Under the delegated powers, care trusts will exercise social services functions. One obvious example of the functions which they may take over is that of setting discretionary charges for home care services. I assume that a care trust would collect those charges. Will the calculation of care charges of this kind come under the remit of the care trust or would it remain with the local authority? What accountancy procedures will be put in place? Who will monitor these matters so as to ensure that NHS services are not simply redefined as social care services in order to attract charges? Those issues will come up under this direction.
I believe that insufficient thought has gone into exactly what the Secretary of State will need to deal with under these new powers. I made a point in our earlier deliberations which I believe is equally relevant here: the extent to which social services and health can work together is still of concern because it is not clear. Furthermore, the extent to which they can work together as the result of a direction coming down from above is in even greater doubt.
At this stage, it might be appropriate to paraphrase Woody Allen. He said that the lion and the lamb can lie down together, but the lamb would be well advised to stay awake. I believe that, unless and until we are given a great deal more detail on these proposals, in particular as regards how the directed care trusts are to work, we shall continue to see, not paranoia, but a genuine fear on the part of local authorities about what could be a good working relationship.
Earl Howe: There is perhaps only one point to make about Clause 53 and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has made it very well; namely, the idea of partnership imposed by fiat is inherently contradictory and implausible. This is the point in the Bill where the Government have to confront two irreconcilable instincts: the laudable instinct of wanting to see bridges being built and, to my mind, the far less laudable instinct of wanting to dragoon people all over the place.
My right honourable friend Sir George Young observed in another place that it is difficult to see how a care trust can be, at one and the same time, a reward for good behaviour and a punishment for bad behaviour. However, that is the logic of the Government's position. In Clause 53 they are seeking to deal with a situation in which either a health authority or a local authority, or both, does not wish voluntarily to enter into an arrangement. Furthermore, one or perhaps both parties have been failing to perform their functions adequately. That, to put it mildly, is not an auspicious beginning to a marriage.
1604
But there is more to the issue than that. We are dealing with a power to interfere in a major way with local democracy. Clause 53 essentially provides the power to remove a function of a democratically elected body, take control of part of that body's budget, including money generated from local council tax receipts, and allocate the money elsewhere against the express wishes of the body concerned. If ever there was an example of the Government's tendency towards centralism, I put it to the Minister that this is it.
We hear a great deal from Ministers about encouraging voluntary arrangements in terms of local flexibility, devolved decision-making and so on. But. on the other hand, we hear that there are some matters that are just too important in the Government's eyes to be left to chance, and that these may need to be forced on people. Those are diametrically opposed positions, yet Ministers act as if there were no contradiction at all.
There is perhaps another contradiction lurking here. If a PCT or NHS trust is failing in some way, it is quite a leap of faith to suppose that, by becoming a care trust against its wishes, it will all of a sudden cease to fail. It is interesting to recall that during the passage of the Health Act, which introduced the concept of cooperation between health bodies and local authorities and the pooling of budgets, Ministers assured Parliament that there was no question of such cooperative arrangements being forced on either the NHS or local government by ministerial powers of direction. Yet less than two years later exactly such a power is being proposed.
Setting aside the fact that my confidence in ministerial assurances has experienced something of a jolt as a result of this, it would be helpful to know why in such a short time the Government have undergone such a change of heart. The simple truth is that shotgun marriages rarely prosper. Where there is also a blatant undermining of local democracy we need to be very cautious indeed about such a proposition. Frankly, the case for it has not been made.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I support what my noble friend Lord Howe said about the clause being in direct opposition to the provision in Clause 52 dealing with voluntary care trusts. The Minister spoke of an enthusiastic partnership between health and local government as an essential prerequisite. If it is an essential prerequisite for Clause 52, it seems to me that it is equally a prerequisite for Clause 53.
The NHS has had a great deal of experience of working in different kinds of partnership over a number of years. The Minister gave examples, as did my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. The private sector, too, has considerable experience of working in joint venture and partnership mode. The experience in the private sector is that the majority of partnerships and joint ventures fail. They do so for a number of reasons: lack of a shared vision; lack of leadership at the top; lack of a common philosophy; and, importantly, lack of trust. I do not know whether any studies have been

1605
done into failures in partnerships in the NHS—and there have been failures—but I should be very surprised if the results were any different.
When we come to Clause 53, we find that the Secretary of State or the relevant authority has the ability to take functions and put them into another body without looking at whether commitment, shared philosophy, joint leadership and trust are in place. If these powers are allowed to stand, we are legislating for failure. All our experience in similar situations tells us that such organisations will fail. For that reason, I do not believe that we should support the clause.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the weight of opinion expressed so far. I shall be brief—I do not want to alienate the East Anglians among us who have gathered together, several of whom are around me.
The Minister used a variety of reassuring words when he described the way in which the powers will be used. He indicated that they will not be used lightly, that they are powers of last resort, that this clause is one tool in the general armoury and it will be used sparingly. He used metaphor on metaphor. But at the end of the day, there is nothing in the clause that gives us any assurance. I am sure that we all believe in the Minister's intentions, but the Bill is designed to last for a considerable period of time. Without the safeguard of a proper definition of "failing" and without some of the steps set out in the amendments in this group, the clause is seriously flawed. It should not remain part of the Bill unless the department can come up with a far more targeted and more exact definition of "failing".
The Minister came up with language to describe when intervention would take place: when a care trust was not delivering to a particular client group, when there was clear evidence, when agencies were not working together, and so on and so forth. He tried to be more specific. Well, let us put that in the primary legislation. That is the way to do it; then, we could have a compulsory provision, although that is not ideal in any circumstances—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that voluntary arrangements work best, whereas, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, illustrated, compulsory arrangements start off on completely the wrong foot. It may be necessary to have a fallback, but a fallback of this breadth cannot be acceptable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Let me say immediately that I share the thoughts of all Members of the Committee as to the desirability of a voluntary arrangement. There is no question about that, particularly if we are talking about two separate cultures, as was mentioned in the debate, coming together and dealing sometimes with intrinsically challenging and difficult problems of pulling services together in a dual accountability arrangement. That is indeed challenging.
Clearly, the great majority of care trusts will be voluntary. I accept that, to be successful, they will need to have a shared vision, trust and a real commitment to making the arrangements work. That is why we are giving as much flexibility as possible in the governance
1606
and other arrangements to allow local partners to come together to agree on what they wish to achieve and to commit themselves to making those arrangements work effectively. That is very much part of our "earned autonomy" philosophy and we shall wish to do everything that we can to support those statutory agencies that have decided to go down that path.
The point about the clause that we are debating is that situations arise where not only is there not voluntary agreement or a coming together, but where statutory agencies are simply not working well together, and where the result is a poor quality of service, a lack of co-ordination and too many organisational and cultural barriers, and the public are clearly the losers.
The Government have a number of options open to them to try to deal with those problems. We have a number of areas open to us in relation to social services, based on the assessment that the SSI will have done, performance indicators and the performance assessment framework. In the health service we have a rigorous approach to performance management, where again we can identify poor performance—we discussed the "traffic light" system earlier. It may well be that where there is a real problem, where there is a failure in partnership, one potential possibility is to create a care trust which would enable those services to start afresh and would enable people to come together. I have already said that I believe that the number of cases when that will occur will be rare, but it is important for us to have that option if it seems appropriate.
There is one other point I want to make. This is an even-handed power. It is not simply a question of saying to local government, "We want to take part of your service and put it into a care trust". If we have a problem which seems to be on the health authority's side, then in relation to services which come under the partnership arrangements, this clause can also be used to ensure that a particular service could be led by local government under the partnership arrangements.
So this is very much an even-handed approach, recognising that when there is a problem there is very often a failure on both sides but occasionally it can be on one side. This power will not be used extensively. We hope it will be used rarely but I believe, in the sense of wishing to have the strongest possible co-ordination of services across statutory boundaries, that this clause is an essential part of those arrangements.
Baroness Barker: I will not detain your Lordships very long, because I recognise that there is another debate to come. I simply want to say this. At the beginning of our debate this evening I suggested that the whole notion of care trusts was one over which there are many misgivings because of the lack of detail. One of the biggest of those misgivings is that this represents the take-over of social services by the NHS. I have listened to the discussions throughout the debate, and have to say that I have not been

1607
persuaded. I think that Clause 53 has given rise to many of the concerns that have been raised during our debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I really must respond to that. There is no suggestion whatsoever that this is about the taking over by the NHS of a local government service. It is about enhancing co-operation and partnership. That is why I expressly said in relation to Clause 53 that if the direction were used it could be used as much against the NHS to ensure that the service came under a partnership arrangement led by a local authority as it could be about creating a care trust.
Baroness Barker: I hear what the Minister says, but as I said at the beginning of our debate on this matter, I will in time look back on our debate and judge which one of us has proved to have been correct. I will leave it there for the moment.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
House resumed.

Swine Fever
7.44 p.m.
Viscount Cranbornerose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they have taken to relieve the plight of East Anglian pig producers in the light of the recent outbreak of classical swine fever.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before beginning this short debate, I should declare a number of interests: first, as President of the British Pig Association, which is concerned primarily with rare breed pigs; and, secondly, as a small-scale breeder and fattener of rare breed pigs and indeed a seller of their products. Perhaps, although it is less directly relevant, I ought also to declare my chairmanship of the Council of the Royal Veterinary College.
I am particularly grateful to those who will be taking part in this short debate and, above all, to the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, who will be answering on behalf of the Government. Of course, we are very sorry that the Minister is unable to answer for her department, particularly since I fear I shall have to say one or two disobliging things about it later in my remarks. However, I am consoled by the fact that no one is better qualified than the noble Lord to answer for the Government, because of his unrivalled knowledge and experience of agriculture in general, and of pigs in particular.
It may seem rather odd that I should venture to raise now the matter of an East Anglian classical swine fever outbreak. After all, that outbreak first occurred as
1608
long ago as 8th August last, and today the whole country is in the grip of a much more extensive disaster which one would have expected to occupy our attention. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are at least two good reasons why I should raise the matter.
The first is the matter of compensation. The House will remember that the Minister announced revised payment arrangements for the pig welfare disposal scheme on the 1st November last. Incidentally, the House will also note that he made that announcement nearly three months after the first outbreak. In the words of a civil servant from the pigs branch of the Ministry:
"The new formula was £12 per pig, plus 55p per kilo liveweight, subject to a cap on total payments per pig of £75 until 30th November, and £67 thereafter."
She went on:
"The payment to the producer will be 80 per cent from the Government, subject to a cap of £50 per pig, with the remainder from the industry."
The Government's part of the scheme, as I understand it, was paid promptly. However, the remainder, up to £25, needed parliamentary approval under the Agriculture Act 1967, and the industry needed to be consulted of course, since the mechanism to be employed was a producer's levy. Such has been the extraordinary haste that the Government have demonstrated over the mechanics of the producer levy that my informants tell me that five months after the announcement and eight months after the initial outbreak not a single penny of the producer levy has yet been paid.
The empressement, if I may use that word, of the Minister of Agriculture and his myrmidons in the face of an appalling crisis overwhelming East Anglian pig producers is, by any standards, in a class of its own. If I may venture to suggest it, this makes the reactions of the bureaucracy of the later Byzantines as rapid as those of Mohammed Ali. But there is at last some action. I understand that the Government have today issued a press release saying that they are now in a position to proceed with a producer levy payment. I hope that that is a tribute to the influence of this House: I would like to believe that it was, but I suppose I must somewhat grudgingly say that it is better late than never.
The second reason for my thinking that it is sensible to raise this matter now is rather more general. The outbreak of classical swine fever may have been confined to East Anglia—not a part of the world that I myself know very well—but it was not there a minor event. I understand that well over 200,000 pigs were killed in containing the attack. Its source appears to have been the illegal imports of meat, which is something that the Agricultural Committee of another place recently confirmed in its sixth report. It is perfectly clear that, in spite of the answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to a supplementary question following a Statement, there are still thoroughly inadequate import controls in place. I hope that when he replies the noble Lord will address himself to that matter.

1609
By common consent, the Ministry's response to the crisis was muddled. In the words of one Norfolk MP, the Ministry was "slow and chaotic". It looks as though the Ministry did not devote enough resources to the crisis; it changed the staff dealing with it frequently; and order was followed by counter-order. This is a situation in which anyone more military than me could easily predict would result in disorder. I am told that it took on average 27 days to obtain the results of blood tests, and in the real world outside the cloisters of Whitehall your Lordships can imagine the effects such a delay had on farmers since they were unable to trade but needed to trade and keep stock while awaiting the results. Meanwhile as more and more animals accumulated on farms, their suffering became acute as overcrowding became a serious difficulty. To make matters worse it seems certain, from those who observed it, that the standards of slaughter inevitably declined as pressures mounted.
Am I alone in finding that this litany has a familiar ring when it is recited in the context of current events? It is clear that the Ministry deserves the highest censure for its handling of the outbreak of classical swine fever. It is also clear that any team of Ministers worth their salt would have examined the lessons of the outbreak and revised procedures to ensure that any future crisis would be handled better. I should have thought that in normal times that would have been a standard response. In an era of food scares under governments of both complexions—whether it be salmonella, a crisis which brought Mrs Currie her vindaloo, BSE, e-coli and all the rest—the failure to do so defies description. That the Ministry has failed to do anything of the kind is horribly obvious from the slow response, the muddle and lack of resources that seem to have categorised the Government's handling of the current foot and mouth crisis, just as it categorised the handling of the outbreak of classical swine fever.
I am not alone in thinking this. I refer your Lordships to the Sixth Report of the Agriculture Select Committee in another place. At paragraph 8 on page vii it says of the classical swine fever outbreak:
"We believe that specific 'wargames' aimed at controlling classical swine fever should have been carried out following the Dutch outbreak. The absence of such contingency planning shows a failure to learn from experience in other Member States [the Dutch outbreak, in particular] and to apply those lessons for the benefit of our own industry and consumers".
It seems that the Government were unprepared 'for classical swine fever in August 2000 and they were still unprepared for foot and mouth disease in February 2001. They were worse than the Bourbons—the Bourbons at least forgot nothing as well as learning nothing. The Minister and the Ministry for which he was responsible have learnt nothing, but they have forgotten everything as well.
I was strongly marked under the last Government by my experience of the handling of BSE. This is not a party political point. My observation, as a result of some years in government, is that some ministries may be quite good at the day-to-day grind of everyday administration. With one glorious exception—the Ministry of Defence—I do not believe that Whitehall
1610
is any good at handling crises or projects. That failure gets worse when the crises or projects affect more than one government department. What happens is that a senior civil servant—perhaps a Cabinet secretary— talks to the Prime Minister and says:
"Leave the day to day matters lo an official committee and we will report to a Cabinet committee, perhaps chaired by you".
The result is that the civil servants can protect their own backs, and at the same time the recommendations and options presented to ministerial committees can usually allow only one option to be chosen because of the drafting.
When a ticklish problem had to be addressed for which I had been made responsible and which covered more than one department—and there was never anything of this importance—I thought the way to handle it was to have one Cabinet minister responsible and to have a mixed committee of civil servants, politicians, experts and, if necessary, advisers. Apart from anything else, it made the politicians and civil servants behave better when outsiders were present. I should not be surprised that the same trick has been played on the Government in this crisis as well, with the same devastating results for foot and mouth as for classical swine fever—perhaps the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms can satisfy us on that.
The time has come for the Government to take this outbreak and animal health seriously. At last there is some evidence that that is beginning to happen. Yet again, it seems to have happened far too late and the disease has been let out of its bag more than it should have been. Agriculture is in a bad state already. I fear that it will never forgive the Government for their incompetence in the handling of both outbreaks.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like to clarify the statement that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has made about today's press release. Can he tell us whether that was for the payment of £50 a pig which was promised or anything beyond that?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord who answers the debate will confirm this. I have only heard verbal reports. I have not seen a press release. I am told that there was never much problem about the payment of £50; it was the up-to £25 as a result of the reduced levy that was not paid. Perhaps as a result of this debate—because one likes to flatter oneself if one can—the Government will be shamed into doing something about it.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, no doubt the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms will tell us about that when he sums up. If it be the case that the top-up figure over £50 is now being met by the Government and not by the industry itself that would be a major advance.
I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for putting down this Question. It is an important debate, even though the crisis of the classical swine fever outbreak is, thank goodness, under control.

1611
The fever broke out last August on the farm of BQP Ltd at Iken, an ancient village on a coastal headland in Suffolk. BQP Ltd is now owned by Dalehead Foods, of which I was a non-executive director for over a dozen years until 18 months ago. They are now the biggest producers of pigs in the country, to add to their pre-eminence as abattoir operators, pork butchers and packers.
The tragic crisis of foot and mouth disease has overshadowed the consequences of classical swine fever. This Question requires us to concentrate on that fever and the plight of East Anglian pig producers. I suggest that we and the Government should also have a care for those whose businesses are intimately and irrevocably connected with pig production, such as the abattoirs. Currently, they are losing massive sums of money, with their fixed overheads, and with no apparent prospect of compensation or assistance.
We should also concentrate on how to prevent a further outbreak of swine fever, given its devastating effects. The MAFF State Veterinary Service and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency published their preliminary findings after an exhaustive inquiry into the outbreak—which, incidentally, was traced back to a pig producer in Norfolk—in the Veterinary Record of 9th September 2000. They did not find any definite source of the outbreak. They mentioned six hypotheses as to the sourcing of the infection— consumption of infected pig product, exposure to infected pigs, exposure to classical swine fever virus by contaminated vehicles or personnel, exposure to aerosol virus from discharges from effluent, exposure to CSF virus in contaminated biological products and, finally, exposure to the virus in contaminated semen.The idea that the infection might have come from a half-eaten ham sandwich tossed by a passer-by into a pig paddock in Norfolk, to be consumed by a pig which then developed the fever is almost Alice in Wonderland. Yet that is what the vets and the laboratories thought was indeed the most likely source of the infection. I checked yesterday with the government veterinary service, and that is still as far as they have managed to go in that respect. If that is the scenario, it makes the prevention of future outbreaks impossible.
Yet the fact is that the outbreak was here in England, even though the infected meat may conceivably have come from abroad. I am not as certain as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that it is at all safe to assume that the infected meat in this case was from abroad. Indeed, that is not the impression that I get from the Official Report. It also appears to be the case that other countries, such as the USA and Australia, control outbreaks more effectively, and have stricter controls. Perhaps we can learn something from them.
The pig compensation scheme that went through this House very recently appears to be working well, even if it is bringing financial relief too slowly. If the Minister can confirm in his response to the debate that the Government are now paying the top-up over the £50 rather than the industry finding that through its
1612
own resources by levy, that will be a major change. However, if that is not the case, it will be interesting to know why there should be a discrepancy between the compensation arrangements for foot and mouth and those that apply in this respect. As we all know, there is no industry provision for foot and mouth compensation; it all comes from state sources.
Like other noble Lords, I should be interested to hear from the Minister why the fiercer legal disciplines that restrain pig movements for 21 days, other than movement for slaughter, should not now be contemplated for sheep and cows. I appreciate that that is not strictly germane to this issue, but different regimes apply. As I understand it, in the case of foot and mouth, some of the infected sheep travelled to seven markets in 14 days, spreading mayhem as they went.
Another matter for consideration is the sale of pigs at live markets, which currently accounts for only 3 per cent to 4 per cent of the total sales in East Anglia. As I understand it, the national quality standards cannot be met where the pigs have been traded in that way. Surely special attention needs to be given to ascertain whether or not the risks of infection are significantly greater for those animals, and, if so, how that can be addressed without making life more difficult than it already is for the small producers and dealers whom I want to see helped rather than squeezed out yet further. It would also be interesting to compare the robustness of health of small batch pig production with large batch production.
The issue then arises as to how to minimise the appalling waste when fever breaks out. Although now mercifully under complete control, the 180,000 to 190,000 pigs slaughtered in the recent outbreak were all rendered, and put to waste. Given that the meat of such animals is perfectly fit for human consumption provided that the pigs concerned have been through the necessary heat treatment, ought we not now to be building that capacity so that, when the occasion next occurs, the devastation will not be total because the meat of the slaughtered pigs can at least be safely used for human consumption? I realise, of course, that there are difficult issues involved about anticipating that outcome in terms of providing the necessary facilities that are presently absent.
I now turn to the problem of breeding sows, 90 per cent of which, when culled, normally go for export—mostly to Germany. With the export ban, they are now unsaleable, as indeed are a high proportion of pig shoulders, which represent nearly a third of the pig, and over a quarter of which tend to find their way abroad. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any thoughts as to how to assist the industry in coping with those thorny problems? After all, the export market is now a critical component of the viability of the British and East Anglian pig industry. No one has yet mentioned the support fund of over half a million pounds, which, I believe, is languishing unused after the last outbreak of Aujezky's disease 15 to 20 years ago. Might that sum now be used to help the cash flow problems of producers, even on an interest-free loan basis?

1613
Finally, I believe that the industry and the Government need to look more closely at ways of meeting the next outbreak of swine fever, because on the ham sandwich hypothesis it would be foolhardy to think that it will not come. Would it not be better to build up an industry fund during the good years, rather than wait until the disaster has struck? Again, I make that comment subject to what may be said by the Minister in his response. An industry levy could be set at a modest level, which would, none the less, build up over the years to a significant amount that could quickly take at least some of the strain. That would demonstrate a statesmanlike approach by the industry in terms of self-help. It would also encourage maximum government financial assistance to ensure that full and timely compensation is available next time round. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those points.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for initiating this debate, and to my noble friend and Suffolk neighbour Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I am looking forward to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who also farms in Suffolk. It is rather on account of that East-Anglian connection that I speak in the debate this evening.
I make no claims to be an expert on the pig industry. However, my home county of Suffolk was at the heart of the outbreak last year, so I have taken a particular interest in its effects on our local economy. As a county councillor in Suffolk, I have a further interest in the sense that the county council is one of the leading agencies in managing the effects of such an outbreak. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was quoted in the local press as holding Suffolk up as an exemplar of co-ordinated working. I am afraid to say, however, that the liaison did not seem to work both ways. It took MAFF four days to inform the county council of the first outbreak by which time we had heard about it through local radio programmes. Given the role of the county council as regards trading standards in animal welfare, rights of way issues, and so on, that was a far from satisfactory state of affairs.
As we heard, during the outbreak over a quarter of a million pigs were slaughtered, and many businesses jeopardised as a result. My noble friend Lord Phillips referred to the fact that, in counties like Suffolk, an entire infrastructure is built around the rearing of pigs; for example, feed manufacturers, abattoirs, suppliers of equipment and vets all suffer for some time after the outbreak is controlled. As they suffer loss of viability, that can further affect the viability of other disease-free producers. As if that vicious circle were not enough, the pig industry in East Anglia was already under enormous pressure due to the high pound, the BSE tax, cheap imports and the lack of European aid for pig producers.
The generally accepted view that the outbreak was in all likelihood caused by discarded contaminated pigmeat shows how delicately balanced the viability of our livestock industry can be, with havoc wreaked by
1614
a single random event. But an apparently accidental occurrence should not simply be dismissed as bad luck. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that, as a matter of urgency, we should be considering tighter controls of imported pig meat, especially where the exporting country has a high incidence of CSF. There must be a more robust regime of penalties for the illegal importation of pig meat produce.
The fact that last year's outbreak and the other most recent outbreak in 1986 were caused by contaminated pork demonstrates that perhaps we should be working more closely with local authorities and other agencies to see how farms are located in relation to the footpath network, local landfill sites, and so on. There has now been time to look back at last year's outbreak of CSF in a dispassionate way. As we heard, the Agriculture Select Committee in another place severely criticised the Government for their lack of preparedness for such an outbreak. It believes that lessons should have been learned from the Dutch outbreak. I, too, should like to ask the Minister whether such lessons have been learned, or whether a future inquiry into the current foot and mouth epidemic will make exactly the same points.
The 2000 outbreak in East Anglia was initially difficult to bring under control largely because it occurred in areas of extensive pig production. Although such production is highly desirable in terms of animal welfare, it makes disease control more problematic. It is, therefore, more than a little disingenuous of the Government to have taken the position that such outbreaks should be regarded as a normal business risk. Where other generally desirable outcomes, such as greater public access and higher welfare standards, lead to increased risk of disease, and where the effect of that disease will result in measures that threaten the livelihood of the farmer, it is questionable whether that should be defined as normal business risk. The pig industry has little history of subsidy and has taken on itself the need to comply with higher welfare standards which our consumers demand but often do not want to pay for. But even in an industry with a tradition of independence there is only so much that it can take.
After a good deal of anguish on the part of pig farmers, the Government eventually came up with an acceptable deal under the welfare disposal arrangements in November last. I wonder whether the Minister can outline for us the level of payments due to be made during the current crisis. Anything less than full market value will add further pressure to an industry already on the edge. With restrictions on movements and the ban on exports I hope that the EU exceptional market support measures will also be used to operate a "purchase for destruction" scheme.
It became clear recently that money earmarked for the pig industry development scheme earlier in the year was diverted to welfare payments when the outbreak occurred last year. Is there any prospect of that money being redirected back into the development scheme? Can any surety be offered that the money will not be further redirected, this time towards the victims of the foot and mouth outbreak? I also hope that the

1615
Government are prepared to take on board the criticisms of the Select Committee of another place that the industry restructuring scheme involved processes which were far more lengthy than necessary.
On a similar point, can we perhaps consider an emergency payments regime to assist farmers at this difficult time because normal living expenses do not stop while MAFF does the paperwork? On a more positive note, I should like to think that we can do a great deal more to promote the fact that British pork is produced to a higher quality and with better welfare standards than in many importing countries. There is a clear need for better marketing strategies to make those benefits clear and a regime for better labelling to assist consumers in making those choices. The growth in popularity of farmers' markets demonstrates the benefits of providing goods which have the confidence of the purchaser. In Suffolk we have supported the "Tastes of Anglia" consortium which promotes the high quality Suffolk ham and pork produce.
Suffolk is still at the moment mercifully free from foot and mouth disease. However, in a strange way last year's outbreak was a forerunner and, of course, many of the issues raised are exactly the same. Recent debates have highlighted for us all the price versus quality issues which go to the heart of concern over classical swine fever, BSE, foot and mouth disease and bovine TB. Perhaps it is time to have a proper independent oversight and research into the issues of animal husbandry, perhaps through the Food Standards Agency if it is given adequate resources.
There seems to be a growing consensus that there must be major changes in the way our rural economy works, but this needs to be judged on a rational basis, some distance in time from the heat of the crisis, and in a rounded way which does not seek to treat agriculture separately from the rural economy and the wider issues of public health and confidence.
For East Anglian pig farmers, suffering the second crisis in seven months, the future is not looking good. I hope that perhaps the Minister will be able to offer some crumbs of comfort to this important part of the East Anglian economy.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Cranborne for bringing forward this important matter this evening. Indeed, in his introduction he used strong words and was critical of the Government's handling not only of the swine fever outbreak but also of the current foot and mouth outbreak. His speech reflected inadequacy on the part of MAFF and muddle, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also mentioned.
I should declare an interest. My husband has a family farm at Acton just outside Lavenham, where, in addition to growing arable crops, we run 120 breeding sows. I know from first hand the problems that have afflicted the pig industry both as regards its cyclical nature and most recently as regards the outbreak of classical swine fever. We were one of the fortunate
1616
ones in that our farm lay only two miles outside the restricted area. We avoided having an infected herd and also falling within the restricted zone.
My noble friend was right to raise this issue. The swine fever outbreak began on 8th August last year and is estimated to have cost the industry some £20 million. Bank borrowings are rising every day. Around 1,200 producers were trapped by movement restrictions in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex and lost almost £4 million, which also resulted in rising bank borrowings. On 29th August last year the Government introduced the Pig Welfare Disposal Scheme to deal with the potential welfare problems in recognition of the exceptional circumstances affecting our pig producers because of movement restrictions which were necessary to eradicate the outbreak. I understand that by the end of October 134,000 pigs had been offered for the scheme and claims worth some £4.1 million had been submitted. Was that money paid to farmers in full and, if so, by what date were those payments made?
The figures gained from MAFF officials this year show that some 70,000 diseased pigs were culled and a further 190,000—however, I accept the figure of 200,000 that others have mentioned—were culled under the animal welfare disposal scheme. Have these farmers been paid? As others have said, the crisis has seen some 25,000 jobs lost in the pig industry, with job losses likely to rise to 50,000 in the industry as a whole.
Farmers in restricted zones were beginning to experience animal welfare problems. Pigs needed to be fed and as each week went by they had to be retained on the farms in increasingly cramped, overstocked conditions. The Government came forward with financial aid. Originally they offered a mere £35 for pigs weighing over 60 kilos and £10 for smaller pigs. At that stage the industry considered those payments unacceptable. But after lobbying from the pig industry, ourselves and other parties, an increased offer was made of £50 from the Government and a further £15 in the form of a levy from the pig farmers themselves.
The sixth report of the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee, to which my noble friend referred, states:
"There is a lot of frustration within the pig industry at the lack of tangible results from the Government's announcements of last year. Much had been promised. and welcomed, but comparatively little been delivered … We expect the Minister to ensure that all the money originally allocated to the pig industry is paid out in good time".
Other noble Lords have already mentioned the lengthy and unsatisfactory way in which this matter has been handled. A pig farmer in Suffolk telephoned me about three weeks ago. He said that he was owed some £27,500 and he was still waiting. Presumably he is paying interest on his bank loans. When the Government give him the initial sum of £27,500, will they also pay him interest to cover the loan that he is due to repay the bank?
On 4th September last year my honourable friend James Paice wrote to the Minister and pointed out that the £66 million scheme announced by the Government

1617
at the end of March had still not been put in place and that farmers had not received a penny of the producer levy. And here we are six months later. I hope that the Chief Whip will have the relevant figures when he replies to the debate. We need to know what has been paid out and what is still outstanding.
What progress has been made in identifying the cause of the original infection? That matter has been raised in this House and the other place on many occasions. My noble friends have referred to the ham sandwich theory. Others have suggested that the cause of the outbreak may be due to illegal imports of meat. Others have suggested that it may have been caused by animals that were illegally imported through airports. Some have mentioned pig swill in that regard. But what ever the cause, all of us in this House consider that we need much stronger and stricter formal structures at the port of entry and controls over foreign meats entering our country.
In the past two years some 37,000 tonnes of pig meat have been imported from countries where foot and mouth disease is either in existence or is endemic. The noble Lord will know that our party has consistently asked the Government for closer inspection of imported meat. We have also called for a tightening up of the food labelling system to ensure that meat imported into this country but processed here should not he allowed to be classed as British. I referred to that two years ago when we were taking the Food Standards Agency Bill through the House and cited the pig industry on many occasions. Pig producers were furious that meat coming into our country was being presented as British when it was imported meat but processed here and therefore labelled "British". That is a disgrace.
No sooner had we recovered from the immediate restrictions on swine fever and begun to breathe a sigh of relief than foot and mouth disease hit our country. Again a foreign disease is entering our herds. Although the infection was first discovered in pigs, the spread has been dominated by sheep and cattle. This is another disaster to strike our farmers, who are having to cope with their lowest income for 50 years—an average of just over £5,000 last year. Urgent action is needed.
Since 23rd February slaughter movement from farms not under specific restrictions has been running at 70 to 80 per cent of normal capacity. A steady accumulation of overweight pigs is backing up on farms. I was recently speaking to a big abattoir and processing firm in West Bromwich which, because of the foot and mouth disease restrictions being imposed on it, did not have the ability to take more through the system in a quicker way.
The long distance movement scheme for pigs, from breeding to rearing to finishing, has not yet started. Perhaps the noble Lord will respond to that. I understand that the scheme involves a time-consuming, complicated system of cleaning and disinfecting lorries which will have to be streamlined.
Farms under restriction have not sold a thing since 23rd February this year. Estimated figures of pigs in infected areas are provided by Assured British Pigs,
1618
which embraces about 80 per cent of all pigs. Inflating its figure of 15th March by some 20 per cent yields 55,000 sows and 600,000 growing pigs. As other noble Lords have said, their old sow market has fallen. We normally sell approximately 6,000 per week, of which 90 per cent go for export; that market is closed.
The urgent problem must be solved if our UK herd is not to lose long-term productivity. It is also critical for our breeding companies—our genetic future—to be able to start trading again at least in the UK market. We are really living in very troubled times.
I am left worrying about our farmers. I understand that the Government have this afternoon announced a scheme for our pig farmers. I should be grateful for clarification. My understanding is that it is a foot and mouth welfare scheme, as opposed to a swine fever scheme; the noble Lord is nodding. Therefore—I stand to be corrected—I think we need to talk about two different schemes.
I understand that the offer provided by that scheme is £75 for culled sows and £15 plus 55p per kilo for all other pigs, to a maximum of £70. I also understand that the Government themselves have not undertaken to finance that top-up scheme but that it takes the form of a loan. Perhaps the noble Lord will also clarify that point. The Government's response will indeed be welcome, but many will find that, although a loan will help, they will have to eat into their capital. They were hoping for much more government support.
We have previously suggested that, in these very difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves, there may be a role for the reopening of smaller abattoirs to cope with the back-up problem of animal welfare, where we cannot move enough of our pigs that are in restricted areas at the moment. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would also deal with that matter.
Classical swine fever came from abroad; so has foot and mouth disease. Our British farmers care for their animals. They have set the highest standards. We have some of the finest herds, of which we are all rightly proud. Our farmers care for and take great pride in their stock. The swine fever outbreak, and now the foot and mouth disease outbreak, are destroying not only the animals but those whose lifetime's work is being culled before their eyes.
We look forward to the Minister's response, and I again thank my noble friend for introducing this very important debate today.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in replying to this extremely interesting debate, I declare a former interest. The farming company of which I was a director and shareholder before I entered government had a very substantial pig unit in Hampshire and Wiltshire, not in East Anglia. I hasten to add that my shares are in a UK-based trust and that I have resigned all my directorships.
From my lifetime's working experience in farming, I am well aware of the problems that face the industry. In the time available, I am not sure that I shall be able

1619
to answer all the questions that have been asked, but, as always, I shall ensure that every noble Lord who has spoken receives an answer from me, either in the debate or in writing.
I think I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for raising this issue today, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken in this short but useful debate. As the noble Viscount, in his charming way, said, he had occasion to be disobliging. This has been an important debate. At this time of crisis in the livestock industry, we should not forget that, as has been made clear, the pig producers of East Anglia have previously been here, and not all that long ago.
The classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia between August and December 2000 may not have had the media impact of the foot and mouth disease crisis; nor did it affect as many farmers, animals or members of the general public. But for those caught up in the outbreak, either directly or as a result of their pigs being subject to movement controls, the shock was just as great, and the consequences equally daunting.
In the course of my speech I shall give a brief summary of the outbreak. I shall set out what the Government did in response to the consequences of the outbreak and what it was asked to do but, for various reasons, could not do. In doing so, I hope to address almost all the points raised, including the foot and mouth disease outbreak, though this debate is about classical swine fever.
The outbreak started on 8th August with a confirmed case of classical swine fever on a holding in Suffolk. Investigations suggested that the original infection was introduced in early June to a breeding unit in Norfolk, which then appears to have spread to pig rearing premises with the movement of infected, weaned pigs. The lateral spread appears to have taken place from one of those to two neighbouring holdings. Others were infected by either the movement of infected pigs or the movement of vehicles or people.
CSF was confirmed on a total of 16 premises during the outbreak: one in Essex, six in Suffolk and nine in Norfolk. Nearly 80,000 pigs, classified as infected or dangerous contacts, were slaughtered. Controls were finally lifted on 29th December 2000. I think it is well known to noble Lords that the Government pay compensation to producers whose herds have contracted CSF or are thought to be dangerous contacts and must be killed. Under Schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981, producers of animals with swine fever are recompensed at 50 per cent of their value preceding infection, and at full market value for healthy animals.
The compensation attempts to address the immediate financial difficulties faced by those who have the disease on their holdings. What it does not do is address the consequential losses of those farmers and the problems faced by farmers who have not had the disease on their holdings but are unable to market their animals because of movement controls. I shall return to that point when I deal with the Pig Welfare Disposal Scheme (PWDS).
1620
I should point out that the consequential loss for those farmers who have had their animals slaughtered is an insurable risk. One farmer I know well has substantial consequential loss cover of £300,000 in the event that his animals have to be slaughtered as a result of an outbreak of disease.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe I am right in saying that not all risks are insurable. My understanding is that neighbour-to-neighbour infection is not an insurable risk.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the NFU has offered foot and mouth insurance and consequential loss insurance for years. I believe that the relationship has to be on the farm where the animals are slaughtered. I am not sure, but I do not think that the farmer next door can have an insurable risk and a consequential loss. I shall investigate that and let the noble Lord know.
The Government sought to address the issues in a number of ways. Under unprecedented measures, payments were made to producers who faced severe animal welfare problems as their animals were caught by movement controls. Noble Lords should pay tribute to the Government for that attempt to meet that new problem in that way. The payments were made under the Pig Welfare Disposal Scheme— PWDS—which opened on 29th August 2000.
Those payments were unique in respect of animal health measures in the UK—nothing like them was available during the 1986 CSF outbreak—and in part they reflect the exceptionally difficult circumstances that the pig industry went through during 1998–99. However, it is fair to point out that before 1998–99, the pig industry had had some years of substantial profit. As we have said all along, the payments were not compensation, but were linked strictly to dealing with animal welfare problems. In all, payments were made on 181,000 pigs. On three occasions my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accepted an industry proposal to change the payment structure of the scheme, backdated to the beginning of the scheme. By agreeing to those changes, the Government showed themselves to be fully prepared to take on board the legitimate concerns of the pig industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the cost to the taxpayer of the compensation measures and the welfare scheme. A total of £4.5 million was paid in compensation to pig farmers under the Animal Health Act 1981 for animals slaughtered. The additional spending on veterinary and other staff costs, together with laboratory costs, amounted to around £3.5 million. Payments to producers under the PWDS were £8.8 million, with the cost of transport, slaughter, rendering and supervision adding a further £5.3 million. That gives a grand total of additional MAFF and Intervention Board expenditure on CSF measures in the region of £22 million, with about £13.3 million going direct to farmers.
To ease the welfare situation further, limited movements under licence between holdings in the same ownership and within the infected area were

1621
permitted. A slaughter under licence scheme was devised after MAFF negotiated a derogation from European Community legislation. In the event, that scheme was not used, as controls on movement were lifted progressively after the final confirmed case.
As part of the deal to change the payment structure, the pig industry agreed to make a financial contribution, funded by means of an industry levy, to help those affected by the consequences of disease control measures. Pig industry representatives are to be applauded for taking that longer-term and wider view. The outcome of that agreement is the Pig Industry Development Scheme, which has been approved by Parliament and came into force last week. I wonder whether the noble Viscount remembers PIDA—the Pig Industry Development Authority— which was a levy-funded scheme in the 1960s and 1970s. In agriculture policy, if you stand still long enough, the circle comes round again.
The aim of PIDS is to build up an industry fund to be used to provide advice, services, facilities and financial assistance to British pig producers to assist them in the prevention or limitation of the spread of an outbreak of pig disease. It will be funded by an industry levy of 20p per pig slaughtered.
The agreed first use of the PIDS fund is the top-up payment of the government-funded Pig Welfare Disposal Scheme. Once that commitment has been met, it is for the Board of PIDS to decide how the fund might be used. The order agreed by Parliament permits its use for measures connected with foot and mouth disease.
I listened with interest to the fair criticisms that were made of the Government's response to the outbreak. However, it is fair to point out that I was the opposition agriculture spokesman for 10 years. I remember the BSE outbreak and the Phillips inquiry, which revealed a shattering catalogue of incompetence. I believe that the cost of BSE is likely to be £20 billion.
MAFF took immediate steps to contain and control CSF. Movement restrictions were served on premises where swine fever was suspected because of the high risk of spread.. If swine fever was confirmed, all the pigs were valued and slaughtered and the carcasses destroyed. In addition, in an attempt to halt the spread of the disease, when CSF is confirmed, the current policy is to slaughter all pigs within a 1 km radius of the infected premises unless there are sound reasons not to do so. Pigs on premises within a 3 km radius will not normally be slaughtered as dangerous contacts unless there are sound epidemiological reasons for doing so. If those precautions had not been taken, the disease might have spread further afield and many more pig herds might have been affected.
The State Veterinary Service and the ministry devoted significant resources to eradicating the outbreak. Emergency disease control centres were set up in Bury St Edmunds and London as soon as the disease was confirmed and they operated seven days a week throughout the crisis. More than 500 SVS staff did spells of duty in those centres on secondment from
1622
elsewhere in the country. Additional help was provided by private vets in the area, appointed as temporary local veterinary inspectors for MAFF. Vets were brought in from the Netherlands, Ireland, the USA and elsewhere to help out. Local authority staff were also heavily involved, for example in the enforcement of movement controls. SVS staff made about 5,600 farm visits, investigated more than 240 cases of suspected disease and traced more than 2,300 movements of pigs, vehicles and people.
The problem with the timing of the payment structure of the PWDS was that the only vehicle available to introduce a compulsory levy on pig producers that did not involve primary legislation was an MLC-originated development scheme under the Agriculture Act 1967, as the noble Viscount said. However, the nature of the procedures for introducing a scheme are complex and time-consuming and include a 56-day consultation period, followed by independent arbitration and affirmative procedure statutory instruments in both Houses. The scheme also required clearance from the European Commission as a state aid. The formal consultation period was launched by the MLC on 24th November and ended on 23rd January 2001. After a report from the independent arbiter, the MLC wrote to agriculture Ministers on 26th January recommending that parliamentary approval be sought for the introduction of the scheme. The orders were laid and the scheme came into force on 14th March.
I cannot deal with all the points that were raised, but I shall deal with some of them. I understand that all the payments from MAFF have been made. I shall come back to the point about the industry and the top-up payments under PIDS. The EU, including the UK, imports only from countries that are CSF-free. That is why the question of illegal imports has been raised. Regarding the famous ham sandwich, the SVS will continue to investigate the source of the CSF outbreak. If the import was illegal, a contaminated pork product is a possibility, but noble Lords will appreciate that proof of that will be very hard to find.
We have tightened up the interpretation of the 1996 food labelling regulations in respect of origin marking and new guidelines have been issued, but they cover only legal imports. We have to grapple with the problem of illegal imports.
An announcement has been made today about. the Welfare of Livestock Disposal Scheme. Given the effects of FMD, it is worth pointing out that 85 per cent of the normal throughput of pigs has been achieved through the abattoirs. That is a higher proportion than for other animals. I believe that the figure for cattle is about 50 per cent and that for sheep is only 38 per cent. At least pig producers seem to be able to market 85 per cent of their normal throughput in the abattoirs, although whether the price is satisfactory is another matter.
I can confirm the figures that the noble Baroness gave on the compensation under this scheme. They are £15 per animal plus 55p per kilo up to a maximum of 100 kilos per pig, the average of the batch weight for a lorry load and £75 per head for sales.

1623
The Government are looking at how to help with the payments under PIDS, for example by providing a loan to allow the top-up payments to be made immediately. As I understand it, a grant would be classified as state aid and would not be allowed under EU rules.
There were some measures that the Government could not take or decided were not appropriate in the circumstances of the CSF outbreak. For example, we could not introduce a scheme to compensate producers for business losses. EU state-aid rules specifically exclude government payments of that type. The introduction of exceptional support measures would have required the UK to demonstrate that the disease situation had been directly responsible for severe market distortion. In the event, the market price had followed the normal, seasonal trends throughout the period of the CSF outbreak.
I have had to give my reply extremely quickly and have now gone over my time. I know that we should be finishing the debate. I can assure all noble Lords that I shall write to them about the detailed points that they have raised.
There are always lessons to be learned from any disease outbreak. Noble Lords should remember that the last major outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country occurred in 1967—that is, 34 years ago. A small outbreak in 1981 was controlled extremely quickly. Therefore, we have had 34 years without a major outbreak of the disease. That indicates that the slaughter policy has worked.
Noble Lords will know how hard the Minister, Nick Brown, and my colleague Lady Hayman have worked in recent days. I appreciate the remarks made at the outset by the noble Viscount. I am here this evening in place of my noble friend and I answered a Starred Question for her on Thursday. I know that your Lordships will understand that she is much better employed dealing with FMD out in the field. I hope that, in her place, I have replied adequately to this debate.
One of the, in a sense, ironic results of the current crisis of FMD is the commitment given by the Minister to instigate, once the crisis is over, as it will be eventually, a thorough examination of the role of farming, the countryside, abattoirs and the food chain. From that, we may well learn things to our advantage.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may thank him for standing in for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We quite understand why she is not here. I want to ask him two things. The question of insurance was raised. Some pig farmers do insure against swine fever. However, when the matter is considered again, perhaps he would raise the question of what happens in relation to reinsurance. I believe that some people are experiencing difficulty in obtaining reinsurance cover.
My other comment is that he reflected the sadness that was felt at the lack of competence when BSE broke out. If three outbreaks have occurred and they
1624
are still reflecting incompetence, surely we need to get to grips with what we do and how we do it. However, I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he responded.

Health and Social Care Bill
8.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 259:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
"PROHIBITION OF NEW CHARGES AS A RESULT OF THE CREATION OF CARE TRUSTS
No new charges shall be created for new or existing services as a result of the creation of Care Trusts.".
The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Minister will have been advised as to the technical as well as the policy problems with my new clause. What can be said in its defence—and that is no mean virtue—is that its purpose is crystal clear. Even I can understand it. It is intended to ensure that the setting up of a care trust does not open the way to charging for existing services which at present are free, and that it does not open the way to creating new services which will then be charged for.
I accept the assurance that introducing care trusts does not of itself remove the distinction between social services for which charges may be made and health services for which charges may not be made. However, we all know that an important aspect of the increase in charging has been the replacement of free services by chargeable services. The Bill, as it stands, does nothing to prevent the continuation of that process. So far as I can see, it would be open to the managers of the new hybrid to designate all new or amended services as social services for charging purposes. That would not be possible with my quite simple amendment.
I believe that we already have more than enough charging. People should not be taxed on essential activities which are forced upon them by disability or by disadvantage. They already, according to their means, pay taxes towards the cost of public services. Those services should be free at the point of receipt. My amendment would go far to slamming the door on this imaginative creation of new burdens for disabled people, even though it would stop short of removing existing charges.
I hope that the Government will see some attraction in removing from the innovation of care trusts— whether the voluntary arrangements or, as we have heard quite often this evening, the shot-gun wedding variety—the stigma of concern about new charges. With that threat out of the way, the new partnership arrangements can be considered on their merits. I beg to move.
Baroness Greengross: I support the amendment. I have grave concerns that people may not always know what is an NHS service and what is a social service. New methods of flexible working are very welcome.

1625
We all agree that they will make sense to most service users but they may mean that staff themselves will not always know whether a particular service that they provide comes under health legislation or social service legislation. Many staff members already find it difficult to make that distinction. Therefore, perhaps inadvertently people will be charged inappropriately. I support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, because I believe that his amendment seeks to avoid that happening.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I refer to the point that I made previously in relation to the amendment to which the Minister spoke. I am sure that he will give more assurances now.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to support the amendment. I believe that it concerns a very important principle. As I recall, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, tabled a similar amendment when we debated the Care Standards Bill. We received a set of valuable assurances on that occasion. Each time that we deal with a new piece of legislation which takes powers or which changes the structure of the way in which we proceed, it is important that Ministers return to give us those assurances anew.
My motive in rising to speak on this occasion is horror at the recent consultation on fairer charging policies for home care. In relation to that type of issue, it is absolutely vital that, however welcome it may be, the creation of the new structures does not lead people—particularly vulnerable people or those who need a great deal of support—to being charged where they were not charged previously. I believe that that is absolutely crucial. As the Minister knows, we on these Benches would roll back the boundaries a great deal further than the Government are doing. However, let us at least keep those boundaries where they are at the moment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I fully accept that this is a useful opportunity for me to place on the record the Government's position. As I said earlier this evening, the creation of care trusts should not be seen, as perhaps has been feared, as a way of extending means-testing or cost-shifting between the NHS and local government.
It is clear that care trusts are likely to be established to Commission or provide services, some of which are charged for and some of which are not. The policy on charging or not charging will remain. Where charges are made currently, there will continue to be charges; and where the services are free—most notably, NHS services—that will also remain the case. In addition, where local authorities have discretion to charge, the policy will continue to be the responsibility of the local authority. I believe that that answers the question that was raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. The care trust will carry out the charging policy as appropriate.
I stress that, because a care trust provides some services that are charged for, there is no intention to introduce charges for NHS services. NHS services will remain free at the point of delivery.
1626
I pick up the concerns that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, about the impact of charging on integrated provision—the noble Lord, Lord Rix, also mentioned that. That concern is nothing new. In relation to partnership arrangements, when staff and managers see the benefit of working together to provide better services, they find ways to minimise any difficulties involving charging. The assessment process is key in that regard. I respond to the noble Baroness by saying that I agree that, from the outset, potential users of services need to know clearly that some services may be charged for. They need clear information so that they can make decisions about the care that they want. Equally, staff need to be trained to ensure that they give clear messages and have good written information to leave with the user.
I am aware of the concern that setting up a care trust might enable people to consider cost-shunting. Once again, I make it absolutely clear that that is not the intention and that the assessment process is key to ensuring that there is clarity in determining which services are free and which are not. The frameworks for performance assessment and performance management exist to pick up any problems that Might arise and to enable us to deal with the matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have one question for the Minister. I have had notification from the Incontinence Society, which is concerned in this context about catheters, incontinence sheets and so on. Will he give an assurance that such matters will come under nursing care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The assurance I can give is that the development of care trusts will have no impact on that issue. Essentially, care trusts combine local authority services with NHS services. The point is that if one has a charging policy in relation to some social services, that will be brought into the care trust and the charging policy will be determined by the local authority that is entering the voluntary arrangements. If an NHS service is involved, that will be provided mostly free at the point of delivery, apart from the few cases in which the service is not free. The care trust will have no impact on those wider policy issues.
Lord Rix: Would the Minister say whether a name shift could take place? A service might be provided but not charged for; the body might change the title of the service, as it were, and it might possibly slightly change the content of the service, which might be ruled to be a chargeable item. Is that a possibility?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If there was a deliberate attempt to cost-shift by changing the relevant names, one would not wish to support that and the attempt should be picked up in the performance management process. The key in that regard, surely, is that in the initial agreement to become a care trust, health and local authorities will have worked out those issues so that there is a clear statement of policy. Nothing should be undertaken that compromises the fact that

1627
the service, if it is an NHS service, is provided free at the point of delivery. I should expect that to be sorted out by the partners to the agreement on the care trust.
Baroness Noakes: I can quite see how one could deny that it was relatively simple to sort out the charging arrangements—one would bring together two separate organisations and one would distinctly see the different service streams and charging arrangements. If one is trying to create something additional out of a care trust—that must be the aim and involves the idea that the parts are greater than the whole—one would, over time, blur those early distinctions. Early agreement, which I am sure is easy to attain, simply will not hold. The amendment is designed to reflect the fact that early certainties will not obtain after what may be a short period of time. As care trusts progress, I am not sure whether the Government have thought through the implications of mixing those two very different financial streams.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly would not disagree that those arrangements are not without their challenges. We now have good experience of partnership arrangements through the relevant flexibilities. Health authorities and local government are currently facing up to those issues and the evidence is that they have been able to deal with the issue of charges compared with free services in a sensible way.
There is a wider debate in this context about personal care and nursing care, and we shall presently come to it. My view is that there will always be some kind of system of charging for some social care services and I certainly hope that the NHS will always be free at the point of delivery. Given that we have those principles and that we want there to be greater partnership in joint services, we shall just have to work at it to make sure that we manage the matter in the most effective way.
Baroness Cumberlege: I want to take this point a little further. The Minister was absolutely right to say that everyone understands the issues that are involved with pooled budgets. Accountability still goes back to the two parent bodies. However, my noble friend Lady Noakes was arguing that, although that is fine as things are, what will happen when there is a new entity—a new body called a care trust—in relation to which those accountabilities will not be the same? The fact that there is a new entity is the point. I return to the comment that I made earlier; the policies have not been thought through in this regard. I do not refer to rules, although the Minister's previous reply made reference to them. We are talking not about rules but about making policy, and the policy has not been thought through. We believe that those issues will need much more working through before the Bill is enacted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The care trust is still dually accountable—to the Secretary of State, as are all NHS trusts, and to the local authority, which devolved responsibilities to it. I do not believe that that
1628
arrangement differs from the partnership arrangements. I still believe that it is perfectly possible for the partners, as they enter into a voluntary agreement, to be clear about the policy on charging, to be able to make that known to the staff and to ensure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, require, that users of the service also understand it. The arrangement is a fact of life in health and social care, and it will be with us, as it has been with us previously. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that people at local level can make the arrangement work.
Baroness Noakes: We currently have mechanisms that work, such as care trusts, which can, under the current framework, manage to make the differentiations that are necessary to achieve proper accountability. What gains are there in imposing a care trust regime on top of that arrangement, in relation to which we have to accept that there is much blurring of accountabilities? That happened, for example, with the creation of the Care Trust Board. I am at a loss to understand why we need these complex new arrangements if, as has been suggested, the partnership arrangements work perfectly well.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The partnership arrangements have been working well. I said earlier that there are at least 40 such arrangements, with a commitment of about £300 million. Care trusts will give us a new system of governance, allowing the NHS and local government to put forward their own people to sit round the table. That is a powerful way to have quiet leadership in a particular service. It can give impetus to the whole partnership arrangement, and will build on the current success of partnership arrangements.
9 p.m.
Lord Rix: Because of my past career, I am a great believer in belt and braces. It is a pity that the Minister was unable to accept my simple amendment, which would have made the formation of care trusts clear to all at the outset. Having said that, and having listened to the Minister's assurances—and his doubts—I feel that I ought to read what he said and consult my colleagues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Further provisions about directions in connection with Care Trusts]:
On Question. Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: I do not intend to spend long on the clause, but perhaps the Minister can answer a couple of questions. Subsection (2) is not mentioned in the Explanatory Notes. I understand that its purpose is to enable the relevant authority to determine the level of funding to be transferred from the local authority to the care trust for the performance of designated functions. I have already made the observation that by any standards that is serious erosion of local accountability for local authority resource allocation.

1629
Clause 54(2)(e) grants the Secretary of State the power to direct that local authority capital assets are made available to a care trust. That might include office accommodation or other premises, computer equipment, and so on. The effect would be to deprive the local authority of the use of its own capital assets for the purposes that it chooses. Will the Minister clarify whether he is certain that such an expropriation is legally permissible?
Will the Minister also say what will happen if the financial sum that the Secretary of State determines should be transferred from the local authority to the care trust is greater than the sum currently allocated to the activities or functions that are being transferred? In other words, what will happen if the local authority is told that it must transfer more than its social services SSA to the care trust? There would be a direct knock-on effect on the level of funding available for the performance of any social care functions that had not been transferred, and potentially an effect on the entire local authority budget. What safeguards exist to protect a local authority from that situation? What will be the role of the arbitrator in a disputed situation of this kind? Is his decision binding?
The idea of an outside person coming in to decide how much money is to be transferred from a local authority to a central government department—if that is not too stark a way of putting it—is odd. Any light that the Minister can shed would be welcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall do my best. Under clause 54(2), the Secretary of State will do only what is legally permissible. There are two points to make on the SSA. Clearly, in making such determination, the Secretary of State will take into account the impact that it will have on the local authority as a whole. I am not sure that using the SSA example is quite fair as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will know that many local authorities spend above their SSA limit. I am not saying that simply because the figure was above the limit it would be necessarily wrong, especially if the authority was spending on social services. Clearly, that would be a matter for the Secretary of State to decide.
Subsection 2(e) will allow premises to be leased or rented, which I do not think will cause problems in relation to the impact on the local authority. We are talking about premises from which services are run. If the services themselves are being transferred, it would make sense to ensure that the premises are covered in the transfer.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right to say that the Secretary of State can determine resources in the absence of agreement, but it is hoped that agreement would be reached. The role of the arbitrator might be helpful, but the extent to which it is binding would depend on what both parties agreed to in going to arbitration.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I thought that the SSA was a formula showing the amount that a local authority ought to be spending in order to deliver services adequately. If the Minister insists on a transfer
1630
larger than the SSA, he will have to work pretty hard to justify it, as it implies that the SSA is not an adequate formula.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I was merely saying that many local authorities spend above their SSA on social services. I should have thought that in arriving at a sensible amount of money to be transferred, one needs to examine the authority's overall spend on social services. That might be above the SSA level, which is why I thought that it was not fair to pitch the point at that level.
Earl Howe: One hopes that even in the case of a directed care trust there would be some scope for negotiation on matters of this kind. But I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. It has been a useful clarification in many respects.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 261:
Before Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
"CARE: DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE
(1) Where a person has been assessed by a National Health Service body, or any other body or suitably qualified person acting under delegation or under contract to a National Health Service body, or as part of a multi-disciplinary assessment, as reasonably requiring for health care purposes—

(a) nursing care (including any planning. supervision, or delegation of such care) which—

(i) is planned for a person by a registered nurse after assessing that person's need, and

(ii) is provided, delegated or supervised by a registered nurse,

(b) the use of any medical, surgical or nursing equipment, or personal aid including that provided by or in a residential or nursing home home, or

(c) health care wherever provided, including care provided by or in a residential or nursing home.

(2) Health care includes, the diagnosis, assessment, monitoring and delivery of any care, treatment or therapeutic intervention.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide the care or equipment or aid as described in this subsection whether directly or indirectly throughout England and Wales.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt a local authority shall not: be prohibited from providing or arranging services under subsection (1) above, provided they are delivered by the delegated authority of the NHS under the provisions within section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (delegated NHS functions).
(5) In cases where services are provided under subsection (2) above, section 1(2) of the National Health Services Act 1997 (services free of charge) applies.
(6) Nothing in this section affects the provisions of the National Health Services Act 1977."
The noble Baroness said: We now come to the part of the Bill which some of us believe is the absolute heart of the matter; that is, the definition of nursing care. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the responsibility of the NHS for healthcare needs, including nursing, equipment and other healthcare in nursing homes. Many people who have read the Bill have been taken aback not just by the narrow

1631
definition of nursing care but also by Clause 56 and the way it is phrased. It simply requires that local authorities should not purchase nursing care. It does not endow the National Health Service with a duty to provide nursing care. That seems rather strange.
The definition of "nursing care" in this amendment mirrors that provided by the Royal College of Nursing. It is necessary because a great many older people in nursing homes will not, contrary to what was perceived originally, be eligible for what is commonly thought to be nursing care. The definition of nursing care which we have had so far is not the one put forward by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care and it is not, I suggest to the Committee, the definition which most of us would draw up if we were to try to define nursing care.
It is extremely important that within the context of this debate we define what is and what is not nursing care. So far the Government have said that nursing care is what a registered nurse does. That is not sufficient because what nurses do is changing. Over the past few years there has been—and there is envisaged within the NHS Plan—a great degree of change and a great degree of "skilling-up" of nurses. That means that most of the nursing care which is carried out in nursing homes will not be carried out by registered nurses. It is far more likely to be carried out by care assistants. Therefore, it is important this evening that we draw up a definition of nursing care which is understandable and inclusive.
I suggest that we need to define nursing care this evening because if we do not do so, I suspect that nursing care will be defined in this House but not by us; it will be defined by the Law Lords at a different time. In the Coughlan case, where the care needs were felt to be wrongly judged, and not to come within the ambit of either the NHS or social services, a legal decision was sought, and I believe that that will happen again.
I believe that the Minister's reassurances which he sought to give to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about NHS services being delivered free need to be backed up by a proper definition of nursing care. We have put behind us for the moment governance and structures and we are now getting down to talking about what those people will do and what their responsibilities are. But there are those of us who still fear that if those new structures are not accompanied by a wider definition of nursing care, we shall begin to see the part privatisation of the NHS.
I want to speak for a few moments about equipment. The amendment deals with that. As the Committee will know from many of the discussions we have had in the past, particularly on Audit Commission reports, provision of nursing and medical equipment is extremely important. At the moment, there is a duty in residential care homes for specialist medical or nursing equipment to be provided; but often it is not. Quite often older people pay for equipment, some of which is very expensive, when, were they in any other setting—at home or in a hospital—they would have received it free of charge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, talked about incontinence pads. I support her in her arguments about that. It is not unusual for older people in nursing homes to be paying for incontinence pads. Those are not luxury items; they need them as part of their everyday lives. In addition, it is not unheard of for people to have to pay for expensive items of equipment, such as pressure beds, which they would not have to do elsewhere.
Amendment No. 261 and the one put forward on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing, which we shall debate shortly, do that which all the Ministers who have wriggled around this question of the definition of nursing care for several months also do. They have said, "Who better can define what is nursing care than a nurse?" Who better to define it in terms of poverty than nurses in the form of the RCN? That being the case, I believe that noble Lords should have no problem in accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: When I tabled Amendment No. 262 I had not envisaged two substantial discussions on the same issue in Committee and the rather lengthy Amendment No. 261 being grouped ahead of mine. For the second time, the Liberal Democrats opposite have beaten me to the starting post. In the circumstances I shall be brief because the twice told tale—boiling old potatoes—tends to lack an audience, even though at the moment it can only be described as thin.
My amendment addresses the issue quite simply that, in dealing with complex high-dependency needs, in some places a nurse or other health professional will be tackling the need, whereas elsewhere somebody else will be doing it. My argument is for common ground across the country and in all individual cases in all settings in assessing health needs and meeting those needs free of charge. Lesser availability of hands-on health professionals in one area should not mean that people in that area get possibly both a poorer service and a dearer service.
My amendment addresses all three of the desirable elements on which I believe we are agreed: quality, financial equity and getting away from the postcode lottery. Not even Manchester United can manage three goals simultaneously.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has many virtues which I cannot emulate. On this occasion it is the conciseness with which he stated his case. Included in this group of amendments are my Amendments Nos. 263 and 266. I make no complaint of their inclusion in the group. I certainly do not wish to imply any opposition on my part to the other amendments in the group. But in the interests of clarity, I begin by pointing out that my amendments address a much narrower point. I repeat the declaration of interest which I made at Second Reading.
I am privileged to be President of Methodist Homes for the Aged. One of our activities concerns the care and treatment of dementia patients. It is not by any

1633
means our only activity, but it is a field in which we have acquired some knowledge and expertise. We have dementia sufferers in a number of our residential homes. At Second Reading I referred my noble friend the Minister to the report of the Audit Commission published last year entitled Forget Me Not. A section was devoted to Methodist homes, particularly to the residential home at Mayfields in the Wirral, which is devoted specifically to the care of dementia patients. I do not know whether my noble friend was able to include that in his reading list. From my recollections of being in office, one's reading of anything but briefs, press reports and official documents goes into suspended animation. I see from the expression on my noble friend's face that he has not succeeded in reading it. I do not in any way complain about that.
The Commission stated:
"Staff training and support are fundamental to the regime of the home in which relearning and maintaining living skills is emphasised at all times".
I attempted to deploy the argument for the amendments at Second Reading. Subsequently, my noble friend generously spent some time discussing them with me. I can state the point at issue relatively briefly, although, as I have said, I cannot hope to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Clause 56 relieves local authorities of the obligation to pay for nursing care. The reason, as I understand it, is that in future the cost will he provided by the health service, and that is very much to be welcomed. It is not intended that social care should be provided from that source. As I said at Second Reading, I recognise the disagreement between those who support the distinction and those who believe that no such distinction should or can be made. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has tabled an amendment on that point at a later stage. I am not addressing that dispute. For the purpose of this argument I assume that the distinction will be made, although I wish the noble Baroness well.
The distinction spelled out in the Bill is between nursing care provided by a registered nurse, which includes planned, supervised or delegated care by a registered nurse, and care which is not nursing care, which is that provided either by someone who is not a registered nurse or by someone who is, but it does not need to be provided by a registered nurse.
The implication appears to be that services within the definition in Clause 56, which will no longer be provided by local authorities, will be provided by the health service while other services will not. Unless I have overlooked it, that is not spelled out in the Bill. Therein lies the difficulty, because there are some conditions requiring services which any of us, using English words to mean what they normally mean, would call "treatment for the patient's condition" yet they may not be provided by a registered nurse.
The condition with which I am concerned for this purpose is dementia. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to a number of other conditions of which perhaps the same might be said. I shall not repeat the examples which I gave, but
1634
sometimes a dementia patient will respond not to medication but to someone spending time with them, stimulating conversation, evoking their memories or their interests. That person may not be a registered nurse, but as the Audit Commission pointed out, although the treatment is not being administered by a registered nurse, it is being provided by someone trained and skilled in that form of treatment.
I appreciate that if the treatment consisted of administering medication it would probably be appropriate for that to done by, or under the supervision of, a registered nurse. If the patient were in a hospital or a nursing home, that is likely to be the treatment that would be administered. I appreciate that the type of home does not form part of the distinction in the Bill but it is a factual one: what kind of treatment is likely in fact to be administered where the patient resides. In a residential home the treatment may well be different, but it is frequently more effective. If my noble friend is in any doubt about that I can give him a list of people to whom he could refer.
One consequence of the distinction in the Bill is that the patient or his family may say, "Of course, he or she would be better off in a residential home and the treatment would probably be more effective, but that would cost money. If he or she were in a nursing home the treatment would be free, so we shall opt for the more costly and less effective option because the Government are paying for it". That is the point of my amendments.
My concern is with dementia. I know that there are other conditions which may raise a similar question, but what I am proposing is a formula which would not tie the hands of the Secretary of State but give him power to prescribe the condition or conditions which should be provided for in this way. I am not wedded to that form: what matters is the substance.
Lord Lipsey: I am tempted to begin by saying that the frontal attack on the citadel having failed, here come the Trojan horses. I can quite see the force behind the amendments. The trouble is that most of them take us a very long way towards the suggestion that all personal care should be free. This House considered that in the very first debate at Committee stage of this Bill and it was decisively rejected. Perhaps I may illustrate that as regards the speech made by my noble and learned friend. I very much understand the case he is making. Rougly speaking, from the estimates which I have seen, 37 per cent of those in residential care are suffering from dementia. So if the things they require are free, that is 37 per cent of the cost of free personal care. But it goes beyond that because my noble and learned friend said that there are other conditions that may be alike which should also he free. So the number starts rising and will take a bigger and bigger share of the budget. In consequence, it will chop off the money which is available—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Lest we spend time on a misunderstanding, and I am sure it was my fault, I was not suggesting that—as my noble friend said—

1635
"everything that they require should be provided in this way"; I was suggesting that the additional costs of the time that would be spent on this kind of treatment should be provided in this way.
Lord Lipsey: My noble friend will find that that was the bulk of the expenditure being expended. The definition in the Bill of free nursing care is not very lovable. I accept that it has anomalies and some false distorted incentives. I worry very much that what will happen as a result will be that too much will be done by nurses and not enough by people who are equally skilled but who do not require the full list of skills of a registered nurse.
I accept that as a criticism. The trouble is that as one goes through the alternatives—I have done this exercise privately and publicly with other Members of this House and in many forums—nothing else runs that does not end up with the great bulk of the personal care coming under nursing care.
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to point out that my amendment does not refer to personal or social care. It says purely and simply that if a person is in receipt of National Health Service care, another person with exactly the same condition should also be in receipt of National Health Service care. Nothing is mentioned in my amendment about personal care whatsoever.
Lord Lipsey: Those receiving national health care gets all their meals free. Is the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggesting that that should not be charged for?
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am suggesting that, if one is in need of National Health Service care, which includes free meals, and one is such a person in another area, then that should apply, yes.
Lord Lipsey: That is a very helpful clarification from the noble Lord. He is saying that free personal care did not go far enough; that we must have much more than that. That is a perfectly viable point of view. I am not saying that it is not. It is a terribly expensive point of view. It would not leave any money for intermediate care. If the noble Lord had tabled an amendment to that effect, I should have directly liked to address that proposition.
None of the other definitions of nursing care that have been tried comes out any better, in terms of clarity or anything else, than the one in the Government's Bill. I refer again to the speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. His definition is that a great deal of help is given to people with Alzheimer's disease but not with other conditions. There is the case of Mr Ernie Saunders, who I believe has tucked away a substantial fortune, who is getting his free care so he is jolly rich compared to someone who is just above the £18,000 limit who requires nursing care for a different condition who does not. That is a definition that would fall apart in this House.
1636
One could have a list of conditions. That is an approach that tempted me very much. The trouble is that when one tries to define which conditions should or should not be on the list, and to draw the line at such a place if it does not lead to unaffordable expenditure, that collapses on one. We have all had a go at finding a better definition. No one has found a definition that succeeds in keeping the costs of free nursing under control so that money is available for the improved services—that should be the priority. Secondly, we need a definition that is clearer and more defensible than the definition in the Bill.
I am absolutely certain that if someone came up with such a definition tonight the Minister sitting there would leap to his feet in joy that the hours that have been spent on this matter are needed no longer. We have solved the problem. But with every good will—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I thank my friend for giving way. At the risk of being tiresome, could I point out that I was not suggesting resting on a definition, but empowering the Secretary of State to look at the particular conditions which he thinks should be treated in this way.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: That simply chucks back exactly the same problem. Either he should include the conditions about which my noble friend is worried, in which the cost implications that I am worried about are brought back, or he does not include the conditions my noble friend is worried about, in which case we shall not move any further forward. The Secretary of State will still have to make essentially the same decision; namely, that it is intrinsic in the definition of nursing care being proposed as regards what should be put in and what should be left out.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but it has been a little difficult to deploy the case because I have responded to so many interventions. Ultimately, the definition in the Bill, although, as I have said, it is not altogether satisfactory, is less unsatisfactory than anything else. In this whole area we have to consider these: choices, trade-offs and priorities. I am prepared to go along with the choices, trade-offs and priorities that have been incorporated in this Bill.
Baroness Greengross: I rise to support the amendments. I have been one of the Members of this House who has welcomed free nursing care as well as the Government's investment in intermediate care— once we are clear about how that is going to be delivered and how the funding will be arranged— along with the various changes to the charging regime for residential care.
What has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, points to a fundamental difficulty: we do not know how to define nursing care. So many have tried to do so, but it is difficult. Perhaps the Department of Health should have been able to achieve a definition. It has had a long time in which to think about this— since the Leeds case in 1993 and then again since the

1637
Royal Commission reported in 1999. Despite those difficulties, I know one thing: Clause 56 as currently drafted is not adequate. It does not include certain health services that I believe should be included.
Rather than add my own amendments, I should like to know how the Minister is going to respond tonight. That is because various views are held on a reasonably good definition of nursing care; indeed, we have heard them during the course of this debate.
I should like to refer briefly to the Minister's remarks during our debate last Thursday:
"The NHS has a duty to provide healthcare to any member of the public as reasonably required".—[Official Report, 15/3/01; col. 1038]
Incidentally, that is the wording used in Amendment No. 261. If the NHS has assessed a health need, then the residents of care homes or of anywhere else should already receive NHS services directly from the NHS in the same way that anyone would receive services from a GP. a physiotherapist or from other members of the health professions under the responsibility of the NHS.
On previous occasions I have tried to make this important point: the NHS should provide healthcare as reasonably required. I do not understand how this cannot include certain tasks and certain pieces of equipment provided in care homes if it is the responsibility of the NHS to provide them. I refer to items such as dressings for open wounds, the insertion of gastro-nasal tubes and the provision of some of the absolutely essential equipment that has already been referred to. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned incontinence pads. Such items are not charged for anywhere else.
However, under the current proposals, equipment and services such as these are not considered to form a part of nursing care. That is fine. However, equipment and services like these do form a part of healthcare. It is iniquitous to deny people this kind of healthcare because people need such equipment and services: they must be made available when and where they are needed.
We have only a short time in which to get this right. Perhaps the way forward would be to accept an amendment to Clause 56 so as to give the Secretary of State powers to widen, amend or clarify the definition of nursing care. Indeed, perhaps we should ignore nursing care altogether and refer only to healthcare, as I have suggested. If such a regulation-making power is not included in the Bill, as I understand it, it will not be easy to change the law until further primary legislation on the NHS is presented to this House. I hope that the Minister will reconsider, even at this late hour.
Lord Lipsey: Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Baroness. As I understand it, all that the Bill does is to say what social services authorities cannot pay for; it does not say what health authorities can pay for. This is a fascinating debate on both sides. But if the Bill goes through as it stands, there will still be room for discussion as to what the health service will pay for.
1638
So time is not quite so short as the noble Baroness thinks. We shall have time to return to these issues after the Bill has completed its passage and to try to get a resolution that is even better than anyone has come up with yet.
Baroness Greengross: I thank the noble Lord. I hope that, between us, we can come up with a window of opportunity before it is too late. If we have a little more time, that is wonderful.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: Perhaps I may make one small point. Assessment is not merely about whether these services are to be paid for but about where they are to be delivered. Perhaps I may give an illustration from my personal experience. My husband is a resident in a Leonard Cheshire home. Under the local authority where he lives it is regarded as proper residential care that when he has an epileptic fit his drugs are administered to him through the rectum. That is regarded as ordinary social care which I could provide for him at home and which is provided for him in the care home. When it was considered earlier last year that he should be transferred for convenience to another authority, that authority judged that he was unsuitable for a residential home because that was nursing care.
There is no clear-cut definition; there are grey areas. It is not just a matter of who pays and where payment is made but of how the wholeness of life is to be lived with dignity. For most of the time, residential care is completely acceptable and right. For those occasions when it is possible to keep my husband in a reasonable situation, it is not necessary for him to have full nursing care. But these matters are fudged somehow in the definition that is already in place.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may add one rider to my Amendment No 262. My aim is to ensure that equal needs get equal financial treatment. My approach has been to argue that if a care need is accepted as a healthcare need and is addressed by a healthcare professional for one person in one place, all people in all places ought to have the same assessment and ought to enjoy free provision whoever provides that care locally.
I am suggesting equality across the country. If a national health service is used by one patient or one resident, if someone is in another county, town or village, that person should receive the same service, if it is required, under the National Health Service.
Earl Howe: As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made clear, this issue is one of the three or four most important in the entire Bill. I must confess at the outset that framing amendments to this clause has been a somewhat rarefied exercise. If one interprets the clause literally, one has to ask what it is doing in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, drew our attention to this. Why on earth do we need a clause specifying that community care services may no longer provide nursing care. The powers for the NHS to provide nursing care in a community setting are already in

1639
legislation. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes on the clause sound distinctly coy. They refer to the new arrangement as being to,
"strengthen the incentives for the NHS to ensure effective rehabilitation after acute illness".
They go on to confirm what I have just said; namely, that,
"the NHS in pursuance of its powers and duties under the 1977 Act will provide or arrange nursing care … free of charge".
As an opener to these amendments, I must say that I am baffled as to the legal necessity for this clause as a means of fulfilling the promise made by the Government in response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. "Strengthening the incentives" of the NHS to do what it is already empowered to do is very odd language to justify the insertion of this kind of legal provision. I do not understand why, for example, the Secretary of State could not simply have used his powers of direction to require health authorities to pay for certain types of care. If he did so, I doubt whether he would find too many local authorities queuing up to pay for the care instead.
What is the answer? I hope the Minister will explain. I am sure that there is an answer. But the only answer that begins to make sense to me—and it may not suit the Government to draw attention to this—is that somehow a way had to be found of sounding a legislative fanfare on free nursing care but at the same time to delineate in a very narrow way the boundaries of the NHS's new responsibilities. The definition of what constitutes nursing care in a residential setting has deliberately been made very restrictive. It is restrictive for one reason, and one reason alone: that is funding.
Any attempt by this Committee to widen the definition of nursing care in this context will result in a very significant additional burden on the NHS budget. The Government's agenda—the trick they wanted to pull—has been to appear to accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the provision of free nursing care in nursing homes while in reality not doing any such thing.
Of the kind of care that in most people's eyes constitutes nursing care, only a minor part will be funded free by the NHS. It is necessary to expose that agenda if one is to understand why the Government are being so obdurate in resisting any change to the definition upon which they have decided. But in confining the definition of nursing care to "care provided by a registered nurse" I believe that they are laying up trouble.
There are two issues: fairness and practicality. The moment that you start defining nursing in terms of who actually delivers the service you are creating scope for tremendous variations in practice around the country. Registered nurses are a scarce commodity; and in some areas and in some homes their availability to deliver nursing care to all who require it will be more limited than in other areas.
On the other hand, in a residential home in which there is a sufficiency of registered nurses there will be no incentive—indeed there will be a deterrent—for any
1640
such nurse to delegate a task to a healthcare assistant. In normal circumstances, delegation to a healthcare assistant is the natural way of proceeding, not just for everyone's convenience but because it makes sense to use a person's skills to the ceiling of their abililty and their training. But not any more: the moment the nurse does that the patient will have to pay for the care that he or she receives; and that would create impossible pressures on the registered nurses to allocate their time not according to clinical need but according to the financial impact on the residents.
That, by any standards, will be a perverse outcome of this new regime. It occurred to me that there could be a way out of this. Let us consider how in practice the cost of nursing care for each patient will be logged and billed to the relevant health authority. How will the funding actually work?
There are two possibilities. One is that every time a registered nurse carries out a task for Patient X she will log the time taken to do this on a clipboard. That is not a method of billing that holds any attractions— certainly not to me and, I suspect, not to the NHS. It would be bureaucratic in the extreme.
The other possibility is that each patient will be assessed on the extent of his or her daily need for nursing care. Based on that assessment, the health authority would agree to fund a certain number of hours of registered nursing care per week. That approach, to me, makes a lot more sense; but let us consider its consequences. It would result effectively in a lump sum being paid to the nursing home in respect of the time required by the nurse to deliver the assessed level of care.
Who will be concerned and who will check whether the care is delivered by a registered nurse or by a care assistant, with the nurse's approval or under her supervision? In practice, under this model of NHS funding the strict definition of "nursing care" as laid down in the Bill would fall away and become redundant. In practice in the real world it would be overridden. In other words, whoever delivered the care would be funded.
What this does is to transfer the problem of definition from the question of who delivers to what should or should not be counted in an assessment as constituting nursing care. That is the entrée to Amendments Nos. 264 and 267, to which I have added my name. These amendments seek to get away from the question of who delivers and to define nursing care by what it is that is being delivered. The analogy that springs to mind is that a loaf of bread is still a loaf of bread even if it is delivered by the milkman. For me, this approach is much more in tune with the conclusions of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission defined nursing care as
"care using the skill and knowledge of a nurse".
This is quite different from the definition of nursing based on the qualification of the person delivering it. My approach would optimise the use of available staff and thus deliver efficiency. By contrast, I believe that the Government's definition will be unworkable. It will put nurses in an impossible position in trying to

1641
allocate their time. It will risk unfairness by allowing the same care function to be free on one occasion but not on another, depending whether or not it is carried out by a registered nurse. Effectively, it would place a cap on the amount of nursing care that could be delivered based purely on the availability of registered nurses and with no regard to needs.
One can imagine a winter epidemic when the need for nursing care would rise but many patients would end up paying for their care if registered nurses were in short supply. How is it possible to call that situation anything other than perverse?
The conclusion is clear. We need a definition of nursing care that is workable and one that is equitable. My proposed amendments represent a broadening of the definition so as to be both those things. They would focus on the care given rather than the care giver as the appropriate criterion for determining eligibility for NHS financing. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall not repeat the arguments made earlier about personal care. I want to address the issue of the definition of nursing care under Clause 56 even though, on these Benches, we believe that with a better definition of nursing care the solution would still be second best. At best, the current definition of nursing care is defective and highly artificial. Effectively, it is a legal definition—not nursing care as we know it. In that sense it is highly deceptive. It does not mean that the nursing care delivered in a nursing home will be free in the future under this Bill—far from it. It is a far more restrictive interpretation.
We are helped in interpreting the Government's intentions as regards nursing care by the publication of the department's National Minimum Standards. The crux of the matter is contained not in the Bill but in those standards. I suggest that the Committee considers Standard 3.5 which sets out the way in which assessments are to be carried out:
"The registered nursing input required by service users in homes providing nursing care is determined by NHS registered nurses using a recognised assessment tool, according to Department of Health, guidance".
That is more restrictive than the Bill. It means that the Department of Health will define "nursing care" tightly. It will be assessed by a registered nurse; it will be according to Department of Health guidance; and it will only be that provided by a registered nurse.
That point did not arise in the previous consultations. I suggest that this is very much the cuckoo in the nest; it is a Treasury-inserted guideline. We have certainly heard the authentic voice of the Treasury tonight in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Perhaps the noble Lord had something to do with that particular insertion.
It is not just anyone assessing what could be defined as "nursing care", this is a registered nurse undertaking the task. How long will that assessment take, how will it work and, indeed, what will the health
1642
service actually agree to pay for? This situation raises all sorts of different issues. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, teased out extremely well what the future might hold in that respect. For example, what will the future of nursing homes be? They cart no longer provide nursing care from a registered nurse because that will be provided by the NHS, although the exact duty of the health service in those circumstances is not clear. However, they can provide it from a healthcare assistant, and charge accordingly.
But what will distinguish a nursing home from a residential home? Probably nothing. They can both have visiting registered nurses, who will provide the nursing care as assessed by the very tight definition contained in Standard 3.5 of the National Minimum Standards to which I referred. The noble Earl posited various scenarios, but I very much doubt whether the NHS will be handing over lump sums to care homes. I suspect that it will send along community-based nurses to nursing homes, care homes, and so on, who will provide the very restricted level of care that is assessed as being necessary. This is a very deceptive clause: it does not deliver what most people believe it delivers. I believe that this will rebound on the Government. Indeed, they will find some very angry people on their doorstep when they find out what the Government are actually providing versus the propaganda to date.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support my noble friend and his amendments; and, indeed, the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It is important for us to try to define what nursing care is. There is a distinction here between "nurses" and "nursing". I shall not give another Second Reading speech; I shall stick most firmly to the purpose behind Amendment No. 267. However, before I continue, I should like to thank the Minister for his kind words about nurse prescribing. I am most grateful to him.
I am not as far down the road on this issue as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who, I suspect, has lived with it for some time. However, in trying to define "nursing care", I asked the RCN if it could draw up a six-case study for me. I shall not go into those studies in detail., but they were most interesting to read. One could see quite clearly where the nursing input was, and where the registered nurse was required to delegate and supervise the work of the healthcare assistant. It seemed to me that it was the healthcare assistant receiving that support who could provide the service, not someone who was just an untrained lay person. I believe that there is a real hierarchy in the work that nurses undertake.
I met Christine Hancock today and asked her for a definition. In a quite philosophical way she said that she felt that "nursing" could be described as "invisible mending". In a way, that is the great difficulty. It is not like medicine or surgery where one has a cut and a thrust; similarly, it is not like very strong therapeutic drugs where one gets an immediate reaction. It is something very holistic. That is why it is so difficult to get hold of and to define. I agree with other noble Lords who have said that to have a list of tasks is a

1643
snare and a delusion; and that one should not go in that direction. We tried it years ago, and we know that that fails. So we return to the assessment given by nurses, which is so important.
The amendment that we have put forward is quite clear. It shows exactly what the role of the registered nurse is and the sort of care that needs to be provided. I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who said it is much better that we define the matter here in Parliament rather than have the Law Lords attempt it. There is a wealth of experience and expertise in this Chamber that might not be reflected in a decision taken by three Law Lords.
I want to pick up the inverse incentives that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned. They are very real. We are very short of nurses. We are trawling the world to try to attract nurses to this country. To build in an inverse incentive is a very rash thing to do, especially at this time.
My last point concerns fairness, which the Committee has addressed. I reflect on what is happening in the community services now. These issues were addressed in the community care Act. Community nurses have sorted out what happens as regards care assistants. It has been quite easy for them because healthcare assistants are provided free to those living at home. That is an extraordinary situation in that people who are less dependent are being looked after at home and receive free nursing care and free healthcare assistance. Yet when those people go into residential care they have to pay for healthcare assistants. If they are cared for by a registered nurse, a better qualified person, that is free, but if they are looked after by someone who is perhaps less expert and less qualified they have to pay for that. That seems to me quite extraordinary.
I believe that the amendments should be accepted. I think that at the very minimum the Government should undertake to fund all the nursing care identified by a patient's nursing assessment as being necessary for that patient irrespective of whether that care is delivered by a registered nurse or by a healthcare assistant.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I just cannot see how nursing care and social care can be divided. Scotland has recognised that, but then the Scots would; they have a lot of common sense. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, has given a good example of how complicated this matter is. Why have care assistants been left out of the Bill when everyone knows that they carry out a large percentage of nursing these days? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that surely decisions should be made on the basis of need, whatever conditions apply. Unless the Committee can get this message over to the Government there will be a monumental muddle on the ground. The Royal College of Nursing understands that, so I hope that the Minister will.
10 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am glad to respond to the debate. I certainly agree that these are difficult issues in relation to definitions. No one can wave a magic wand and come up with a definition that finds universal approval. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey I believe that we have come up with just about the only workable definition, which I shall seek to identify.
I also believe that despite the anxieties and concerns that have been expressed—I listened closely to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—we are making a real advance by ending the anomaly that only people in nursing homes can be charged for the care they receive from a registered nurse which would be free through the NHS in any other setting. It is worth saying that we calculate that the measure will help about 35,000 people at any one time who currently have to pay for their nursing care and who could save up to about £5,000 a year during their stay in a nursing home. I believe that that is a real advance.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, the clause as currently drafted sets out the care which local authorities will not in future be able to provide. It does not define the care which the NHS will arrange as that is already provided for in the NHS Act 1997 which imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to provide health services including nursing.
It may be helpful if I explain how we envisage that this will work. We shall set out in directions how the NHS would fulfil its duty in respect of nursing home residents. We shall ensure that the same approach to assessing the need for registered nurse input to a person's care in a nursing home is used throughout the NHS in England. So the assessment is clearly key to ensuring that the correct levels of nursing care are provided.
The Royal Commission has been quoted in aid. It discussed the possibility that the creation of free care would increase demand. It stated that assessment of need must control use and, therefore, cost. Our intention is to provide NHS nurses with guidance and training in the assessment process. That will define the registered nurse input into that care package. The intention is that, wherever they live in England, individuals with similar nursing needs will receive similar levels of care from a registered nurse.
Once the assessment had been made, the NHS would arrange for the registered nurse input to be provided in the nursing home. The NHS would ensure that the nursing home where the person was living could supply the registered nurse input, if needed. If that person had a specialist nursing need, such as stoma care, the NHS may arrange for that to be provided by visiting specialist NHS nurses.
The NHS and social services would contract with the nursing home for a certain level of service. Residents responsible for paying their own fees would pay such fees as would take account of the NHS's financial contribution to that care. There is no intention to charge residents based on time sheets or

1645
other bureaucratic processes. The intention is that the NHS, through the contract with the nursing home, would monitor the nursing care received.
Alongside that, the National Care Standards Commission would ensure that the home had adequately qualified staff at correct levels to deliver individual care plans. Reassessment would take place three months after placement in the home, and then not less than annually, except—I am pressed on this matter, as I was in our debate a week ago— that reassessment would be needed much sooner if there had been serious illness or changes in circumstances; and those triggers for reassessment would be outlined in the guidance to the NHS.
Our proposals for the NHS to take responsibility for the provision of care by registered nurses in nursing homes would bring the NHS provision of care in nursing homes into line with the care received by people in residential care homes. The provision of care would be consistent, irrespective of the setting in which they happened to reside.
I believe that some of the amendments would seek to bring bathing, dressing and other daily care routines within the sort of nursing care that local councils cannot provide, with the assumption that they would then become the responsibility of the NHS. But the NHS would not necessarily be able to pick up that responsibility, particularly if it applied to long-term care provided in residential homes and people's own homes. Although the NHS can, and does, provide services ancillary to those of the NHS when there is a need for a high level of help or nursing care, it is not obliged to provide such support services in settings where there is no need for high levels of NHS care.
As my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggested, in one way or another, many of the amendments that we are considering seek to broaden the definition of nursing care. However that is achieved, it seems to me that the distinction between nursing and personal care then becomes blurred, making it much more difficult to draw a line between the care provided by a nurse and that provided by other support workers. The fact is that once that was done, it would add considerably to the costs that we have already committed to improving other people's services.
I hesitate to mention costs, but I do not believe that any of the noble Lords who have moved amendments gave an estimate of the additional cost of their proposals. That takes us back to our Second Reading debate. The Government have decided that, alongside our decision on the definition of a registered nurse, we want to commit the additional resources that we are spending to intermediate care, because we think that that is where the money would be best spent. Any of the amendments in this group would put up the cost, which would beg the question of where the resources would come from.
This is a genuine debate about priorities. The Government have decided where their priorities should be. Everyone brings well considered views to the table. There is a difference between us in principle, but those who are suggesting different definitions owe
1646
it to us to accept that they would be likely to cause extra costs and that they are then obliged to say what impact that would have on other priorities.
Amendments Nos. 261, 264 and 267 would all include within the definition of nursing care all the care planned by the registered nurse, regardless of who provides it. Our definition of nursing care is much closer to that provided by the NHS in residential homes. It is not clear from the amendments what such care would cover. Inevitably, it might cover issues such as washing, dressing and toileting. If those functions were included—which, because of the drafting of the Bill, councils could not provide for some people because of the nursing assessment, even though they were still expected to provide them for others in the same circumstances—we would run into problems. Some noble Lords have suggested that our definition will be difficult to operate, but I believe that it is the only definition that will be capable of practical implementation. However worthy the other definitions may be, they would run into many more problems.
The inclusion of healthcare would also extend the definition. The NHS already has a duty to provide healthcare to any member of the public as is reasonably required. Residents of care homes should already receive NHS services direct from the NHS in the same way as any one of us would receive services from our GP, physiotherapist or dentist if we needed them. I see some noble Lords shaking their heads. The fact that that principle is being breached in some parts of the country does not prove the case for more legislation. My department must ensure that the NHS fulfils its responsibility for those services. I accept that we have to face up to that challenge.
Clause 56 does not prevent local authorities exercising the functions of NHS bodies under the partnership arrangements under Section 31 of the Health Act 1999. In those arrangements, there may be a pooled fund for the exercise of certain functions by a local authority on behalf of the NHS body, including the provision of community care. In such cases, we expect local councils and their NHS partners to use that flexibility to ensure that placements in nursing homes are handled in the most effective way possible.
The aim of Amendment No. 262 is to make any community care that is available to other people without charge available to all at NHS expense. That would mean all community care services being provided by the NHS on the same basis as hospital services are currently provided. Following on from the debate between the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I believe that in the end that would lead to the NHS providing board and lodging for those in nursing and residential care. The implications of that are even wider than those in relation to personal care.
Amendments Nos. 263 and 266 suggest that free personal care should be made available to some groups of people but not to others. Such a proposal is based, for example, on the level of need, the diagnosis of particular conditions or the setting in which care is to be delivered.I

1647
understand why my noble and learned friend makes that proposal. However, again, I believe that it would bring with it large problems. It would create perverse incentives, and there would be an all-or-nothing assessment of need under which the individual received everything or nothing. There would be a huge cliff-edge, and that would place enormous pressure on the assessment process, with challenges to diagnosis or professional judgment.
I also believe that it ignores the fact that people with a condition may suffer from it in a very serious or a very mild way. However, because a person has the condition, he will be eligible for the free provision. Surely an assessment should be based on need rather than on a particular condition.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 265, 268 and 269. I repeat that the NHS has a duty to provide healthcare to any member of the public as is reasonably required. If the NHS has assessed a health need, residents of care homes should already receive NHS services direct from the NHS in the same way that any of us would receive services from a GP, a physiotherapist or any other member of the health professions under the responsibility of the NHS.
In conclusion, I recognise that this is a genuine debate and that genuine concern exists as to how the definition will operate. I have examined the issue time and time again. I believe that, finally, the definition that we have is the only one that is workable unless, in the end, we return to our previous debate and make personal care free. The Government have decided not to do that. We believe that the priorities are to regularise the position in relation to care provided by registered nurses and to invest in intermediate care, where I am sure that we shall bring about a great deal of improvement in the lot of many people.
Baroness Barker: I begin by thanking all Members of the Committee who have contributed to what the Minister rightly called a very important debate. Many genuinely held points of view have been put forward. I do not intend to speak for long because we have a great deal of work yet to do. However, I wish to raise a few points.
First, I refer to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I preface my remarks by saying that I have the utmost regard for the organisation that he represents. I have supported Methodist Homes for the Aged all my life. Within the field of ageing, it is noted rightly as one of the outstanding providers of services for older people. On this occasion, I believe that the noble and learned Lord's argument is wrong, and I support the Minister in not going down that road.
There are many different reasons why older people can end up in the same position. I believe that one of the defining principles of Methodist Homes for the Aged is:
"From each according to his means; unto each according to his needs".
1648
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that I rather wish that the Treasury had taken that as its approach to the matter.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. It is not a Marxist organisation.
Baroness Barker: It definitely is not. However, it is one of the best organisations at meeting the needs of frail and vulnerable older people in this country.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord's argument is wrong because there is a myriad of reasons why older people can end up with the same need. I understand entirely his point about dementia, but those who suffer strokes, falls, chronic arthritis or the effects of MS can end up with exactly the same needs as someone with dementia. That is the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talked about costs. The Government's costings, which the Minister trotted out again today, are arbitrary—the £5,000 figure is arbitrary. When we get to the heart of the debate, we shall make it clear that some of the Government's figures do not help us to sort out the problem.
I fundamentally disagree with the Minister's statement that his definition of care is more realistic than those of the rest of us. The definition in the amendment—the planning of care by nurses but the carrying out of that care by care assistants—is the reality for most older people in residential homes. The Minister is simply wrong.
The lack of clarity on nursing care is the point at which the whole of the edifice of the health and social care system that the Government are building will start to fall. Everyone needs to know where they stand. Those Members of the Committee who have tried to sort out care for older relatives or friends know that, when a traumatic incident happens to people in old age that makes them need care, the first thing that one needs to know is what their needs are, what is available and what they have to pay for. The Government's definition of nursing care will not make it easier to do that than is currently the case. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that without the definition of nursing care, even those who want to purchase such care privately will have problems with the proposal.
We have had a good debate and there are extensive concerns in this regard. On another occasion we should have tested the opinion of the Committee but we shall not do so tonight. I urge the Government to go away and to think again about their very mean-spirited definition of nursing care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 [Exclusion of nursing care from community care services]:
[Amendments Nos. 262 to 264 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 58, line 24, at end insert "or health care by a person who is registered by any board established under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960".
The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment, which appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in the hope that I can obtain reassurance from the Minister. The Clerk tells me that it is in order for me to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, would like to have included the professions supplementary to medicine— that is, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and chiropody—in the Bill. That is very important. On Monday, I believe, the Minister gave some very hopeful signals that that might be done. I thought that it was worth bringing the matter up tonight because an election may be called and anything could happen to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister giving an assurance on this important matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, seeks is that the services of professions allied to medicine will be available to people in homes. They will be available after assessment, as they are in any other part of the health service. An assessment of need will be made and services will depend on the categorisation of that need. That does not mean that services will be available for every resident; it will depend on the assessment process.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would it not be simpler to write that into the Bill, to clarify the muddle that there will be in this matter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The problem is with the architecture of the Bill. The clause says that nursing can no longer be provided by the local authority, but the words "professions allied to medicine" would restrict what a local authority could do for people who were not in a health setting. I would not recommend that route.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 266 to 269 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 58, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Before bringing this section into force the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies and organisations as he shall consider appropriate with a view to determining the funding and other arrangements necessary to implement it."
The noble Earl said: While the focus of our debate on this clause has not unnaturally been concentrated on the definition of the terms used and the separation of nursing from personal care, we must address another issue of real concern. Local authorities are worried about how the provision can be implemented without massively increased bureaucracy for nursing home providers, health authorities and local authorities. The implementation date of October 2001 is seen as wholly unrealistic. The logistical aspects of what is proposed are huge and there is real concern that if the transfer of functions proceeds on the basis
1650
outlined by the Government, the total amount spent on providing pre-nursing care will increase. The amount of nursing care that it will purchase will decrease.
Amendment No. 270 proposes that, before anything further happens, the Government must get round the table with local and health authorities, as well as the Royal College of Nursing, representative organisations for nursing home providers, and so on, to discuss how the proposals will be funded and implemented.
There are all sorts of unanswered questions. How will the cost of the nursing care element in the nursing home be calculated? Will it be on an actual or notional basis? If we are to avoid postcode lotteries, will national criteria be applied? Who will bear the additional transactional costs that are bound to arise? If local authorities no longer Commission nursing home care, how will they ensure best value for hotel and personal care costs in nursing homes, for which they remain liable? How transparent will the process be for the transfer of funding from local authorities to health authorities? What transitional arrangements are needed?
These are only some of the issues causing concern. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is considerable worry and disquiet among local and health authorities, which are operating in a vacuum in terms of the information at their disposal. They must have information if they are to plan properly. I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that the Government will look carefully at the implementation date that has been set. If necessary, I hope that they will put it back a little to ensure that the process of transfer does not end in chaos. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We certainly do not want anything to stop the smooth introduction of this new policy, nor do we want any delay. It would be a great disappointment to many people if we were unable to introduce it by October 2001. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that, although he will not be surprised when I say that I am not keen on a statutory requirement for consultation being in the Bill, we are committed to discussing with key stakeholder groups how best to implement the policy. It is in all our interests to ensure that this runs smoothly. Therefore, in the belief that I have expressed on many occasions during our debates that in order to ensure success, you need ownership, we shall consult widely on the implementation of this policy.
Earl Howe: All I can say is that time is of the essence. I accept the Minister's bona fides in this and his assurance that the Government have that in mind but there really is not long now before this all has to roll out. I say again to him that there are some worried local authorities out there. But I thank him for what he said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 58, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) The relevant authority shall make regulations requiring that any persons receiving any services which are not considered nursing care, as determined by this section, shall receive detailed information on the costs of the provision of the personal care and accommodation prior to any agreement for the provision of community care services being made."
The noble Earl said: This amendment would ensure that all patients are given clear information as to the costs of personal care and accommodation before they enter a nursing home. It should be made clear exactly how much of the charges relate to personal care and how much to accommodation costs.
In its current form, there is nothing on the face of the Bill that helps elderly people to identify how much long-term care is likely to cost them. For many, if not most, people, that is a critical piece of information. Different patients require different levels of nursing care. That implies that there will be different charges for each patient, depending on the level of nursing and personal care which they will need. Of course, a patient's care needs will change throughout a stay in a residential home. Clear details of the costs of personal care would enable people and their families to prepare for possible future expenditure. It will also ensure minimal confusion when bills are presented to elderly people or their families. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but my understanding is that that information should already be provided. The current guidance about assessment of resources under the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992, with which I am sure we are all familiar, entitled The Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide makes it clear that anyone entering residential care must receive detailed information on the funding of the placement and the contribution he may be required to make before agreeing to any placement being made. I hope that that answers the important point which is being made here.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: What happens if, after a few months, someone finds that he cannot pay? What happens to him then?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure about after two months, but there clearly are circumstances in which people's resources run down and in some cases, those people have faced eviction. Assuming that people have run down to the capital limit, when the means test kicks in, it would then be a matter for the local authority, in conjunction with the person involved, to decide what to do. But I certainly agree with the noble Baroness's implication that that may leave people in a very difficult situation.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Preserved rights: transfer to local authorities of responsibilities as to accommodation]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 59, line 5, leave out "on the appointed day" and insert "from 1st October 2001"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the issue of preserved rights. If ever there was a misnomer in the field of social care, it is the words "preserved rights". Those provisions relate to people in residential care before 1993 and enable local authorities having to take on responsibility for about 0.25 million people who were then funded by the Department of Social Security. They were supposed to reassure them that there would be no change for them. But in many cases, the income support did not meet ceiling levels of the home and many older people caught in that trap have been forced into penury. The reason for the proposal to move the date to October 2001 is, therefore, to help a group of people who are often in dire hardship as a result of having to try to meet the difference in cost—either by themselves or their relatives or by recourse to charities—of where they live and their income.
One of the purposes of the amendment is to seek reassurance from the Minister that when social service departments take on a case, just because a person is in a home that is more expensive than the level of fees which a local authority would normally pay, that should not be a reason for moving that person.
We are talking of older people who in many cases are well into their eighties and nineties and in one case which was recently alluded to on Radio 4's "You and Yours" 102 years-old. A lady of 102 was threatened with eviction. At that time and in that case there was a statement from the Minister's department that:
"Councils already have powers to help people of working age who are struggling to pay their fees. We accept that possible eviction is a problem for some older people, particularly those in nursing homes whom councils cannot normally help. We are planning to change the regulations shortly to remove some of the present restrictions that prevent councils from helping".
To the best of my knowledge, that has not been forthcoming.
Another reason for moving the amendment is to seek reassurance that local authorities will receive adequate funding, not just for the costs of homes but also for the cost of extra assessment and extra care management.
The Minister will not be surprised at my asking what happened to regulations which were promised at the end of last year and still have not appeared. They were supposed to be forthcoming within a few months to help older people until April 2002. I can only assume that the Minister's department has been working so hard on the national service framework that it has not been able to get those out to us.
The amendment deals with the unhappy situation of a number of elderly people who are in dire need. I therefore hope that the Minister will look favourably upon it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness has put the case well. I understand the difficulties and

1653
pressures on this group of people. I also want to assure her that the intention is that they should stay in their existing homes.
We are working closely with colleagues in the Department of Social Security and with the local authority associations o ensure a smooth transition to the new system. I also understand the need for urgency. Local authorities and benefit offices need as much time as is reasonably possible to plan their management of the change if it is to be introduced effectively. In addition, people affected need to be given time to prepare for the change.
The Department of Social Security is planning to write to the people concerned to notify them of the reasons for the change t o their benefit payments and to explain the local authority's involvement in and responsibility for their future care needs. That obviously requires a great deal of planning and preparation. It can start only after the passage of the Bill. That is why we felt that April 2002 was the best date to start the scheme.
Given that what we propose will involve a reassessment of and changes to the income support payments which people with preserved rights currently receive, it also makes sense to introduce the change at the same time as other planned changes are made to the benefit. As the noble Baroness will know, the annual increase in all income support rates takes place every April.
As regards the regulations, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that we are working on them; I cannot give her a date.
Baroness Barker: I am very glad that the Minister did not give a date because I am not sure that I would have been able to keep to it. We are talking not just about the cost of implementing the abolition of preserved rights, but also its associated costs. The Minister and Members of the Committee will know about the consequences when very elderly people are moved from their long-established homes. There are well-documented cases where such transition has taken place quickly without any help, support or advocacy. The result has been a very much higher death rate than anticipated among these elderly people. Therefore, will the cost of additional matters such as advocacy be included in the provisions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thought I had said that the intention was for people to remain in their homes. I well recognise the issue that she raised. It is something which the National Health Service has found when it has moved residents who have been at one address for a very long time. The mortality rate is extremely high. We clearly have to avoid that.
Baroness Barker: I am very happy to accept the Minister's assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 273:
1654
Page 60, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) Before bringing this section into force the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies and organisations as he may consider to represent the relevant interests of local government as to—

(a) the methodology to be used for calculating the amounts required to fund the arrangements provided for in this section;

(b) the methodology to be used for calculating a fair and equitable distribution of such funding amongst local authorities: and

(c) the means whereby such funding is to be transferred."

The noble Earl said: The contentious issues surrounding preserved rights are not to any great extent about policy, they are about implementation. En a nutshell, unless the level of funding transfer reflects the actual costs and not just the current level of social security funding involved, then local authorities with large numbers of preserved rights residents will be unable to implement the policy without incurring very serious financial difficulties. The Minister will be aware that the actual costs for local authorities include not just the funding to be paid to home owners as fees, but additional costs associated with care management, financial assessment, contracting, invoice processing and income collection.
The DSS has estimated that in 45 per cent of preserved rights cases there is a shortfall between the fees charged by care home owners and the weekly benefit income of residents. That has arisen because over the years benefit increases have failed to keep pace with the actual costs faced by care home providers.
The fear among local authorities that are likely to be the worst affected, such as Kent, East and West Sussex, Devon and Lancashire, is that the funding transfer from social security will involve only the transfer of current expenditure. These sums are due to be increased in April, but unfortunately there is little comfort in the level of increase as it is only 1.8 per cent. which is well below inflation. But if that happens, then the shortfall in fees currently met by social security would have to be met instead by local authorities from their own resources, including council tax receipts.
On the worst case premise, Kent County Council has calculated that, with an estimated 4,000 preserved rights residents, the additional annual cost to its budget would be of the order of £8 million to £10 million. That is a huge sum of money to find. What is needed is some reassurance to local authorities such as Kent. I am looking for a categorical assurance, if the Minister can give it, that these clauses, irrespective of the overt policy intention which is perfectly sound, are not going to be used as a means of transferring an unfunded cost pressure from central government funding to local authorities and their tax payers. That is why my Amendment No. 273 specifies that before anything happens under the provisions of this clause, there has to be consultation, not just about the money itself, but about the methodology to be used in calculating what local authorities need, how to determine a fair allocation between local authorities, and how in practice the money will be transferred,

1655
whether by SSA or by special or specific grant. The Association of Directors of Social Services, the LGA and CIPFA need to be involved here.
I should be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to confirm that the funding transfer to local government will reflect actual costs of care provision; that the additional care management and other costs that I mentioned will be reflected transparently in the financial settlement for local government; and that the Government will give thought to setting up some kind of mechanism to compensate those relatively few local authorities who will find their administrative workloads increased dramatically as a result of this change of policy. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure I can answer all the questions raised by the noble Earl. I agree that it is important that local authorities are given as much information as possible and are properly consulted about the changes.
The noble Earl mentioned concerns of local authorities. We have been working very closely with colleagues in the Department of Social Security and the local authority associations to ensure a smooth transition. I accept that local authorities are particularly keen to ensure that the amount of money allocated to them for their new responsibilities is both sufficient and is calculated fairly and equitably.
So far as concerns the money, the money the DSS would have spent on people with preserved rights is to be given to local councils. That amounts to £528 million in 2002–03 and a projected £474 million in 2003–04. This money will be paid to councils with the money being transferred in respect of changes to the residential allowance within the new promoting independence grant of £862 million in 2002–03 and £873 million in 2003–04.
Conditions will be attached. They will be announced shortly. They will enable us to ensure that this money is spent in the right way. Brief details of this decision have already been notified to local authorities in a circular issued on 27th November of last year.
There is the question of how the money is allocated to individual authorities and what conditions will be linked to its use. Our intention is to consult with the local authority associations about this change over the next few weeks and months. As part of those discussions we shall also seek their views about the statutory guidance we plan to issue later in the year and about how authorities should carry out their new responsibilities.
To sum up, we want to ensure that the local authorities have the resources they need. We also want to ensure that the allocation is seen to be fair and equitable. I hope that answers the main points that the noble Earl raised.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his reply. If I am honest, I cannot discern from his answer whether he has covered every point that I raised. He said that he
1656
was not able to cover every point. The main point was whether local authorities will find themselves suddenly with an unfunded liability. I think he said that that was not the Government's intention. If I am right in having understood him in that way then that is reassuring. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 60, line 25, at end insert—
"(11) Nothing in this section shall authorise any movement of a person other than in that person's interests and with that person's consent."
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 274, I realise that it has echoes of its immediate predecessors. Charity being the chief of virtues, I hope that I shall not be accused of lack of charity in suggesting that the presentation of the benefits of abolishing preserved rights for people in residential care has been a little one-sided.
For people under pension age, the possession of preserved rights has never stopped local authorities topping up where the social security funding falls short in meeting the Bill. It is people over pension age who have been disadvantaged by rules which mean broadly that, if you have preserved rights, the local authority cannot top up. So for the person under pension age with a learning disability, preserved rights have meant greater personal financial bargaining power without loss of other rights and less likelihood that the local authority will want to move them.
Given the age at which people with learning disabilities tend to leave the family home, many people do not particularly want to move again. The change that the Government propose to make can be an unmixed as opposed to a mixed blessing if the Government, by legislation, regulation or direction, ensure that nobody will be moved from their present home unless it is in their interests and with their consent or, if they cannot consent, with the consent of their independent advocate.
Nobody should be put under pressure to move. I add that condition because vulnerable people are indeed vulnerable to pressure, many of them having spent most of their adult lives being subject to choices made by other people. The choice directive, which concerns choosing where you live if you move, is applied to those who move following the loss of their preserved rights.
There is another aspect to all this where I am less confident of seeking government reassurances. The transfer of preserved rights funding to local authorities is, as I understand it—if I understand it at all—to be accompanied by a top up from the Government to allow some catching up where the preserved rights of older people have fallen behind the costs of their residential care. However, the concern is whether, over time, annual local settlements will be adequate to sustain good quality provision. What none of us wants is an increasing gap between local authority responsibilities and the ability of local authorities to discharge those responsibilities. I look forward to such reassurances as the Minister can give. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which we have already debated to a certain extent. I am very conscious that people with preserved rights have been in residential or nursing accommodation since before April 1993. Many will have lived in the same home for all that time and, as I have said, clearly it would be utterly traumatic for those people to have to move.
The Government accept that. We gave a commitment in the NHS Plan that the abolition of preserved rights would not disadvantage anyone. To fulfil that commitment, after consulting interested parties, we intend to issue statutory guidance to local authorities—I stress that this will be statutory guidance—to make it clear that no one must be removed from their existing care home under the new arrangements against their will unless there is a compelling reason why that should be so. I should also like to stress that the guidance will make it clear that no pressure must be put on people to move.
The kind of situation which would be regarded as a compelling reason might be a circumstance where the current home closes or in which it cannot meet the person's assessed needs. I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord will feel that this matter is being handled in an acceptable way.
Lord Rix: I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I am delighted that he was able to say that statutory guidance will be given covering all the points which I raised. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 275:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
"MANDATORY DISREGARD OF PROPERTY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCE
(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament, make provision requiring local authorities to disregard the value of an individual's property when that property is occupied in whole or in part, as his home, by a person or persons as prescribed.
(2) [Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision prescribing the categories of person, and the conditions to be satisfied by a prescribed person, in relation to a mandatory disregard."
The noble Lord said: The reality of community care is, as we all know, that most people are cared for not by the community, not by the state or the local authority, not by their wider family, but by one family carer. This makes it particularly objectionable that when the parting of the ways comes, and the person cared for has to move into residential care, the family carer may lose his or her home.
Those whose favourite bedside reading is LAC(99)9—Charges for Residential Accommodation Guide—and its regular flow of amendments, will be familiar with the detail of which carers are or are not
1658
protected in possession of the home they have shared with the person they have cared for. In support of this amendment, I need only say that not all are protected by legal rights; and that while local authorities have discretion to protect others, that is a much more fragile safeguard.
Age Concern has highlighted cases where the carer is left high and dry, and a whole range of voluntary bodies which are united in support of this amendment have similar experiences to relate. From my own experience, I can point to a grand-daughter who devoted herself to looking after her grandmother for some 10 years until the old lady's needs got beyond her capacity, and who then faced the prospect of becoming homeless. Her grandmother died before the house they shared had to be sold to pay the bills—but the chance of death is not an adequate substitute for the guarantee of justice.
The amendment is worded cautiously, because I recognise the need for safeguards. It is conceivable that in protecting the relative who has lived with and cared for the elderly or disabled person for half a lifetime, protection might also be given to the absent relative who moves in the day the elderly or disabled person moves out. The possibility of abuse is not justification for inaction. It is justification for caution.
I want to conclude this short statement of the case with a worst case scenario. The argument cart seem to be one for rewarding the carer for past caring responsibilities by protecting his or her home at the point when those responsibilities cease. It is, of course, not like that. The carer normally carries on caring— not just by regular visiting but commonly by actual, physical caring in the new setting. To say to that carer, "We want, immediately or in due course, to take away your home in order to pay for the care you are helping us to provide", seems to me—as I hope it does to all Members of the Committee, including the Minister— simply untenable. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I support the case set out by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The mandatory disregard for property does not cover a number of people, particularly carers and same sex partners. I am particularly concerned about same sex partners, because they are people who in other respects have difficulty in making legal arrangements to safeguard their property when their relationships are not recognised.
In Standing Committee in another place, it was agreed that a genuine issue is at stake. The Minister in the other place said that the Government would reflect further on it. The Minister went on to say:
"A procedure already exists to issue regulations about who should be disregarded for these purposes, and regulations offer the most appropriate means of dealing with the problem".
It would be helpful if the Minister in this place would give an undertaking that regulations will be amended to ensure that property is disregarded so that members of the resident's family or former carers—the people

1659
who will be picking up the personal care which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, does not wish to have paid for by other means—are not penalised twice over.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under current legislation, when deciding how much a person is liable to pay towards the cost of their residential care the council will look at how much capital the person has. The limit for a person with over £16,000 in capital is to be raised to £18,500 from 9th April: above that, persons will be required to pay the full cost of their accommodation. The council will look at all forms of capital, including the former home, when deciding how much capital the person has. However, as the noble Baroness has suggested, regulations made under Sections 22 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 require councils to disregard the value of a resident's property where it continues to be occupied by the resident's spouse or partner or another relative who is 60 or over, or another relative who is incapacitated, or where a child who is dependent on the resident continues to live in the property.
Importantly, councils also have the discretion to disregard property where it continues to be occupied by a third party not covered by the mandatory disregards. Many local authorities make use of this discretion, and we have given this a great deal of consideration since the discussion in another place. I have also had the benefit of a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to discuss this further.
We have decided to look to future guidance and remind councils on how they should be interpreting the liable relatives rule with respect to carers, including those where the cared for person enters respite care. This guidance will remind councils of the purpose and place of the liable relatives rule while at the same time encouraging them to use common sense and discretion where appropriate.
For instance, it will remind them of current guidance under the Carers and Disabled Children Act, which asked councils not to charge carers for services received by those for whom they care. As has been suggested, this must make sense. For example, it would serve little purpose if carers are asked to contribute to care cost when they are already making significant sacrifices to care for their partner and when some in that situation might see little point in carrying on caring. The pathway we have chosen is to issue more guidance to local authorities in this area.
Lord Rix: With that assurance, which I am delighted to hear, and seeing that guidance will be strengthened in regard to the liable relatives rules, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 276:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO DISREGARD FINANCIAL RESOURCES IN MAKING ASSESSMENT DECISIONS
(1) The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c. 19) shall be amended as follows.
1660
(2) After section 47(1) (assessment of needs for community care services) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) In deciding whether or not to carry out an assessment under subsection (1) above a local authority shall disregard any financial resources available to the person."
(3) After section 47(3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where a local authority has decided to carry out an assessment the authority shall give reasonable notice in writing that an assessment is to be carried out.
(3B) Within 14 days of completing their assessment the authority shall notify the person in writing of the outcome, including details of—

(a) any needs that have been identified as a result of the assessment that require the provision of any community care services;

(b) any community care services that the person will receive;

(c) the statutory agency which is responsible for ensuring that such services are provided;

(d) a summary of the charging structure that will apply for provision of such services by the authority;

(e) the date on which services will commence;

(f) in so far as the authority does not accept that needs identified by the person and the authority (or both) as requiring the provision of community care services call for the provision of such services, the authority shall inform the person of the reasons for this decision;

(g) the right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made."

(4) In section 47(4) leave out the words "subsection (7) below" and insert "subsections (1A), (3A) and (3B) above and (7) below".
(5) The Secretary of State may issue directions requiring that assessments shall commence and be completed within prescribed periods.".""
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would ensure that persons who have sufficient resources to purchase their own long-term care are not, because of that, denied the benefit of a skilled assessment of need. We know that there is a likely potential for service users to be left with inadequate information about which services are the responsibility of which statutory body, to which agency they complain and for which of their services they are paying. We have heard about this during the course of our debate. Current practice in carrying out assessments and complete care plans, I am afraid, is often woefully inadequate, to the extent that service users are often unaware that they have been assessed.
Delays in assessment and in the subsequent provision of services due to the involvement of more than one statutory agency are also a concern. This is a multi-purpose amendment about the whole process of assessment. People encounter a great many problems, and we want to have on the face of the legislation some provision which could address these problems. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: My noble friend Lord Morris is desolated that he cannot be here because of an important medical engagement. However, whatever view we take about whether richer people should contribute to their care, he believes that they should not be denied assessment. Assessment is a signpost that tells you what you need, however that is to be paid for.

1661
I have some sympathy with this view. The more one considers this area the more one realises that the difficulties do not concern finance, but assessment, and finding out where the services are available, at their many points. I quite see that this is as difficult for better-off people as it is for less well-off people. I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of this amendment, and give us some comfort.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank noble Lords for those comments, which are very important. Let me say immediately that I thoroughly agree that the person's financial situation should not be taken into account during the assessment of their needs—the very point my noble friend Lord Lipsey raised.
I am aware that in some areas the practice has developed that as soon as it is discovered a person has care and attention available to them, including resources, council staff will not commence or may terminate assessments of need. Irrespective of the value of a person's resources, the care and attention that is otherwise available to them, there is no question that councils have a duty to commence or complete assessments of need. We were aware of this problem, and two or three years ago we reminded councils of the legal position. We said in Circular LAC 98/19 that in our view the law does not allow authorities to refuse to undertake an assessment of care needs on the grounds of a person's financial resources.
The amendment does not alter the current legal position. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we shall continue to hammer home this important message whenever appropriate. Clause 60 of the Bill, through regulations, will remove the person's main property from the consideration of whether someone shall have care and attention available to them.
The noble Baroness's amendment suggests a range of improvements to the way in which assessments are carried out. Generally, these proposed changes are about practice and will probably be better dealt with in guidance than in legislation. It is proposed that a local authority should give reasonable notice in writing that assessment is to be carried out. Surely, that is common sense. If a care professional is scheduled to discuss with a person their needs and problems it is good practice to inform them of this in writing. Current practice guidance on assessment and the Government's charter for long term care cover those points.
With regard to results of assessment being notified to prospective service users within 14 days, I understand that many users are notified much earlier than that. There is some danger in stating 14 days because, in the perverse way these matters sometimes operate, that might become the norm and make the situation worse. I believe that current guidance covers this issue and reminds councils that assessment processes should be timely, and services following assessment provided without delay.
The final part of the proposed new clause provides for the Secretary of State to issue a requirement that assessment should commence and be completed within
1662
prescribed time scales. This is another important element of practice. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the proposal, it could be difficult to put into effect. For some reasons assessments can be completed quickly; others may take considerably longer. While I agree that the assessment should not drag on, I would be worried about prescribing time limits in direction or regulation.
In conclusion, matters raised in this amendment focus on good practice and, as such, are best dealt with by guidance. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that I am very sympathetic to the general point she makes.
11 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those reassuring points. I am not sure that everything will be achieved through guidance. That is why we have raised some of these problems. I accept the sympathy offered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would feel the same way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 277:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
"LIABILITY OF RELATIVES
(1) The National Assistance Act 1948 shall be amended as follows.
(2) Sections 42 (liability to maintain wife, husband or children) and 43 (recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance) shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section 48(3) (duty of councils to provide temporary protection for property of persons admitted to hospital etc) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of this Act is liable to maintain him".
(4) In section 51(1) (failure to maintain) omit the words "or any person whom he is liable to maintain for the purposes of this Act".
(5) In section 56(1) (legal proceedings) omit the words "other than a sum due under an order made under section 43 of this Act".
(6) In Schedule 6 (transitional provisions) omit paragraph 19.
(7) The Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
(8) In section 46(5) (burial and cremation) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of the National Assistance Act 1948 was liable to maintain the deceased person immediately before his death".
(9) The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 shall be amended as follows.
(10) In Schedule 1 (enactments conferring functions assigned to social services committees) for the words "Sections 43 to 45 in column 1" substitute "Section 45"."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that relatives do not have to pay, and do not have to be pursued so that they pay, for the care of their spouse who goes into residential care. I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed at having to table the amendment. Having said in the other place that the proposal had merit, I had hoped that the Government would table such an amendment. Now that all the consequential amendments have been covered, I trust that the Government will be able to accept the proposed new clause in this place
However, if the amendment is not acceptable, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me exactly why the Government are no longer supporting it. It was said in the other place that any repercussions and any policy of other government departments would need to be considered. I do not know why the Department of Health has changed its mind, nor, indeed, where the problem lies. Could the Minister please explain the position to me?
Perhaps the Minister should consider the fact that all I am asking for is that local authorities should be debarred from asking spouses to contribute towards the cost of care. Research undertaken by Age Concern has shown that this applies to a very small number of people. However, it is a matter that causes them a tremendous amount of anxiety. It is true that only a few authorities pursue spouses and that only a few individuals are being penalised, but those concerned go through a terrible time of anxiety.
Moreover, it does not fit in with the Government's statements regarding not charging carers. Spouses have often performed the role of carer for years, thus saving the state huge amounts of money. Even when they reluctantly have to give up caring at home, many want to take an active part in the care of their spouse in the care home, thereby incurring much cost to themselves in terms of visiting.
I should like to make it quite clear to the Minister that I am only asking the Department of Health to change its rules, which would entail very negligible cost. Nevertheless, it would have a huge effect in relieving the anxiety of many people. I know that there are similar rules in relation to social security, but these cover all types of separation and, importantly, the maintenance of children. We have no expectation of there being any effect on those rules. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Greengross, and I shall do so briefly. Where charges fall to be made, it is obviously necessary to inquire into the shared resources to determine what the person who must meet the charge should pay. However, it cannot be satisfactory that the expectations of funding by relatives and partners should vary from place to place. Indeed, it cannot be right that the pressures on relatives to top up and make good service deficiencies should vary from place to place. We need greater clarity; and we need to dispel the fear that a relative's own resources will be depleted by domiciliary and residential charges, just as they are very often depleted by caring responsibilities.
I am also anxious to block, if we can, the moral pressure problem. This arises when someone who has no legal obligation to maintain is faced by an unacceptably poor quality of service for their nearest and dearest, with the offer to pull it up half-way to decency if he or she—the family member—would like
1664
to pay the bill. I hope that the Bill's standards provisions will help in that respect, while my noble friend's proposal addresses the legal position.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As we heard, the amendment would stop councils seeking further contributions to care costs for residential care from spouses, in addition to the costs that residents are fairly assessed to pay under the means test. Again, I fully understand the intentions behind the amendment. I am aware of the difficulties caused by the operation of the liable relatives rule as far as concerns residential care and the distress that can be caused to residents and their husbands or wives at what is already a very difficult time. I am also aware of correspondence from Age Concern England which has highlighted that not all care managers are as aware of the liable relatives rule as they ought to be and that there have been some examples of such managers bringing considerable pressure to bear on spouses to make a contribution. It has been reported that fishing expeditions have been undertaken into spouses' financial affairs, causing considerable distress.
Moreover, it is clear that the liable relatives rule is applied patchily over the country. Some councils do not seem eager to apply it, while other councils, although in a minority, seem to be very enthusiastic about it. In another place my right honourable friend the Health Minister said that he would look carefully at the operation of the liable relatives rule and the link to similar rules that apply to other government departments. We have explored all the issues thoroughly and there are a number of difficulties in proceeding along the lines proposed by the amendment. In the first place, I believe that there would be significant implications for public spending as the liable relatives rule has a read-across to wider social security issues. At the end of the day I am not sure it is possible simply to put a barrier round this particular application of the liable relatives rule.
Secondly, it is appropriate that councils are enabled, where it is appropriate, to seek contributions to care costs where the resident has relatively meagre resources while the partner at home is well off. In these instances, residents should look not only to the state for support but also to their partners. To do otherwise would be inappropriate and would place an unfair burden on taxpayers. Thirdly, as I have said, many councils apply current guidance and common sense and do not seek liable relative contributions from spouses in all cases.
Having carefully considered this matter and the arguments that we have heard tonight, I believe that the best course of action would be to remind councils of current guidance rather than to repeal this fundamental rule. When cared for people enter respite care I would expect councils fully to consider all of the issues before considering what contribution to care costs, if any, to seek from spouses who are substantial and regular carers. I realise that my response will be

1665
disappointing to the noble Baroness but I am committed to ensuring that we reissue current guidance and remind councils of their responsibilities.
Baroness Greengross: I am rather saddened by the Minister's response. I shall return to the matter. Meanwhile. with great reluctance and given the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Disregarding of resources when determining need for residential accommodation]:
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 61, line 44. after "person" insert "a local authority shall only consider care and attention to be otherwise available if it is satisfied that—

(a) the person is both willing and able to make his own arrangements, or

(b) a representative acting on that person's behalf is both willing and able to make the arrangements for that person,

and"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that all people assessed as being in need of care and attention and who want the security of social services arranging their residential or nursing home care should not he denied access to this service.
The current provisions discriminate against people who have over £16.000, as even when they are assessed as needing residential care they are left to make their own arrangements with care homes. Many would prefer to have the security of a social services contract—these people by definition are frail and often very elderly. That would also mean that they would be under the care management of social services, which would oversee their care and would review it to check that it was still appropriate. We must remember that people's care needs change; sometimes they need less care. They do not always need more care.
There is clear guidance on those who lack the mental capacity to make their own arrangements and those people will come under social services, but that leaves frail older people who find it difficult to negotiate with home owners faced with doing so, often on their own. Even if they have relatives negotiating on their behalf, it would still leave them with no one fully qualified to oversee their care. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I consider that the essential elements of this matter are fully covered by existing legislation and departmental guidance. First, the legislation places an obligation on councils to make arrangements for people assessed to be in need of care who lack the means to finance their admission or lack the capacity to make their own arrangements. That is clearly right and proper; councils must target the most vulnerable residents for support. Secondly, as I said earlier, the departmental guidance reiterates that existing law provides that councils may not, on the grounds of a person's financial resources, refuse to undertake an assessment of care needs for anyone. That is the position under Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. In that sense, the position is covered.
1666
I turn to consider other elements of the amendment. In my opinion, it would be wasteful of councils' scarce resources to ask them to become involved in making arrangements for admission to residential care of all residents, irrespective of their real need for support. I believe that it may distract councils from priority work, and some residents may regard it as a rather intrusive measure on the part of councils into their affairs. In that sense, councils should be able to consider what alternative provision people have available to them.
However, with regard to the question of the responsibility of councils, I repeat that it is quite clear that they may not, on the grounds of financial resources, refuse to undertake an assessment of anyone's care needs.
Baroness Greengross: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I think that it depends on how the local authority feels. There may be a need for a tightening of the controls at a later stage, and I hope that that will be kept under review. Meanwhile, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 62, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 6.
The noble Earl said: Clause 60 provides for the Secretary of State to review the amount by which a person's resources can be disregarded by local authorities in determining whether he or she is eligible for support when in residential accommodation. The Explanatory Notes makes it clear that this clause will enable the link with the capital limit of £16,000 to be broken so that more people are able to take up the offer of a charge on their own home to pay for accommodation. As I understand it, it would also facilitate the three-month disregard of someone's property after a stay in hospital. For many people, that very valuable breathing space will be needed to assess whether the residential care in question is to be permanent or long term.
The NHS Plan states that the three-month assessment will,
"keep open the possibility of returning home after a period of support and rehabilitation, should people be able and wish to do so"
That gives rise to an apparent difficulty, in relation to which I should be grateful for the Minister's clarification. If that section of the NHS Plan is to he interpreted to mean that the first three months in a residential setting are a temporary stay, according to current guidelines, the test for that should be completely different. The guidelines state that residents regarded as temporary are unable to claim income support until their capital falls below £8,000— not £16,000, as for permanent residents. Does that mean that, for practical purposes, the capital limits for temporary and permanent stays are to become the same?
I should be glad if the Minister would clarify a further point. What is meant by the word "resources" in this clause? Does it cover both property and capital?
It seems to me that the power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations determining the meaning of "resources" would enable him to discriminate between resources in terms of property and resources in terms of other capital. Many people have chosen not to buy a house, but to rent accommodation, and hold all their capital in stock market investments. Would such a person find that all his capital was being taken into account in the means test from the outset? That would seem unfair. A fairer position would be to set the disregard at a certain level of capital or all of a person's capital. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under Section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, councils have an obligation to assess a person's need in respect of services that they have a power to provide to that person. The law currently provides that, if a person has a need for residential accommodation and care and attention is not otherwise available, the council shall provide it. The ability of the person to provide for themselves is a relevant factor to take into account in determining whether to provide residential accommodation. Resources, particularly a person's home, may be taken into account.
The clause paves the way for the introduction of our deferred payment scheme, as it enables regulations to be made requiring councils to disregard certain resources when determining whether they have care and attention otherwise available to them. We intend to specify in such regulations a person's main or only home.
Subsection (2A) says that certain resources, which we will specify in regulations to be a person's main home, shall be disregarded from the consideration of whether someone has care and attention available to them. Subsection (2B) says that the council shall calculate the person's resources in accordance with regulations. The amendment would delete that paragraph. That would enable a council to assess a person's resources as it saw fit. In particular, it would mean that a council could take into account resources disregarded by the means test to deny a person residential accommodation under Section 21. In other words, it could result in fewer rather than more people being entitled to Part 3 accommodation. The amendment would not help those people who would rather take out a deferred payment arrangement with their council than sell their home on admission to residential care.
Those who may be able to return home should be admitted on a temporary basis. The three-month disregard applies to people who are admitted on a permanent basis.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that reply. This was meant to be a probing amendment. I appreciate the effect of removing subsection (2A). That was not my intention. I merely wanted to tease out some of the factual background to the proposals. I am still in a little doubt about how much capital is taken into account for residents regarded as temporary. If the
1668
Minister has any further information on that, perhaps he would care to write to me, as the amendment was prompted by an outside party. In view of the hour, I shall leave it there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 280:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"Carers and local authorities
( ) Where it is considered that a person receiving community care services is to be rehabilitated to receive treatment in his own home by a carer, the carer shall be deemed to have asked the local authority for assessment according to section 1 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000.
( ) For the purposes of this section, the provider of the community care services shall have a duty to inform the carer of his right to an assessment under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000.
( ) For the purposes of this section "carer" shall have the meaning given in section 1 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000."
The noble Earl said: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, berates me, I realise that the amendment is flawed, but I shall speak to it because it contains an important point.
The amendment would ensure that the needs of a person's carer were considered before an elderly patient was returned home. I do not think that there is any disagreement with the general proposition that as far as possible people should be enabled and encouraged to stay in their own homes while they rehabilitate. However, moving home has implications for carers. It would be perverse to reduce the burden on the NHS by increasing rehabilitation if that simply resulted in the burden of continuing care falling on the unpaid carers, who could not cope with it. An explicit duty should be placed on health services to consider the effect on carers. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will say that carers should not be forced to undergo an assessment if they do not wish it. Certainly I had not intended that carers' wishes should be overridden in that sense. My main concern is that every carer should have the right to an assessment and should have that right communicated to them at what will be a particularly demanding time for them.
We should remember what emerged from the research carried out by the Carers National Association some three years ago. It was found that one in four carers felt that the person whom they cared for had not been discharged from hospital at the right time. In 80 per cent of those cases, the carer felt that the patient had been discharged too soon. In addition, in order to reinforce that point, one in four people discharged from hospital were readmitted within two months.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the thrust of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Greengross: I support the amendment in the spirit in which it was moved by the noble Earl. I

1669
believe that we have received some clarification on it. I understand that the noble Earl does not mean that being deemed to have asked for an assessment will lead to a carer who does not wish to be assessed having to be assessed. I take that point.
I am also delighted that during the course of this debate the needs of carers have, for the first time, been spoken of in this way. I am sure that if the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, were here, she would echo the points raised about the needs of carers. We all look forward to seeing her back in this House very soon. I support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks in relation to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. I echo that we very much look forward to her return to our midst. I hope that carers will become involved in the new accountability and public involvement arrangements for the health service and, in particular, that they will become members of patients' forums.
The Government agree fully with the sense of the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It may be worth informing the Committee that the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 comes into force on 1st April 2001. Guidance in relation to the Act issued under Section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 was published by my department on 1st March this year. That section states that local authorities must,
"in the exercise of their social services functions … act under the [Section 7(1)] guidance of the Secretary of State",
which, as we know, is statutory guidance.
The Government's aim is to ensure that all carers are aware of their right to an assessment under the provision of the Carers and Disabled Children Act. That has been achieved by instructing those who carry out assessments of people with carers to inform the carer of his right to ask for an assessment. In order to ensure that the carer has been made aware of that right, the assessor should also give him a copy of a new leaflet, How to Get Help in Looking After Someone: A Carer's Guide to a Carer's Assessment. That leaflet was drawn up in partnership with the Carers National Association and 1 million leaflets have been made available to local councils, social services and all other outlets.
Therefore, I hope that we are meeting the spirit of the noble Earl's suggestion in that carers will be notified of their right to an assessment. I hope that that will be helpful to them.
Earl Howe: That is a very helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 281:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"CESSATION OF PAYMENTS WHEN DETERMINING NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION
In section 21 of the Act 1948 (duties of local authorities to provide accommodation) there shall be inserted"—
1670
(9) Where a person—

(a) has previously made his own arrangements for receipt of care and attention in a residential care or nursing home,

(b) has requested an assessment under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, inter alia, with a view to obtaining community care services, including accommodation provided under section 21(1), and

(c) the authority has assessed that person as being in need of such care and attention under section 21(1),

any liability of that person to make any payments under existing arrangements, or alternative arrangements which may be made, shall cease either at the date that the request for the assessment is notified to the local authority, or if later at the date at which the person becomes financially eligible for assistance (under regulations made for the purposes of section 22), and liability shall pass to the local authority to fund that care and attention from that date.
(10) Regulations may provide for criteria as to whether the existing arrangements continue.
(11) The Authority may in respect of any payment made by them in pursuance of subsection (9) above, recover from that person such an amount in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of section 22.
(12) A person will be entitled to recover any monies paid in excess of the amount for which he is liable in accordance with the regulations made for the purposes of section 22 from the date at which the local authority became liable under subsection (9).""
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed principally to address the problem of delay in assessment. The new clause aims to ensure that residents who have placed themselves in a home but who have reached the capital limit, which from April this year will be £18,500, are able to access the funding that they require at that point from local authorities. Such residents often face long delays in obtaining funding from local authorities. I have come across examples, which I shall not go into at this time of night, from both NACAB and Age Concern which illustrate that this is a serious problem. It would be conditional on their assessment confirming that such accommodation is needed.
The amendment is worded in such a way that if a person applied to a local authority and there were delays in the local authority's carrying out the assessment, it would be responsible for the fees as soon as the person reached the capital limit. It also contains provisions to refund the resident any expenses that he or she may have incurred outwith the means test.
The amendment is designed to assess the serious issue of delay. The Minister for Health in another place addressed that point to some degree during the Bill's Committee stage when he said that he thought that the guidance was adequate and that legal rights were adequate. Having considered what was said in another place, the guidance does not seem to be adequate because many local authorities appear to have delays and considerable problems are caused. People in residential homes find that their capital resources are reduced to below the capital limit, which is totally unfair.
If the Government do not agree to alter the primary legislation in the way that the amendment proposes, it appears that at the very least the guidance should be strengthened. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The problem lies not with the guidance but with that number of local authorities that do not ensure that the guidance is implemented. I assure the noble Lord that when the department is notified that a local authority has not done the right thing, we have acted quickly to remind it of its responsibilities. If someone has been asked to contribute to the cost of residential care outside the means test, it is the department's view that there is a clear liability and responsibility on the local authority to put that right.
When councils delay providing due financial support and the resident loses out financially, he or she has recourse through the local authority complaints procedure, the local government ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. The law is clear on that.
We have issued statutory guidance that leaves no room for doubt. In view of what has been said in another place and in Committee tonight, I agree that we have to stamp out bad practice. The Government will therefore again remind councils of their statutory duties at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that very positive reply, which was precisely what the amendment was designed to elicit. Reference to stamping out bad practice is exactly what is needed. I thank the Minister and look forward to the issuing of those reminders to local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Funding by resident etc. of more expensive accommodation]:
[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Barker: This clause is welcome in one sense in that it will enable people who wish to enter residential accommodation that is more expensive than a local authority is prepared to pay to do so. However, I am worried about the lack of safeguards for those who use their own resources to do so. Having listened to the Minister's comments, I am also still concerned about the effect that the clause may have on the economy of the care home sector. In other debates, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has discussed the great difficulties in that sector. One consideration in this context relates to people who use their resources to fund the additional cost of their care. When their money or their means have run down to the point at which they return to the local authority level, will the care home reduce the costs as they otherwise would have done?
I believe that much of this Bill is good but there are some areas that bear further examination. Is work being undertaken by the department concerning what constitutes realistic fee levels for residential and nursing care homes to ensure that they are reasonable? What safeguards are there to ensure that this provision does not force up the price of homes for those who are
1672
self-funding or who make their own contracts? What safeguards are there to ensure that local authorities comply with the choice of accommodation and that the fee levels quoted by local authorities reflect the cost of residential and nursing accommodation that is available in an area? We need to ensure that residents are not routinely expected to top up the costs of local authority accommodation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raises a number of issues which go rather wide in terms of the viability of the care home sector. I assure her that we are aware of many of those issues and we are in regular discussion with the representatives of those homes to ensure that the arrangements are introduced smoothly.
Subjects include areas of local capacity problems. We are instructing health authorities to work in conjunction with local authorities and providers on the NHS Plan to determine in each locality the number of beds that are likely to be needed in the future. We are also—this is apposite to the comments of the noble Baroness—working to develop a new concordat with the care home sector, to improve Commissioning of long-term care and to maintain capacity and stability in the sector. That will go a long way to ensure that people get the right care at the right time and covers some of the issues that we need to examine.
We are listening to the concerns of care home owners, and we are considering the ways in which we can address the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Power for local authorities to take charges on land instead of contributions]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 62, line 40, leave out "an" and insert "a written"
The noble Baroness said: I shall not delay the Committee. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that a "deferred payment agreement" must be written. This may seem like a trivial matter, but we are talking about people who may be mentally frail and whose relatives are assisting them to decide to part with their home, which is perhaps the biggest decision that they will have to make at the end of their lives. As a matter of good practice, I believe that such things should be written down. It should be a legal requirement. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can reassure the noble Baroness that statutory guidance will be issued by the Department of Health to assist councils to implement the deferred payment scheme from October. It will make it clear that written documentation is crucial for the scheme to work effectively. Written agreements will enable residents and councils to confirm the obligations that they have entered into. Moreover, residents will have to grant a legal charge over their land for deferred payment to be arranged. This will have to be in writing like any mortgage. The

1673
department expects councils to work to the guidance that we intend to issue regarding the documentation involved in taking a charge on property.
Baroness Barker: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 62. line 45, after first "on" insert "the day after"
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to ensure that the debt accrued by a person taking advantage of a deferred payment agreement becomes repayable on the date after the date on which the exempt period ends. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 63. line 8, leave out "56" and insert "114"
The noble Baroness said: In the original Bill which was before another place, the period of grace, if one can call it that, was 28 days—28 days to complete the sale of the house. The department recognised that that was not possible and in another place it agreed to extend that to two months.
According to the National Association of Estate Agents, the average time in 2000 to complete the sale of a house is three months. That is in a time of economic prosperity and for 50 per cent of people, the timetable is closer to six months. Therefore, the Government are asking many people to do something which is not possible.
The second point to be made is that people will be arranging the sale of houses of people who have died. For most people, that will inevitably mean that they are dealing with estates and wills. When I was involved recently in sorting out the affairs of a relative who had died, I consulted a friend who was a solicitor and asked what was the normal time in which to expect those matters to be dealt with. She said that when she was in law school she was told as a trainee solicitor that it is impossible to settle a will within three months. The average time taken to settle a will is about nine months. And if a period of three years has elapsed and the will is not settled, then he should begin to be worried.
I believe that with a time of two months, the Government are asking people, at a time of bereavement, to do something which most of them simply cannot do. Therefore, my proposal is that we should extend the period to four months. That is still asking of most people something which they cannot do. In fact, I believe that six months would be more realistic. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take that point on board. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 286. A gremlin has crept up because this amendment was supposed to be ungrouped from Amendment No. 285 and, of course, I could move it in its rightful place but the thought of my own side, or indeed anyone in
1674
this Chamber, finding that at this time of night, I had added an extra grouping, is too much even for my broad back to bear.
This is a part of the Bill for which I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I claim some pride of authorship of it because the proposition that no old person should, in future. be forced to sell his house during his life time to pay for his care was one which was made by the minority of members of the Royal Commission. For some reason that still escapes me, it was not adopted by the majority. Although they wrote the most wonderful chapters on caring for the elderly, they apparently thought that that was a satisfactory thing to be going on in our society. I am glad that the Government have gone with the minority on this and I hope that Members of the Committee who, on other matters favour the majority, will agree with that.
I have heard the figure mentioned of 40,000 homes sold per year. That is for the birds, because I have looked at the original research. But that is not the point. The real point is the fear of elderly people, when they go into residential nursing care, that if they get better, they will not be able to go home because their home has been sold. This Bill lifts this fear.
However, as drafted, it does not lift a second fear; that is, if the carer or close relative is in the house, what happens if the elderly person dies or has to go in a home? In that case, will the carer or close relative be evicted from that home so that it can be sold to pay for the elderly person's care? I do not think there are that many cases where that has happened. Most local authorities would almost certainly prevent that from happening, but the fear hangs over many older people. The amendment is a chance to lift that fear.
My noble friend the Minister is a good and kind man. He knows that I have supported him throughout the Bill in resisting anything that incurs a single penny of extra penny of expenditure. I am the only person in this House who thinks that the definition of nursing care is, if anything, too wide rather than too narrow. Surely, after that he cannot deny me this extremely cheap measure which will lift the curse of fear from many elderly people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Put not thy trust in the Front Bench. Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 285, which seeks to extend the exempt period before payment is due and interest may be charged to 114 days.
I believe that the current provisions of Clause 6(2)(2) are already advantageous to users and their families or heirs. In addition to the deferred payment scheme being interest free for the duration of the resident's stay in residential care, delaying the payment of interest 56 days makes the arrangements an even more attractive option for those who do not wish to sell their homes on entering residential care to meet their care fees.
However, there is a balance. For the deferred payment scheme to work well and to be widely offered, it needs to be fair and attractive to all parties concerned. I believe that the current period of 56 days

1675
is fair to both families and local authorities. In normal circumstances I would argue that it gives time for probate to be completed and for decisions to be made about how to deal with the property without placing undue financial strain on council resources.
The noble Baroness must accept that if we extend the exempt period to 114 days we may well upset the balance and make the scheme too one-sided in terms of advantages, making it then difficult for councils to feel able to offer deferred payment agreements. There is always a balance. The longer that families and heirs have to pay the sums owed to councils, the more difficult it is for councils to offer deferred payments to other people about to enter residential care. I am the first to acknowledge the sterling support of my noble friend Lord Lipsey in these arduous debates on personal care, nursing care and, indeed, the definition of nursing care. His reward will be in Heaven, not in your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 286 covers a number of situations including instances when a property subject to a deferred payment arrangement is the home of a third party. The basics of the charging system for residential care, as it relates to the deferred payment scheme, applies only to people with property the value of which is above the upper capital limit of the means test for residential accommodation.
Where property owned by residents continues to be occupied by certain third parties, its value is already disregarded from the means test. A point I made earlier is that regulations under the National Assistance Act require councils to disregard the value of a resident's property where it continues to be occupied by a resident's spouse or partner, another relative who is 60 or over, another relative who is incapacitated or when a child who is dependent on the resident continues to live in the property.
Councils also have discretion to disregard property where it continues to be occupied by a third party not covered by the mandatory disregards. The Department of Health already provides guidance to councils on the application of mandatory and discretionary property disregards. It reminds councils of their discretionary powers. Many councils exercise their discretion in that area and disregard property where it is occupied by a former carer who does not fall under the mandatory disregard.
The amendment would give councils the discretion to extend the exempt period of a deferred payment arrangement to allow former carers or other relatives of the resident to remain living in the property or to allow them time to make other arrangements. The amendment also appears to assume that, were councils not to have that discretion, such carers and relatives would either have to find the funds to pay the debt, including any interest that accrues, or find alternative accommodation.
As I have described, the value of a resident's property which continues to be occupied by a carer or a close relative of the resident, will be disregarded in most cases under the existing mandatory or
1676
discretionary property disregards. Where the value of a resident's property is disregarded, there will be no need for the resident to enter into a deferred payment agreement secured on the disregarded property. On that basis one hopes that the scenario which the amendment addresses is very unlikely to occur.
Baroness Barker: If the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, cannot get any blood out of this particular stone, what hope is there for the rest of us? I am very disappointed at the Minister's answer. What the department is expecting of a great many people is impossible for them to fulfil. That is unfair. Taken together, some of the unsatisfactory answers that we have had this evening begin to make this package of measures seem thoroughly unacceptable on these Benches. I reluctantly withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 286:
Page 63, line 11, at end insert ", or
(c) at the discretion of the authority, on such later date as it may deem appropriate in order to protect a carer or close relative of the resident from homelessness.
(4A) The Secretary of State shall provide guidance to local authorities as to how they should exercise their discretion under subsection (4)."
The noble Lord said: I am also greatly disappointed. I do not find the Minister's answers very satisfactory. I do not believe that discretion will stop old people experiencing fear. If there are so few cases, why is he so reluctant to put them on the face of the Bill and stop it? I therefore reserve the right to return to this matter at Report stage if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister makes such a thing possible.
[Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 62, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Barker: In view of some of the unsatisfactory and disappointing answers that we have had, there are one or two questions about deferred payments that I have to ask. I point out to the Committee that similar arrangements are already in place which enable local authorities to collect debts under the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 which, for the benefit of the Committee, but mostly of myself, I shall henceforth refer to as HASSASSA.
Are the deferred payment agreements only for those who do not wish to sell their property in their lifetime? If people do not mind selling their property and making contributions towards the cost of care, will they be able to use the deferred payment agreement rather than having a charge placed on their property under HASSASSA? Are the Government taking steps to ensure that any independent financial adviser would be competent to offer detailed individual advice to someone who was thinking of making deferred payment and that he would have knowledge about the charging, how benefits might be affected and the other options available? There are issues such as insurance

1677
on empty property and the oversight of property. It is an enormous change to the way in which older people will have to manage their property. Will the local authorities also meet the associated costs of legal charges? Those are some of the many questions which are opened up by this clause. At this stage I shall not press the matter any further.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind if I duck a couple of her questions and write to her about the specific details. The point she raised about financial advisers is important. Certainly one would wish that people in that situation had proper independent advice.
We need to do everything to ensure that that occurs. If independent financial advisers are going to become involved, it will be important for us to make sure that they are appraised of the issues. I may take that issue back and have a look to make sure that we are covered.
I have suddenly received inspiration in the nick of time on the questions raised by the noble Baroness. On the HASSASSA questions, it is deferred payments only for those who do not want to sell their home and open to anyone who wants to take up a deferred payment. If the home is sold then the resident will need to pay.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 287:
After Clause 63. insert the following new clause—
"CROSS-BORDER ASSESSMENTS
Where a person has been assessed by one local authority and moves to a residential or nursing home in another local authority area, the authority which made the assessment, and as a result of which a duty to provide accommodation under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 has arisen, shall agree such payments which are at least equivalent to those which are normally made in the authority to which the person has moved for the type of accommodation in which that person resides or will be residing."
The noble Baroness said: The title which has been placed upon the amendment in the Marshalled List of "Cross-border assessments" is wrong. The amendment is not about that matter. It is not about vast numbers of people who will be retiring to Scotland, given the fact that the Scots have seen fit to ignore the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on personal care. It seeks to address inter-authority payments within England. It is about people who want to move to a different local authority and have problems if they move to an authority which pays a higher fee level than their own. That happens quite often. Older people want to move to be nearer to their families.
Local authority practice is often to pay only the level of fees they 'would pay if a person moved into a home in their own area, rather than the fees that the local authority agrees to pay in the new area. That often means that there is a shortfall which the resident's family have to make up. That can be a huge difference, particularly if people move from the North to the South of England.
In effect it can mean that an older person may not be able to move to be near his or her family because of the differences in local market prices in care homes. The issue potentially raises some human rights issues about respect for family and home life if a person cannot move because of local authority policies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under existing legislation once a person with assessed care needs is ordinarily resident in a local authority area, that authority has an obligation to provide for any residential accommodation needs that he or she has. These needs may have to be met by placing the person in a home in another local authority. The authority responsible for the person cannot point to a standard rate for a care home place and say that they will not apply above that if the needs of the person require it. So where a person moves from one local authority area to another, the responsible local authority must provide the person with accommodation that meets his or her needs and pay the appropriate cost.
The authority is free to negotiate the fee it will pay to the care home provider to meet those needs. I do not believe that there is an issue here with the current legislation.
Baroness Barker: The move to another part of the country to be near relatives is often regarded as a preference rather than a need, and many older people find that the differences are not made up. I take it from the Minister's reply that we shall be as lucky on this amendment as we have been all night. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 288:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"REQUIREMENT TO REPORT ON PROGRESS WITH COMMUNITY CARE
(1) Section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) leave out all words after "Parliament" and insert "separate reports incorporating—

(a) such information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the development of health and social care in the community and elsewhere for people experiencing mental health problems, including information about the views of people with mental health problems and their families on such developments; and

(b) such information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the development of health and social care in the community and elsewhere for people with learning disabilities, including information about the views of people with learning disabilities and their families on such developments.

(1A) The Secretary of State shall as far as possible include in these reports such information as he considers appropriate about developments in other services for people respectively with mental health problems and people with learning disabilities, such as financial, employment, education, housing and leisure services.""
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 288 and to move in its place Amendment No. 316C and to speak to its

1679
consequential amendment, Amendment No. 319D. I do this for a good reason. I have found my original amendment transformed by legal hands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. If he is not moving Amendment No. 288, he will need to move Amendment No. 316C in its place in the Marshalled List.
Lord Rix: With due respect, the amendment is in its place in the Marshalled List.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be in the same grouping as Amendment No. 288, but if the noble Lord is not going to move Amendment No. 288, then he will need to move Amendment No. 316C when we come to the appropriate place in the Marshalled List.
[Amendment No. 288 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Control of patient information]:
Midnight
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 67, line 11, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 289. In doing so I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 290, 291, 293, 293A, 294, 298, 299A, 300A, 301, 302, 302B, 302D, 305ZA, 305ZB and 308. Clause 67 of the Bill, more than any other clause in any other Bill that I have ever dealt with, has incurred the alarm, anger and condemnation of virtually the entire medical community, from doctors, medical charities, the pharmaceutical industry and the press.
The clause provides the Secretary of State with two sweeping new powers: a power to regulate the use of any kind of health information by third parties, even anonymised data; and a power to collect personal health information, even when the patients themselves object. These are such huge matters that it is difficult to deal with them adequately in the space of a few minutes. However, I shall attempt to address each in turn.
As many noble Lords will know, there are companies that specialise in collecting and analysing anonymised medical data on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. At the moment, an established agreement between the medical profession and the health data companies allows those companies to collect certain kinds of statistical data, provided that neither doctors nor patients can be identified in the statistics without their consent. In a recent case involving one such company, Source Informatics, the Appeal Court rejected an attempt by the Department of Health to depict this statistical data collection as a breach of patient privacy. That argument was as disingenuous as it was ridiculous. However, the Government are now seeking to overturn the court's judgment by means of legislation.
Many people have expressed serious concern that the effect of this legislation will be, among other things, to prevent and, indeed, to criminalise any
1680
independent investigation of NHS performance. Many others fear that it will seriously damage the UK's ability to conduct medical research. The Government say that this is not their intention at all. They have tabled amendments which seek to narrow the scope of this clause in an attempt to meet the criticisms that have been made. Those amendments will not do and I shall return to them in a moment.
The second new power would enable the Secretary of State to compel doctors and hospitals to hand over patients' medical records even if the patients object. At present, there are powers to do this only in relation to notifiable diseases such as tuberculosis, where there is a clear public interest in preventing the spread of infection. No one argues with the need for those powers, nor is there in general much dispute about the work of cancer and other disease registries, whose legality was questioned last year under the provisions of the Data Protection Act. The data collected by cancer registries is of direct benefit to medical research.
However, the proposed powers are not limited to cancer or, indeed, to medical research. They would permit the government of the day to demand whatever data are of interest to them—and not just for research but under that well-worn rubric of the public interest. Nowhere in this clause is there any mention at all of that essential prerequisite: informed patient consent.
This new power is not about protecting patients' rights, it is about expediency. As such—I know that this is strong language but it is true—it represents nothing less than the sovietisation of medicine. Clause 67 will ride roughshod over patient's rights in order to make life a little easier for Ministers.
But it does not stop there. There are other costs. Doctors will no longer be able to guarantee confidentiality to their patients. What will that do? It will do one very obvious thing: it will erode patient confidence; and in the process it will erode public confidence in medical research.
Recent events in the NHS at Bristol and Alder Hey, and other cases, have already served to dent public confidence in the medical profession. The last thing we should be doing is to damage that foundation stone of medical ethics, the unbreakable bond of trust between doctor and patient.
The powers sought by Ministers are far, far too wide. They are outrageously wide. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House, in its criticisms of subsections (1) and (2) described the power as "over wide". Quite rightly, the committee did not comment on issues of policy, although it noted with regret the complete lack of consultation on the proposals before the Bill was presented to Parliament.
Since the report was published, the Government have tabled amendments to try to address the committee's criticisms. The amendments to subsection (1) restrict the powers to data,
"obtained or generated in the course of the provision of the health service",
and processed for,
"the purposes of. or in connection with, marketing or other promotional activities which he considers to be contrary to the economic or financial interests of the health service".
I urge Members of the Committee to read those words. What do they mean? What would a court of law take them to mean? They are incredibly imprecise and vague. The vagueness in the meaning of such words as "marketing" and,
"obtained or generated in the course of the provision of the health service",
is dangerous. The Secretary of State would be left with huge scope for subjective decision-making on almost as broad a basis as he would have under the clause as first drafted.
One very simple point appears to have been overlooked by Ministers. The commercial use of NHS data and the availability of that data to those conducting medical research are inseparable. You cannot divide off the commercial bit from the rest, because commercial data are used to carry out research.
Why are the Government seeking to take this power? They assert that the use of anonymised patient data is likely to lead to increased costs in the NHS, in particular in the drugs bill. The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to support these assertions. The argument simply has not been made. Indeed, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has demonstrated convincingly that the flow of information to doctors actually reduces prices. Pharmaceutical promotion emphasises the benefits of using cheaper alternatives to the ones that have been used in the past. That is the effect of a competitive market-place. Anonymised patient data highlight inappropriate prescribing as well as drawing attention to new or improved medicines. Both of these are in the interests of patients.
Ministers have offered assurances that they will not use these powers to their full potential extent. I am willing to accept those assurances in good faith. But the Minister knows that this will not do. Once the powers have been granted by Parliament, no such assurances will bind a future government. The fact is that there is no basis for Parliament to grant such wide powers as these in the first place.
In view of the time, I have not spoken individually to my amendments but I have covered their theme and their purpose. When I first looked at this clause, I thought that it was unamendable. With regard to anonymised patient data, that is still essentially my view. The Government should abandon subsections (1) and (2) altogether. However, there may be a way of amending the clause acceptably in relation to identifiable patient data. I have an open mind about this. If there is, it will involve writing on the face of the Bill many more safeguards than are currently in place. In this connection, I shall listen with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, when she speaks to her Amendment No. 305B.
In the final analysis, this clause is truly astonishing. It offends against everything that Ministers have ever said about a patient-centred health service. It is
1682
directly contrary to the principles of patient confidentiality. If it comes to a choice between the clause as it stands and striking the clause out, I should have no hesitation in choosing the latter course. beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: May I say that I totally agree with the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I totally agree with him when he says that the medical profession in its entirety and the entire pharmaceutical industry are deeply and bitterly opposed to Clause 67.
In commenting upon the issues relating to anonymised data prescribing I must declare an interest as I am a neuro-science adviser to a pharmaceutical company. Nevertheless, I must make the point that I have not been briefed by that company but have received a great deal of information from many other pharmaceutical companies and from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
If this clause, unamended, were to go through it would restrict the use of anonymised data from the NHS in clinical trials. It would inhibit epidemiological research or pharmocovigilance based on UK data; it would inhibit the collection of data required for submission to regulatory authorities in relation to both EU and UK law; and it would introduce new restrictions on data generated from pharmacy transactions or anonymised data where these are aggregated at a level greater than individual physician prescribing. The industry has long used such aggregated data above the individual prescriber level without harm to the interests of the NHS. Also, as the noble Earl said, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has come to the conclusion, quite contrary to the view of the department, that the use of such data and the implementation of the consequences of such data would in fact reduce costs for prescribing in the NHS and would render this very much more efficient.
I greatly appreciate the courtesy of the Minister in arranging for some of us to meet him to discuss these clauses. I am grateful for that, and I fully appreciate how, in Amendment No. 295, he has attempted to address some of the greater concerns that have been expressed. However, as the noble Earl said, this simply does not go far enough. My particular departments are engaged in a wide range of activities, which of course include investigating marketing needs, but also the development of new medicines.
The term "marketing" is so broad in meaning that all the commercial databases covering NHS activities remain under threat. These databases are very expensive to develop and maintain. The removal of commercial funding would close them down so that they would no longer be available for non-commercial uses. I believe that this particular part of Clause 67 is unamendable, as the noble Earl said.
Turning to the issues of patient confidentiality, I agree entirely with those who have said that confidentiality between doctor and patient is the cornerstone of medical practice. Yet Parliament,

1683
under the medical Act, has charged the General Medical Council with the responsibility of giving advice to the medical profession on issues of confidentiality. There are of course exceptions, which the GMC has for many years accepted, relating to the breaching of confidentiality. Thus, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act it is perfectly appropriate for a doctor to breach confidentiality in order to assist the police in the investigation of a grave or very serious crime.
It is also perfectly appropriate when a patient with epilepsy proposes to continue driving, against medical advice, for a doctor to report that individual to the licensing authority. There are therefore exceptions. At the present time, the General Medical Council, in relation to databases which are used for disease registries—in the field of cancer, for instance—have said that doctors are not required to obtain signed consent before data are passed to such registries. However, the GMC proposes from December 2001 to make it mandatory upon all doctors who wish to pass such information to disease registries to seek written informed consent. It is in this situation that there is a serious conflict of opinion within the medical profession. Those involved in cancer research and many other fields of medicine are much opposed to those potential requirements of the GMC. I believe, for that reason, that to implement Clause 67 as it stands at present would inhibit further discussions between individuals involved in cancer research and other disease registers, on the one hand, and the GMC on the other. I believe that in the fullness of time this difference of opinion could be resolved, but to give these unfettered powers to the Secretary of State would, effectively, give him the power to override the advice of the General Medical Council to the detriment of patient confidentiality.
I have agonised over what might be done in relation to this clause. After studying it carefully, I can see no alternative but to ask the Minister and the Government to think again and to withdraw this clause for further detailed consultation with the industry and the profession.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Northover: I speak to Amendments Nos. 298A, 302C, 304A, 305, 315A and 316A which stand in my name and to the other amendments in this group.
Clause 67 has generated enormous controversy. There are three strands. First, there is the problem of the wide powers taken here by the Secretary of State. They are powers so wide that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has pronounced upon this. The second and third areas of contention are the use to which anonymised data can be put and the issue of confidential patient information.
There are several features of the controversies that need not have been as they are. The Secretary of State did not have to seek such wide powers. The complex issues addressed here did not have to be sprung upon people with little or no consultation. The departments
1684
did not have to put together anonymised and confidential data in the one clause; however, this is where we are.
I take the matter of anonymised data first. Like other noble Lords, I have received many submissions from those who will be affected by this section of the clause. I have met many delegations and I appreciate their desire to inform as fully as possible. Pharmacists have the right to sell anonymised data to companies who then sell it to the pharmaceutical industry and others who use it as a tool in their marketing strategy or in research. It is very clear that the NHS is unable to supply accurate, up-to-date information to those who need this for research purposes. It is clear that preventing such researchers from using this material in anonymous form, so that the patient could never be identified, would be a very retrograde step.
The Government sought to prevent the sale of anonymised data to the industry but lost the Source Informatics case on appeal, largely, it seems to me, because they were arguing that the patient's confidentiality was at risk, which it clearly was not. However, one of the judges stated that if the Department of Health,
"continued to view such schemes as operating against the public interest, then they must take further powers in this already heavily regulated area to control or limit their effect".
They seem to be doing so. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1999 argued that the merger of two companies who dealt in this information produced a damaging monopolistic effect and this could drive up costs for the drug companies and, they deduced, the NHS. In that report, I note that whereas the Government spends £5 million a year on providing prescribers with information about medicines through such measures as the Drugs and Therapeutic Bulletin and, more recently, the Prodigy Scheme which gives prescribing support to GPs, the industry in 1997 spent around £270 million in promoting its products, mainly to prescribers. They had 6,000 sales representatives or about one for every five to six GPs.
Therefore, I have some sympathy with the Government in seeking to avoid the pharmaceutical industry being able to target such resources on GPs, using their knowledge of their prescribing habits. There is something of a David and Goliath situation here. However, my concern is that by blocking the pharmaceutical industry from its so-called "micro-marketing" the pharmacists will not collect the information to the detriment of the research community.
The clause has been narrowed down in a way that I welcome. As I see it, it will still allow the collection of data on a regional level, at a level that the industry could use to lobby the Government and the public about the poor up-take of useful medicines. However, I remain concerned at the clause's potential scope and impact. It is difficult to justify how it might be in the public interest to restrain pharmacists from communicating anonymous information to the companies that collect such information. My preference would be for the Prodigy scheme to be, as

1685
they say, "rolled out", so that doctors take that as their main source of information. Thus our Amendment No. 298A emphasises that any action—such as contemplated here—must be "in the public interest".
I turn now to the other can of worms in this clause; namely, confidential patient information. Here we have to balance the rights of the individual and the needs of society. The immediate problem over this also seems to have emerged from the Source Informatics case, after which the GMC advised doctors that they were in danger of breaking the law if they passed information about named patients, even to such organisations as the cancer registries. They were advised that if they did so without the informed consent of the patients they must be prepared to defend their actions in a court of law. Not surprisingly, that had an immediate effect. Although the GMC then offered a moratorium in its expectations of doctors in this respect, there has been a significant decrease in the amount of information going to the disease registries.
I have with me evidence from Dr Wendy Atkin from St Mark's Hospital, who is running trials for bowel screening programmes for the Department of Health. She had hoped soon to be able to introduce screening into the wider population to catch this disease when it is completely curable, given the fact that at present it kills 20,000 people a year at present. Dr Atkin has told me that the information is simply no longer complete enough for her to judge the effectiveness of the trials.
Yet, within law, it seems that the problem can be resolved. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a patient's right to the protection of confidential information and personal privacy, but that is not an absolute right. As my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill put it in advice to the GMC,
"the public interest test for lawfully interfering with a patient's right to protection of confidential information and of personal privacy … is whether there is a pressing social need and whether the interference is proportionate to the purpose".
It is clear that the disease registries, the Public Health Laboratory Service, and so on, can all fairly claim to be acting in the public interest. So, again, I have sympathy with the Government in putting forward proposals that will once again enable the free flow of information in the public interest, while at the same time protecting patient confidentiality where possible.
But, once again, too much power is in the hands of the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that we had a Secretary of State for whom it was not a high priority in the interests of society to allow such data to be collected, or who wished to hide, say, the collection of information that was embarrassing to the Government. Patient groups have expressed serious reservations about what they see as a power that might be abused.
We have therefore put down an amendment from the BMA which was tabled in Committee in another place and which has since been improved in the light of the discussions there. It seeks to define more precisely what we should seek to do. This amendment is loosely based on the existing United States federal statute which establishes cancer registries.
1686
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 302C and 304A is to make explicit in the Bill the intention of the Secretary of State here; that is, to make provision for disease registries and medical research and to provide a basis for the regulation of the use of patient information for these purposes.
Lord Turnberg: On Second Reading I said that I found this clause difficult to understand. I think that I understand it better now, but I do not think that I find it any easier. Certainly an enormous amount of heat and anxiety has been generated. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, have expressed some of those anxieties well. However, as regards the assertion that the vast majority of the medical profession are completely against the measure, I doubt whether that is absolutely true. That is certainly not true of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It does not seem to be true of the Royal College of Physicians. It is not true of the Academy of Medical Sciences. It is not true of the clinical professors of medicine. I do not even think that it is true of all members of the General Medical Council. I do not think that they have had an opportunity to study it properly yet.
We have discussed two types of patient data: that which is identifiable to given patients and that which is not. They are not terribly well distinguished in the clause. Data to which names cannot possibly be attached are used, and will continue to be used, for research and public health purposes. They do not come under the Data Protection Act or, I believe, under the GMC guidelines.
While the common law allows the use of non-identifiable data, there is the prospect, I suppose, that the GMC could theoretically interpret that differently. Certainly research ethics committees could easily become confused and interpret the clause to mean that even anonymised data should not be used for research purposes. I should like to see that matter not necessarily on the face of the Bill but at least clearly affirmed in regulations or guidance so that that confusion is removed.
As regards data from patients who are identifiable and from whom consent has not been obtained—that is a particular concern—that is now constrained and after the end of October this year will be very much further constrained so that it will not be feasible. The Data Protection Registrar and the GMC will at that time make the use of such data absolutely impossible unless, of course, the second part of the clause is enacted which would allow the use of such data without informed consent in very defined circumstances for very specific purposes with certain safeguards. Of course, everyone believes that consent should be obtained in every instance wherever that is possible. That is absolutely vital; it is the baseline from which everyone begins. But it may not always be possible. Under those circumstances it is helpful to have a measure such as Clause 67.
Even though it is rather late I should like to enlarge for a moment or two on the occasions when it may be necessary and, indeed, essential for us to bypass the

1687
measure I have mentioned—for example in the case of so-called "secondary research"; that is, not research done directly on patients but on data derived from patients at some time in the past, or from samples derived from patients at some time in the past where those patients have died or have moved or are untraceable. Without this clause one would not be able to do any of that kind of research.
There are many examples. Let me give a few: first, the Gulf War syndrome. To establish whether soldiers who had been to the Gulf had an increased incidence of cancers of various types, one would need to determine the rate of cancer in those Gulf War veterans and compare it with the incidence in a comparable group of soldiers of a similar age who had not been to the Gulf. It turns out, incidentally, that the incidence of cancer is more or less the same, but it would not be possible to know that without being able to look back at people who could not possibly have given their consent when they developed cancer.
Similarly, the Public Health Laboratory Service would not have been able to conduct the study into the relationship between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. It did find that there was no relationship between the two; that one does not seem to be causal of the other. Therefore, we would not have been able to determine that without the opportunity to look back at data on MMR and autism.
The determination of the relationship between a rare occurrence of a disease and immunisation—a question that constantly arises—depends on one's ability to look back. Patients could not have given consent about their disease when they got it because at that time the idea that it might be related to immunisation had not even been thought of. If you want to know the relationship between cancer and environmental factors, or the source of an e-coli 0157 or Legionella outbreak, you must use named patient data.
Professor David Barker in Southampton undertook a marvellous research programme into the relationship between the level of nutrition of an unborn child in the womb and diseases that may be acquired in later life. He demonstrated, for example, that the birth weight of an individual may, 50 or 60 years later, determine that person's incidence of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attack, and the like; and it was dependent on obtaining data about named patients, where consent at birth could not possibly have been given. How poor we would be without that type of research which could not be done.
I, too, have struggled to find a mechanism that might achieve those laudable aims. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I have not been able to come up with anything better than legislation of the type envisaged by this clause. I know that giving the Secretary of State powers of this kind is likely to send shivers up and down the spines of many people, but I believe that the proposed controls are pretty stringent as they stand and as promised.
1688
My fear is not that they will have the potential to betray patients' confidences but that they are so draconian that the mechanism itself will inhibit the very research that the clause is intended to allow. It involves advice from an expert committee and a three-month public consultation, and it then has to pass through both Houses of Parliament. We could not need more to protect patients' confidentiality, especially as they cannot possibly be harmed by the sort of things to which I have referred, and only they and the public can gain.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the mechanisms involved will be carefully considered, not only from the point of view of the patients but also from the point of view of the public good.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support my noble friend and speak to the amendments standing in my name, which cover both issues in this clause. I was very interested to hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. From the Minister's point of view, there can be nothing more ghastly than being caught between two warring professors, two noble Lords who have different views.
This issue was first brought to my attention when I read a letter in The Times of 7th February—before the Bill went to the other place—expressing grave concerns about this clause. It was signed by Donald Irvine, President of the General Medical Council, Ian Bogle, Chairman of the Council of British Medical Association, Robert Boyd, Chairman of the UK Council of Heads of Medical Schools, Denis Pereira Gray, Chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, and James Johnson, Chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee. I know each of those individuals. They are not men of straw. They have each held huge responsibility in the medical profession, leading very important parts of it. Many of them are erudite academics and researchers in their own right. They have expressed great concern about the clause.
Going back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, we are greatly concerned that the clause will fundamentally change the trust and confidence that patients have with their doctors. I understood the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, about secondary research, but is he saying that on certain occasions consent is not required? What about the Alder Hey case? That has caused great distress and concern among parents about the spare parts of their children. Everybody agrees that those issues should be addressed and that consent should be required.
My main concern relates to people with HIV and AIDS. I am a vice-chair of the All-Party AIDS Group. In this country we have 43,834 people with HIV and AIDS. That is a lot of people. Very recently, the all-party group held a series of hearings with people with HIV and AIDS. One of the things that came across strongly—and quite surprisingly—was how much discrimination is still alive and well. We heard of a Durham store manager who had been sacked by Aldi because the company had discovered that he had HIV.

1689
Another speaker at the group told us how her daughter had had to leave her school and later her work because her mother's HIV status was disclosed.
There are lots of cases like that. HIV and AIDS are not notifiable diseases. We are encouraging sufferers to get access to testing and treatment in the name of public health. I wonder what they will feel knowing that their confidence is in any way broken they may well lose their job or their mortgage. They are frequently discriminated against and they very often lose their housing. There are huge dangers in the clause. Like my noble friend, I should like it to be struck out of the Bill.
One reason why there was so much anger when the clause was produced is that there was no forewarning of it. The provisions were not in the NHS Plan. They were suddenly sprung on all of us with no consultation. People were deeply concerned that there were hidden motives.
I have heard a lot of good evidence from the pharmaceutical industry—individual companies as well as the ABPI. I shall not go into that tonight, because the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has dealt with the issue eloquently and thoroughly. However, I find it odd that the Government are seeking to increase the regulation imposed on that industry. It is a successful industry that we should be proud of. The Government are being schizophrenic. They say that they want to encourage it and keep it in this country—we know that many companies are going abroad for their production as well as for the development of their products—yet they are trying to regulate it further. The Prime Minister's competitiveness task force is looking at the issue and will report in a few weeks. It would be right to wait for that report.
Finally, I want to say a little about the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Many reports have come before the House, but I have never read one which has been so damning and which has taken apart to such an extent what is being proposed in this clause. The report goes through the lack of consultation on the draft regulations, the extraordinary claims that are made for regulation, the width of the powers, the affirmative resolution procedure, and the extent of the representations that were made.
I believe that Ministers should be quite ashamed to read a report such as that on proposed legislation. Certainly there has never been one so damning. I believe that a huge amount of evidence is coming forward from all quarters that the Government should take away this clause and think again.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I do not have the expertise of some Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate. However, I want to put forward the concerns that have been presented to me. At this point, I declare my interest as a former health and safety Commissioner. The Health and Safety Executive has presented to me its concerns in the event that the clause is removed from the Bill.
1690
In my work as a health and safety Commissioner I tried to ensure that, when studies of workers' health were carried out, the proposed research was explained in detail to workers' representatives and their approval obtained for such studies. However, I recognise that in some situations informed consent cannot be obtained and that the importance of the consent principle in such cases may be outweighed by the public good.
Many occupational research studies do not involve direct contact with the subjects. Instead, they carry out long-term follow-up of the health of groups of workers through death records and cancer records collected routinely by the Office for National Statistics and the NHS. In such studies, it is impracticable for the HSE to contact all former workers in order to obtain their consent. However, for the results to be valid, they must be included.
Perhaps I may give a few examples of research which is necessary in order to gain knowledge to protect the health of workers and the public, and which is either impossible or impracticable if informed consent is mandatory. I shall start with the subject of asbestos, which has formed an extremely important part of the HSE's work over recent years. Going back over almost 30 years, the HSE has the details of 80,000 workers who have been affected by asbestosis. It is impossible to contact so many people in order to explain the purpose of the research study. Even if it were possible, the restriction of the study to those who write back giving their consent will probably so bias the results as to make them invalid.
Other studies of occupational health risks in which it has not been possible to obtain consent include the Health and Safety Executive's study of causes of death and cancer in the semi-conductor industry, where the workforce has serious concerns about possible health risks. The HSE has the full support and agreement of the workforce representatives, but contacting former workers is impracticable.
Similar studies have shown that workers have been exposed to vinyl chloride monomer—an industrial chemical, widely used in making plastics, that may cause cancer—and many other hazardous chemicals. Some years ago the HSE undertook a large study— noble Lords may have read it—of childhood cancers in the area of the Sellafield nuclear plant. That study would not have been undertaken if consent had been required from all the subjects or their parents to access their medical information.
It is not only the HSE that has been in touch with me. Members of the Committee have said that a number of organisations oppose Clause 67. The Association of Medical Research Charities, which consists of more than 100 charities and which includes some prominent cancer charities, including the Breakthrough Breast Cancer, the Breast Cancer Campaign, Action Cancer and Cancer Research Campaign, is totally in favour of Clause 67 and is most concerned that it may be tampered with or removed from the Bill. I shall quote what it said in this context. It said:

1691
"Clause 67 will allow the use of some data for public benefit in restricted circumstances and under strict control. Without legislation, some types of research will no longer be possible … Applications for approval for the use of data about patients will be examined by an expert committee set up by the Secretary of State and be subject to a period of public consultation. If accepted they would then require affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. Only research for which it has not been possible to ensure complete anonymity or for which it has proved impossible or completely impracticable to obtain patients' informed consent trill be considered for approval … AMRC believes that fully informed consent by patients is essential for research that directly involves them. Even where research is done some time later on data or specimens obtained from named patients, consent should be sought. But sometimes this is not possible, for example, in retrospective studies, where patients have died or are no longer traceable … It is in circumstances such as these, where it is impossible or impracticable to obtain consent, that permission could be sought under this Clause".
Those people do not write lightly and they are of importance. I understand the reasoning that motivates those who oppose the clause or contend parts of it, but my experience of HSE research makes it clear that such opposition is somewhat misguided and could cause profound harm to research.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Rea: Although my amendment, Amendment No. 302A, relates to Clause 67(3), I begin by discussing subsections (1) and (2). I support the spirit of the Government's general intention in this regard. The pharmaceutical industry says that use of "anonymised" prescribing data can, among other things, result in cheaper prescribing. As a former general practitioner, I can think of no case in which a pharmaceutical company, other than a generic company, came to me with a preparation that was cheaper. The argument could be that the more expensive and more effective drugs that companies were selling me saved money overall by reducing hospital admissions, referrals, investigations and so on. However, it is not for the pharmaceutical industry to tell us about that; that is for independent, university or research charities to consider. Work by the pharmaceutical industry is, I am afraid, almost certain to represent its side of the case.
Amendment No. 302A includes the words, "valued consent". That is an extremely important concept which should be added to the Bill. It would allow such highly important consent to be overridden only when it was "not reasonably practicable" to obtain it. My noble friend Lord Turnberg and other Members of the Committee described cases in which it was not possible to find patients because they had gone abroad or died. Patients might refuse to co-operate in a case in which it was absolutely essential for the research to go on because the disease being studied was so important.
I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment. The Secretary of State can currently override such considerations as he considers necessary or expedient. That gives him far too much leeway. I want that decision to be removed from the Secretary of State even further than the amendment proposes. It should be removed to a statutory independent body or Commission whose nature should be specified in the
1692
Bill. I refer to an independent Commission such as that in Denmark, which meets that very purpose. That provision could be specified in subsection (9). I should like the body to be more tightly defined than it is in subsection (9) which refers to,
"such bodies appearing to him"—
the Secretary of State—
"to represent the interests of those likely to be affected"—
patients, I presume. That gives the Secretary of State too much leeway. The membership of such a body should be written into the Bill, and it should consist of a lay or non-scientific majority, so that patients can have confidence and trust in it, as in the Danish model. It impressed the Science and Technology Sub-Committee, which has been examining the handling of human genetic databases. I hope that my noble friend will consider my amendment sympathetically.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I shall say only a few words. It seems from the amount of information that has been circulated that there is great concern about Clause 67. It remains unacceptable and there is a strong feeling that lack of clarity underlines the importance of ensuring that adequate safeguards over the sweeping powers awarded to the Secretary of State should be on the face of the Bill. There should be nothing to discourage research into complicated diseases or the development of useful drugs, which patients need, as long as it is anonymised information.
I mention a few conditions, such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, CJD, epilepsy and MRSA. The list could go for a long time. We need effective drugs.
With disasters such as happened at Alder Hey, we need to be sensitive towards patients and their relatives. Whenever possible, patients or their next of kin should be asked permission. Confidentiality is of utmost importance when clinical research is being undertaken. What is wrong with making anonymised information available for research if it will help patients in the long run? The development of drugs takes a long time and is expensive.
If we do not ensure that the clause is acceptable to all who are interested in it, we shall be criticised. The country looks to us to improve legislation and the clause needs to be improved.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Perhaps I may comment briefly on the issue of confidentiality. It is important. I am sorry that we are having to debate such important issues at this time of night. In discussing confidentiality, I want to comment specifically on the doctor-patient relationship in the case of young people. The Minister knows of my concerns in this matter, and I am grateful to him for responding sympathetically. I want to register my concerns about young people and confidentiality.
If there is any doubt in young people's minds that confidentiality will be breached, they will not seek help and advice. Messages about confidentiality—or lack of it—may be interpreted as being threatening to individual rights. That is particularly true in the area

1693
of reproductive health, for example. We have good evidence that if young people are worried about confidentiality. they will not trust professionals and will be afraid to seek advice and help. Teenage pregnancy rates, for example, may rise. I seek reassurance from the Minister that those concerns will be addressed in this clause.
Lord Winston: I too am extremely nervous about the issues which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord. Lord Walton, have already raised.
We must recognise that this Government have shown huge concern for research governance and for improving the quality of patient involvement in research. But I remain very worried that research may be threatened by this clause as it currently stands. I accept that there are precedents for information being given to the Secretary of State. I am reminded of the Abortion Act, for example, where information has been sent for the past 30 years to the Secretary of State, as far as I know without harm to patients. Indeed, that has happened with regard to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of strong feeling in the medical community at large and concern about this matter which I hope will be addressed by the Minister this evening.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely interesting debate. It is clear from the different views expressed from all sides of the Committee that the issues which we are debating are not at all easy of resolution. I believe that the balanced approach which the Government have taken and which is embraced within this clause provides us with the best possible way of meeting some of the real concerns which exist.
I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it is essential for this clause to be accepted and enacted into law.
Clause 67 has two parts. The first provides the Secretary of State with a power to restrict in limited circumstances how patient information may be used. The second part provides him with a power to require patient information to be used, again, in limited and, where the information is confidential to patients, tightly controlled circumstances.
The first group of amendments relates to both parts of Clause 67. It may be helpful to set out some of the background to the clause. I shall then turn to the government amendments in this group. I shall write to Members of the Committee on the specific points raised in their amendments, as, at this time of the night, it is important to focus on the key principles which we are debating.
Both parts of Clause 67 have their opponents. There has been much debate and concern expressed. That is entirely understandable. We are dealing with fundamental concerns and issues about commercial interest, privacy and patient confidentiality. But I believe that some of the concerns have been misplaced.
Perhaps I may first cover the second part of the clause because that is clearly very much of the public interest. Subsection (3) provides for the Secretary of
1694
State to make regulation to require the flow of information in prescribed circumstances. That will allow us to achieve two aims: first, that patients will receive more information about their own clinical care, delivering the commitment in the NHS Plan; and secondly, to safeguard the continued operation of essential services that currently rely on patient identifiable information.
That point is crucially important. Those services are already in existence, carrying out work that benefits us all. The clause does not signal any change at all in the Government's view on the importance of patient consent. That is key to today's debate and I should like to put the Government's position on the record at this stage.
Informed consent is crucial to the Government's view of how a modern NHS should work. We simply cannot move to a patient-centred service if patients are not informed and consenting participants in the services that they receive. We know only too well that that is not the way in which the NHS operates at the moment. Much of what the NHS does in the NHS relies on implied consent. In some cases, that is appropriate; for example, sharing information within a hospital to ensure that a patient receives appropriate care. But in other cases, the definition of implied consent is pushed much too far. We are determined to address that. It is not small task and the culture of the NHS will have to change radically as we move away from what I can only describe as comfortable habits into practice based on real consent.
The professions have recognised the need to change the way we approach consent. The GMC guidance issued last year made clear its view that informed consent is the only secure legal and ethical basis for disclosing patient confidential information. It, too. recognises the scale of the culture and systems change necessary to deliver it, and has signalled that it will not seek to enforce its guidance until October this year. The Information Commissioner has also drawn attention to the need to improve the way that the NHS seeks consent for the use of patient information. We have made a commitment to her that we shall do just that.
This is a huge task. We will need to identify where information is used, where it is appropriate to rely on implied consent and where we need to do more to feel confident that we have a patient's informed consent. In many circumstances, traditional practice will have to change, either to gain consent or to use anonymised information rather than using confidential information about patients because it has always been done that way.
That will take time, and there will be disruption to NHS services, but the principle is right and we must take action to address it. However, there are certain circumstances where we simply cannot afford a disruption to the flow of information. The cost to individual patients and the public would simply be too high. It is those areas that the Bill seeks to address by allowing patient information to be passed on lawfully without consent in prescribed circumstances.

1695
That is not a step we have taken lightly but one which we believe is essential. The key issue is how far we should go in deciding which information flows should fall within the ambit of these powers. The government proposal is to set out a clear, transparent process where decisions can be reached on the merits of each case, following consultation with those likely to be affected by the regulations laid under these powers. Rigorous safeguards on the use of these powers are built into the process and the Bill. The Information Commissioner has accepted that these safeguards will protect the interests of patients. While we do not feel that it is appropriate to put further safeguards on the face of the Bill, we have assembled a working group with patient and professional representation, including the GMC, the BMA, the Academy of Colleges and the Medical Research Council, to advise on the process by which the power in the second part of this clause should be used.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and my noble friend Lady Gibson that I cannot believe that the instances they raise will be affected by the circumstances in the clause. The safeguards built into the clause are tightly drawn. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Massey that it is difficult to envisage circumstances where, for instance, the confidentiality owed to teenagers could justifiably be set aside. In any case, there are the tests contained in the Bill and the need for an affirmative resolution after full debate in both Houses. My noble friends Lord Turnberg and Lady Gibson detailed the impact on essential programmes if this clause were not to be adopted.
I turn to the first part of the clause. The need for this part of the clause became apparent as the result of a judicial review brought against the department by Source Informatics. In 1997 both Source and IMS, which at the time were competitors, began collecting information from GPs and pharmacies about doctors' prescribing in order to build up databases. The intention was, as Source Informatics said in its evidence, that the database would primarily be used by pharmaceutical companies to allow them to target more precisely promotions and communications regarding their products.
The department was concerned on two counts: first, that targeted marketing would increase the pressure on GPs to prescribe higher cost medicines unnecessarily; and, secondly, that passing on information about the medicines prescribed to a patient, even though the patient was not identified, would be a breach of confidence. We sent a document to GPs and pharmacies warning of the legal risks and strongly discouraging disclosure on policy grounds.
Although the department's case was initially upheld, the Court of Appeal decided that there was no breach of confidence or indeed breach of the Data Protection Act involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, commented, the court said that if the department continued to view such schemes as operating against the public interest, it must take further powers. The department did indeed remain
1696
concerned. We had discussions with ABPI and with IMS during which it was clear that, if necessary, we would legislate to prevent the sort of activity which caused us concern. We have been unable to enter into any kind of agreement with IMS and we decided that we should take powers in primary legislation.
We took the view that it was important that nothing should be done without proper consultation. We thought that it was particularly important that, while enabling the Government to deal with activities which were not in the interest of the NHS, we should not inadvertently restrict activities which were innocuous or indeed beneficial. We included in the Bill a broad enabling power to restrict the processisng of information about patients or derived from information about patients, but subject to the important safeguard that before any regulations were made the Secretary of State would have to consult bodies representing the interests of those affected.
I know that the breadth of powers of this clause has caused concern. At Committee stage in another place we responded to the concerns of those who thought that it might be used, for example, to prevent independent scrutiny of the NHS by restricting the power to the use of patient information for commercial purposes.
We have taken note of the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We have taken steps to address these concerns, guided by helpful suggestions from the Select Committee, by putting forward a number of government amendments to the clause. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that the second report of the committee on these matters makes it clear that it now welcomes the Government's response to the report and is content with their proposed approach, which fully meets the committee's recommendations.
The ABPI certainly remains unhappy. We believe that the power is a necessary one. We simply do not think it right that information which has been obtained in the course of the provision of NHS services should be used against the economic or financial interests of the NHS. Government Amendments Nos. 292, 293, 295 and 312 take into account the helpful suggestions from the Select Committee and address these concerns.
In conclusion, I believe that the approach taken in Clause 67 is a proper and sensitive one. It is essential in relation to the circumstances described by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, to secure patient interest in relation to the use of confidential information. I believe that it is absolutely essential that this clause is accepted.
Earl Howe: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate, not least those such as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who have supported me, but also others such as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, who have disagreed with me and done so in a very gracious and measured way.

1697
It may not surprise the Committee to hear that I have not changed my mind that this clause, even as amended as the Government propose, is potentially very damaging.
I still believe that the provisions on anonymised data are misconceived. The point is that without anonymised data it is impossible for pharmaceutical companies to find out who is using what drugs. The better the information, the stronger the downward pressure on prices because of the pressures of the competition. That is the way in which the market works. The industry can help the NHS manage patients better. In the process all kinds of essential information emerges, such as adverse reactions and so on. Therefore, the onus is on the Government to produce evidence to justify subsections (1) and (2). So far, they have not done so.
On the issue of identifiable patient data, the starting point should be that it is wrong for any Secretary of State to take powers to allow access to named patient records by third parties without the patient's knowledge or consent. I welcome very much what the Minister had to say about the primacy of that informed consent. The whole thrust of the clause is in the opposite direction. I look particularly at subsection (4) which would oblige doctors to disclose information even when they and the patient do not wish to.
Any exceptions to that general principle should be allowed only for reasons of overriding public interest. Each exception should be considered individually on a case by case basis with full parliamentary deliberation.
I took particular note of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the disclosure of confidential data. The consequences when that goes wrong can be devastating, but also, as she alluded to, the erosion of trust that it causes eats away at the general fabric of the relationship between doctor and patient and the way that the public view the medical profession. It will eventually be very damaging to research.
The crucial issue which remains obscure is the force of subsection (8). That is the subsection which says that nothing in the clause can be inconsistent with Clause 29 of the Data Protection Act. I still do not understand to what extent and under what circumstance:3 the requirement for informed consent can be overridden by those powers. My advice is that the informed consent requirement is overridden by the word "expedient". The Minister should turn his attention to that matter between now and Report stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke of retrospective studies; studies that looked back to data perhaps involving deceased patients and so on. It would be perfectly possible to phrase a power to cater specifically for cases which look back into the past. However, the point is that the power as expressed in the Bill is objectionable because it can override informed consent going forward. The principle which should guide us here is that consent should be obtained in order to be ethical.
1698
I noted that the Minister felt that this is a transitional power and a temporary arrangement. If that is what he believes it should be, perhaps he would agree to a fully fledged sunset clause instead of the permanent ongoing duty for review as in subsection 6(a).
I worry about the potential for conflict with international commitments. A Council of Europe Recommendation No. R975 on the protection of medical data, to which the UK is a signatory, appears to be at odds with this clause, as does the declaration of Helsinki on ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. I have read sections which appear to be unequivocal.
I very much regret that the Minister does not see fit to put any extra safeguards on to the face of the Bill. I was hoping that he would agree to that, because I think that it would meet the objections of many people—hut not those of everyone—as regards the disclosure of identifiable patient data. The assurance that has been given in another place and here in Committee on the creation of an advisory committee is welcome as far as it goes, but I feel that this is something that should go on to the face of the Bill if we are to sleep easier in our beds.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate to call a Division at this hour and I shall not do so. If we do reach Report stage of the Bill, then the amendment or the excision of this clause, will be a prime focus for many noble Lords. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.15 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 290 and 291 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 292:
Page 67, line 12, after "prescribed" insert "NHS"
[Amendments Nos. 293, 293A and 294 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 67, line 13, leave out "prescribed commercial purposes" and insert "the purposes of, or in connection with, marketing or other promotional activities which he considers to be contrary to the economic or financial interests of the health service."
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 296:
Page 67, line 14, leave out "subsection (8)" and insert "subsections (8) and (9)"
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 303, 306 and 314. These four amendments arise from concerns expressed to me by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. In brief, they all seek to achieve one thing; namely, to ensure much greater consultation with the relevant professional bodies before the various statutory instruments that will emanate from Clause

1699
67 are tabled. Such precautions are entirely appropriate, given the wide-ranging powers proposed in the clause and the comment that it has generated. It may well be that, in view of the furore over this clause, the Government will agree to the principle of these amendments.
The first two amendments clarify that the existing subsection (9), which ensures consultation before tabling secondary legislation, is applicable to both sets of secondary legislation that will be introduced. The third amendment then seeks to strengthen subsection (9) by incorporating a form of words used in the Health Act 1999 to ensure greater scrutiny by providing a three-month period of time for consultation. Such a period would provide the right balance between proper consultation and the effective implementation of legislation.
The fourth amendment addresses issues of access to and use of anonymised patient data, clarifying the areas where the use of anonymised data can and, indeed, should continue. It also provides a requirement for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that patient data can continue to be used for research, that consultation has taken place, and that such consultation has been reported on. A great deal of information of potential use in public health strategies is captured on community pharmacy patient medication records. The development of medication management as part of NHS modernisation plans will require new approaches to sharing appropriate patient records so that the best possible outcomes can be arrived at within the therapeutic partnership.
It is important for the Government to ensure that the correct balance is struck between protection of patients, concern for record-keeping and data management and the ability of NHS contractors, such as small pharmacists, to control their own business processes. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Consultation is clearly important. The requirement set out in Clause 67(9) is for the Secretary of State to consult,
"such bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of those likely to be affected by the regulations as he considers appropriate".
The subsection applies to all regulations made under this clause.
Amendment No. 296 is identical to Amendment No. 297, but subsection (9) begins with the words,
"Before making any regulations under this section".
I take that to mean that the requirement to consult set out in subsection (9) already applies to regulations made under any subsection of the clause.
Amendment No. 306 requires the Secretary of State to publish draft regulations in advance of consultation, to consult representatives of the professions concerned by the regulations and to lay the regulations before Parliament, amended as necessary three months later.
1700
The intention of the amendment appears to be to establish a three-month deadline for consultation while ensuring that the professions most directly affected are consulted. It would have the effect of removing the wider requirement to consult that is set out in the clause by a narrow requirement that looks only to the professions. As drafted, it also requires regulations to be laid before Parliament, perhaps modified to take account of views expressed regardless of the outcome of consultation. It also attempts to impose a deadline of three months on a process that should be considered and thorough, particularly where confidential patient information is concerned, where there may be a need to question and probe any proposed regulations.
We wish to ensure that all those who may be affected by regulations have an opportunity to voice any concerns, not just important but narrowly defined groups. We are particularly concerned, for example, to hear the concerns of industry organisations in relation to any proposed regulations under subsection (1) and patient organisations in relation to regulations under subsection (3). Although the aim of the amendment may have been to bring a degree of certainty to the consultative process, it does so in a way that could conflict with the consultative and thorough approach we have developed around this clause.
The intention of Amendment No. 314 appears to be to ensure that the use of anonymised information for medical research is not prevented by any regulations made under this clause. Let me say from the outset that that is an objective that I share. But I do not believe that the amendment is the right way to achieve it.
There are two regulation-making powers in the clause: subsection (1) and subsection (3). The government amendment to subsection (1) has been accepted and it will be possible to use the power only in relation to NHS patient information for marketing and other promotional activity which the Secretary of State considers to be contrary to the economic interests of the NHS. In consequence, the power to make regulations under that subsection will be limited in such a way that regulations could not be made that would prevent the use of anonymised information for medical research.
I have no quarrel with the sentiments underlying the amendment, but I do think it unnecessary.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Pharmacists have two sets of concerns. One is: will the clause prejudice the ability of community pharmacists to run their businesses effectively? If that ability is prejudiced, clearly they feel that there will be a resulting diminution in patient care. The second concern is: will the clause force pharmacists into disclosing patients' specific data against their ethical obligations and without the informed consent of the patients? The Minister has made some reassuring comments on the former issue. I hope that the consultation with the professions will iron out any concerns that remain.

1701
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is currently preparing a draft framework for the mutual disclosure of information between the society and health authorities, PCGs and PCTs. I believe that that work will inform the discussion that the department will no doubt wish to have with them. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 297 to 298A not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 67, line 16, after "prescribed" insert "NHS".
[Amendment No. 299A not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 67, line 26, at end insert "NHS"
[Amendments Nos. 300A to 303 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 67, line 37, at end insert "and the Secretary of State shall not exercise the power to make regulations under this section in a manner which hinders or restricts the ability of a relevant practitioner to use health information for the purpose of providing safe and effective services to patients.
(4) In this section 'relevant practitioner' means—

(a) a pharmacist within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968; or

(b) an appropriate practitioner within the meaning of Section 58 of that Act."

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 304. Patient medication records are vital to pharmacists in helping patients to use their medicines effectively and restrictions on their use could therefore thwart the Government's medicine management objectives. Restrictions could also impede pharmacists from supporting general practitioners through the provision of advice on the quality and cost-effectiveness of their prescribing. Likewise, regulations regarding the use of patient information could potentially make it harder for the Government to achieve their objectives on the electronic transfer of prescriptions from GP surgeries to pharmacies and the prescription pricing authority.
The Government's pharmacy strategy, Pharmacy in the Future, pledged that by 2004 GPs would be able to send prescriptions electronically to the pharmacist. To quote a Department of Health press release of last December:
"significant benefits for patients are expected, including fewer trips to the GP surgery to collect repeat prescriptions and an end to illegible and incomplete prescriptions".
Without access to anonymised patient information, software developers are likely to find it more difficult to develop this important new technology. I can see that, because the Government are seeking such wide-ranging powers to restrict the use of patient
1702
information, there could potentially be damaging and unforeseen consequences for those involved in the delivery of front-line patient care, and the amendment would help to ensure that the powers exercised by Ministers were more limited and that pharmacy, which is perhaps the best known public-private partnership involved in the delivery of healthcare, was able to continue to work in the interests of patients. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Let me make it clear that the Government have no intention of stopping health professionals, including community pharmacists, from providing safe and effective services. However, there are several points to put on the record here.
First, the amendments which the Government have tabled to restrict the scope of subsection (1), and which have been agreed, should reassure pharmacists that regulations could not be made under that subsection which would affect the provision of unaffected services to patients.
The second point is that regulations under subsection (3) can be made only in the interests of improving patient care or in the public interest. cannot see that it would be in the public interest to undermine the provision of safe and effective services to patients. However, superimposed on that is the issue of the use of identifiable patient information by pharmacists and other health professionals. Pharmacists and other health professionals should surely start from the position that as long as information provided in confidence is held in a form that identifies individual patients, it is confidential and would normally only be disclosed to a third party with the informed consent of the patient concerned.
The only exception to this position is where there is a requirement in law to disclose information or where, in very rare circumstances, the public good from the disclosure outweighs the patient's right to confidentiality. This requirement for consent arises out of common law obligations of confidentiality, but beyond those obligations, which lawyers no doubt would be happy to debate for many days, the Government believe that informed consent is the only basis for sustaining a relationship of trust between patients and health professionals.
As I have said already, we fully recognise that current practice may not live up to that standard. We need to change current practice. Clause 67 provides a lifeline for activity that cannot, for good and demonstrable reasons, make the required changes swiftly. All the bodies that represent pharmacists— and I am aware of the issues they raise—will be welcome to apply for the support provided by Clause 67 if they feel that is justifiable.
Earl Howe: I am sure that pharmacists will find that reply very helpful and I thank the Minister for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 304A to 305ZB not moved.]
1.30 a.m.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 305A:
Page 68, line 36, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
"(8) Without prejudice to the operation of provisions made under subsection (4)(c), regulations made under this section may not make provision for, or in connection with, the processing of prescribed patient information—

(a) in a mariner inconsistent with any provision made by, or under, the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29); or

(b) in a manner which may inhibit research for medical purposes and the publication and dissemination of the results of such research."

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 305B, 307 and 321A. I am grateful for the assistance I have received from the King's Fund which is the leading independent think tank on health policy in Britain.
As soon as this Bill was published it was immediately apparent that this clause in particular gave the Secretary of State powers that were too wide. The delegated powers committee recognised that and requested that Clauses 67(1) and 67(2) be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Given the wide concerns from all sides, I sought the help of the King's Fund in seeking a way through. The amendment proposed here is supported by many to whom I have spoken in the medical research community as well as the GMC. I trust that the Minister will give very serious thought to the proposals. I know the Minister has promised to set up an advisory committee but he or any successor could just as easily disband it.
The amendment to subsection (8) is designed to allay fears that the wide powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations could be used to inhibit research that was critical of the Government. Subsections (9) to (17) set up an advisory committee as a watchdog for the Secretary of State when making regulations. It extends to the first two sections of this clause in relation to anonymised data and, therefore, could ensure that there is no encroachment here into medical or academic research.
The wording of the provisions related to the committee is based on a streamlined version of the well established Social Security Advisory Committee set up by the Social Security Administration Act of 1992. Having been established by statute, its position is secure. Flexible provision can be made regarding its membership. Its central role is to report on regulations thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State has put in front of him or her authoritative views from people representing the most interested groups. In addition, the process ensures that if the Secretary of State decides against the committee's recommendations that must become public and the Secretary of State must give reasons for his or her actions.
This amendment sets up a statutory advisory committee and takes out of the hands of some unknown future Secretary of State powers that cause
1704
concern on all sides of this debate. Given the weight of support for this amendment across the spectrum, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The amendments now to be considered have been grouped together because they have an effect on the whole of Clause 67, not just the first or second parts. Amendment No. 305A seeks to ensure that regulations laid under Clause 67 cannot be made where to do so would inhibit research for medical purposes, and the publication and dissemination of such research. I believe that to be an unnecessary constraint, much as I admire the King's Fund.
The amendments that we have put forward to limit the use of the power provided by subsection (1) leave no scope now for that power to be used to inhibit research or the dissemination of results. Further, the power provided by subsection (3) can only be used for medical purposes that are in the interests of improving patient care, or in the public interest. The actual criteria that will be used to govern the use of that power are likely to be tighter still. We have assembled a working group drawn from patient and professional interests to advise on the matter. But the basic safeguards built into the clause are already substantial and have been approved by the information Commissioner. I should also like to draw the Committee's attention to the requirement for all regulations made under the clause to be laid before both this Chamber and the other place, and approved by resolution.
Amendment No. 305B would require the creation of a new statutory body to provide advice, which it is suggested should be published whenever regulations under Clause 67 are being considered. Amendment No. 321A is consequential to that requirement. The establishment of an expert group is something to which the Government are already committed in respect of the power provided by subsection (3). I am sure that that is a very sensible step to take. However, we remain unconvinced of the need to put the advisory group on a statutory footing.
As we explained at some length during the Bill's progress in another place, the power provided by subsection (3) is intended largely to provide transitional support for important activity until, and not beyond, the time when there is a reasonably practical alternative way of sustaining the activity, whether it be through the gaining of valid consent or through anonymisation or pseudo-anonymisation. The creation of a new body would require further legislation to repeal it in a few years' time when the intention is to move away as quickly as we can from reliance on Clause 67 for all but a few residual activities. We do not consider that that would be a an appropriate way of obtaining the advice that we need.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might ask me about the sunset clause. The issue here is that there are clearly uncertainties in terms of the duration of the transitional stage. Many of the issues that depend upon our ability to move from it relate to technology and some of the other difficult areas that must be

1705
confronted. I believe that that makes a sunset clause difficult. However, that does not detract from the general argument that this is to be seen as a transitional phase. For that reason. I do not wish to accept the amendments.
Baroness Northover: I hear what the Minister says. Although I still have some concerns, I am pleased that the noble Lord has accepted the idea that an advisory committee should be established. However, as I said, that could just as easily be disbanded. As these issues are clearly very complex, it seems to me to be extremely important that the Government should build in a process to en sure that they draw upon a wide group of people, and that they should seek a resolution by doing so. Therefore, it is equally important to ensure that such a provision is on the face of the Bill.
If, as the Minister said, this is a transitional process and Clause 67 will be repealed in due course, this provision could be repealed at the same time. Other provisions could then be put in its place. If the Minister is to achieve any consensus on this clause, he should seriously consider my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 305B to 311 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 68, line 50, at end insert—
"(10A) For the purposes of this section, patient information is "NHS patient information" if that information (or any of the information from which it is derived) was obtained or generated in the course of the provision of the health service."
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 69, line 8, leave out "from the individual in question" and insert "or generated"
[Amendment No. 314 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 69, line 11, at end insert—
""the health service" has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act;"
[Amendment No. 315A not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 69, line 14, leave out from beginning to "that"
[Amendments Nos. 316A and 316B not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 316C:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
"REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT ON SERVICES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
(1) Section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (c.33) shall be amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1ZA) In this section, subsection (1ZB) extends to England and Wales only and subsection (1) extends to Scotland only.
(1ZB) The Secretary of State shall annually lay before Parliament—

(a) a report containing such information as he considers appropriate with respect to the development of health and social services for persons with mental illness; and

(b) a report containing such information as he considers appropriate with respect to the development of health and social services for persons with learning disability,

and each of those reports may contain such other information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."
(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted—
"(2) In this section—
"health service hospital" has the same meaning as in the 1978 Act, except that it does not include a State hospital;
"learning disability" means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.""
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 316C, I wish to speak also to the consequential Amendment No. 319D.
I find my original amendment transformed by legal hands:
"There is a lawyer doth shape our ends, rough hew them how we may".
The transformation reflects, as I understand if, sympathy for my objective on the part of the Minister, but rather less sympathy for my drafting.
In the 15 years since the disabled persons Act was enacted, with its requirement for an annual report on what was then called mental handicap and mental illness services, both circumstances and language have changed a great deal. We have also, I hope, become rather better at distinguishing learning disability issues from mental health issues and rather less inclined simply to lump the two things together.
With mental health services already subject to a national service framework, and supported by specific grants, and with learning disability services now the subject of that admirable White Paper referred to this afternoon in the fourth Starred Question, incorporating an implementation programme, this seems a good time to update the present annual reporting requirement. The update I propose includes separating out learning disability and mental health and eliminating the present concentration on the use of hospital beds.
I have chosen to leave the Secretary of State a great deal of discretion as regards what he includes in his report, but I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me, in line with the precedents set by the White Paper, that matters within the ambit of government departments will be included as far as possible. I hope that he will also be able to reassure me, again in line with the White Paper, that the annual report to Parliament will include the perspectives of those at the receiving end. The process of producing the White

1707
Paper has fully involved users and carers. I know that Mencap will be happy to contribute to that perspective each year.
I am sure that only preoccupation with other things, and the rather hidden history of Section 11, have prevented the Government proposing this amendment at an earlier stage. I should say that, while the inspiration of the new clause comes from Mencap, it has been shared with MIND as regards the mental health section, and the proposal for change has its full support.
I also ask the Committee to note the consequential Amendment No. 319D which reflects the role of the Welsh Assembly. I look forward with more than usual optimism to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I found the noble Lord's drafting quite remarkable and his arguments quite persuasive. I support the amendment.
Clause 68, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 317:
Page 71. line 29, leave out "67(3)" and insert "67"
The noble Lord said: I did my best to accept an amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his other colleagues. We agree with the principle of this. We feel that the government amendment has the merit of shortening the Bill rather than lengthening it. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: This is a very gratifying way to end an evening.
[Amendment No. 318 not moved.]
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 319 not moved.]
Clauses 70 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 319A to 319C not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 319D:
Page 74, line 7, after "67" insert ", (Reports to Parliament on services for disabled people) except so far as extending to Wales"
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 320 and 321:
Page 74. line 25, leave out first "and" and insert "to"
Page 74, line 29, at end insert—
"(8A) Subsection (8) does not apply in relation to any amendment or repeal relating to section 115 of the Police Act 1997, and any such amendment or repeal extends to England and Wales only."
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 321A not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 321B:
Page 86, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
"(3) In section 17 (Secretary of State's directions: exercise of functions), for subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) Nothing in any provision made by or under this or any other Act shall be read as affecting the generality of subsection (1) above.""
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 322 to 325:
Page 87, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) In section 29A (medical lists), in subsection (3), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) he is not disqualified from inclusion in all Health Authorities' medical lists by virtue of a national disqualification imposed on him by the FHSAA."
( ) In section 33 (distribution of general medical services), in subsection (1B), the words from "including, in particular," to the end of the subsection are omitted."
Page 87, line 46. at end insert—
"(bb) after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4) above applies to directions given under—

(a) paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to this Act,

(b) paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5A to this Act, or

(c) paragraph 16(5) of Schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990,

as well as to directions given in accordance with section 18 above as mentioned in that subsection.""
Page 89, line II, at end insert—
"National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c. 48)
In section 4A of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (provision of certain services under NHS contracts), in subsection (3), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ophthalmic services", for "39(a)" substitute "39(1)(a)"."
Page 90, line 23, leave out "In"
Page 90, line 24, after "Act)" insert "shall be amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 40 insert—
"40A A Patients' Forum established under section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001.
40B A Patients' Council established under section 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001."
(3)"
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 326:
Page 92, line 9, column 2, at end insert "In section 33(1B), the words from "including, in particular," to the end of the subsection."
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 326A and 327:
Page 92, line 34, column 2, at beginning insert—
"Section 12(2)."
Page 92, line 36, column 2, leave out "18" and insert "17"
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 22nd March 2001.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Replacement of residence test]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 58, line 3 leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 227. Included in the group are other amendments which propose similar arrangements. We now move on to the question of the renewal of leases. From our debate so far, I understand that the Government are not entirely committed to abolishing leasehold. Therefore, we have to look at the problems of those who remain leaseholders under the present system.
I recognise that the Government have a problem. Having removed the residence test for qualifying tenants who wish to enfranchise, they then have to address, as they have done in Clause 126, the problem of tenants who wish to renew their leases. I do not think that the Government have it quite right in this instance. As drafted, the Bill is unduly restrictive. Having removed the residence test for enfranchisement, it seems to be slightly unfair on those who wish to have a new lease to provide that they should be qualifying tenants for at least the previous two years. My amendment, coupled with Amendment No. 227, would reduce that period to six months. There are some fairly serious arguments in favour of that, which I am sure other Members of the Committee will deploy. It is a question of fairness. I recognise that there is a problem, but I believe that the Government have gone a little too far. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Our Amendment No. 226 is grouped with Amendment No. 225. Amendment No. 226 would retain a residence qualification, though a considerably reduced one in time. For the reasons given earlier, we no longer wish to press for the preservation of a residence requirement. In those circumstances, I shall not be moving the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does not intend to move his amendment because had he done so we would have supported it.
We also have Amendment No. 226A—Amendment No. 227A is consequential—which seeks to replace the existing residence test with an occupancy requirement. If there is no occupancy requirement, we believe that
CWH 242
investors will quickly realise that they can benefit from a windfall gain through being able to sell the extended lease at a premium. This would encourage speculative purchasing and would eventually distort the market by pushing up the value of short leases. This, in turn, would make it more difficult to identify a fair price for enfranchisement.
The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to which I have added my name. I hope that it will receive a favourable comment from the Government because on Clause 116 stand part the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he did not want speculators to benefit from enfranchisement. If one does away completely with the residency test, it is exactly those speculators who will benefit the most from enfranchisement.
There is no question that there are people out there in the market—particularly in the London market—who buy properties with a view to enfranchising them. If there is no residency test, one will encourage the development of a small and, to my mind, unacceptable group of people who will do that as a professional way of making money. That would be an abuse of the normal housing market and would be bad for the landlord/tenant system.
I thought of tabling an amendment to provide that any non-resident should pay 100 per cent of the marriage value. Having listened to the debate last week, I knew that that would commend itself, notably to the Liberal Democrat Party, which would like marriage value to continue. However, perhaps the better way of achieving what is required is the way that the noble Lord, Lords Williams, has suggested: that there should be at least a six-month residency test. I would prefer a 12-month test. However, I understand the difficulties that some tenants have faced under the present condition of three years. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has reached a sensible compromise.
Lord Selsdon: I have a problem with the difference between what is a qualifying tenant, a qualifying person or a qualifying being and what is residency and non-residency. As the Bill stands, it is not so much occupation but ownership that determines matters.
In my banking life, I have come across many situations where a family decides that it will buy a flat for its children for them to occupy for a period of time. Some of these flats may not qualify for enfranchisement. The difficulty we have is in separating those whom we believe morally should have a right to enfranchise from those who would do so from a purely speculative point of view.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The definition of a qualifying tenant is set out in Section 6 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which states:
"That condition is that the tenant has occupied the flat as his only or principal home".
Lord Selsdon: I understand that. I am referring to the difficulties that have been created by previous legislation where it has not necessarily been clear. When one is faced with serving a Section 13 notice and having to prove people's residency status—whether they are domiciled or ordinary residents of the United Kingdom; whether they are expatriates who have been abroad for a particular time; whether for three years out of the past 10 they have been occupying the property—one finds that there are people who put telephone bills and so on in their own names even when they are not there. People get up to these kinds of tricks because of the complexity of the previous legislation and the failure of previous governments to address the issue.
I am trying to say that, if possible, we should treat ownership as the key factor: how long someone has owned a property; whether it is for the benefit of their family or for their own personal benefit I have often been involved with members of the international expatriate community who feel very strongly about the previous legislation. They have bought property for themselves and their future, let it and then found that for some reason they are unable to enfranchise. I should like to see the definition reworded. If we start to argue about whether it should be three months, six months or nine months, speculators may find an opportunity to put someone into the premises and have a side agreement. It is not clear. If our objectives are to treat well those who deserve to be and to try to stop speculation, the Bill as drafted does not achieve them.
Lord Richard: My name is attached to the amendment. I thought that I was putting my name to a proposal to abolish the two-year residence qualification. Having heard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I was not sure whether that was the effect of the amendment. On the assumption that it is, I shall listen with great interest to what the Government have to say; if it is not, I shall return to it at a later stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): Some of the principles that we have just debated were dealt with in the previous context. We appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others that to abolish the residence test could provide an incentive and a temptation for speculative purchasers rather than genuine home-owners. To reiterate, it is certainly not the Government's intention to enable investors to expropriate the assets of others by entering this market. In addition, the existing test excludes leaseholders from the right to renew their leases, and in many cases they are in genuine need of the protection that is afforded by that right.
As has been said, currently many flats are occupied for a variety of different reasons. They may be second homes, against which we are not legislating. To bring
CWH 244
home the point more acutely to some Members of the Committee, they may be the London homes of people whose main residence is elsewhere for various purposes: others are sublet while the leaseholders work abroad, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, or because the owners have had difficulty selling them. The occupiers or owners of those flats are not speculators, or, strictly speaking, investors, but private owners. If the lease becomes too short they will be unable to sell it without first extending it. Without a right to renew the lease at a reasonable price they are left vulnerable to greedy landlords. Moreover, some landlords have made a practice of refusing to let to genuine residents unless they create a company to which the lease is then given. Although these people lease through a company they are genuine residents. That structure would automatically prevent them from ever qualifying under the existing residence test.
Instead of requiring leaseholders to reside in their flats, the Bill provides the alternative requirement that they must have held a long lease for at least two years before they can exercise that right. That is not perfect but it goes some way to remove the opportunity for short term speculative gain while protecting the interests of other residents, which seems to represent a sensible balance. It is, therefore, a matter of balance and a number of these amendments seek to strike a different one.
The amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, dealt with the abuse of company lettings. While a minimum residence of 12 months, as in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would be a greater deterrent to speculators than a shorter period, it would still create difficulties for the categories of private owner that I have mentioned.
The issue of evasion mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is dealt with to a large extent by the two-year provision, because eligibility depends on owning the lease for two years rather than on a dubious basis of proof of actual residence.
Amendment No. 225 would reduce the period to six months. That, again, is subject to the same criticisms as apply to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The noble Lord coupled that amendment with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Richard, which would have gone one stage further. Unusually, my noble friend Lord Richard was confused about the implications of his amendment. My noble friend Lord Williams indicated that the two amendments should be taken together. However, as we understand it, Amendment No. 227 not only scraps the residence test but also cuts out the requirement that the leaseholder should have been a qualifying tenant for two years, in which case there would be no anti-speculation test whatever.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I thank my noble friend for giving way. I did not request the grouping. The department produced the grouping. I did not object to it, but I did not request it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I was not talking about the grouping. I may have misunderstood my noble friend, but I thought he said that he wished to couple his amendment with Amendment No. 227.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Yes.
Lord Whitty: It is to Amendment No. 227 that I now address my remarks. The amendment cuts out both the existing residence requirement and the two-year qualification period. I understand the argument that cutting out the two-year waiting period could make it more attractive for people to buy flats with relatively short outstanding leases, but it also opens up the possibility of the kind of speculation that we are trying to avoid. We think that the two-year ownership requirement of the lease would be a reasonable protection and would avoid at least some of the downsides of the existing residence qualification. It is a complex area. We believe that the Government have come up with the best solution so far. Therefore, for the moment at least, I would wish to stick with the Bill as it stands.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replies, perhaps I may say that there is probably not an enormous attraction here for speculators anyway. Except perhaps in the cases of leases that are coming very close to their end, there is unlikely to be a great difference in price between leases that have already been extended and those that could be extended in the future, except to the extent that the one will take into account the fact that the money has already been paid, whereas in the other the price will have to reflect that money will have to be paid in order to extend. However, I should have thought that there would not be an enormous bonus here for speculators.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. This is a difficult area. I make no bones about that. My proposal was that the residence test should be abolished. Nevertheless, I recognise the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the Government might accept an interim arrangement. However, I understand the problems involved. I hope that by the time we reach the next stage of the Bill those problems will have been digested. I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not speak to his amendment, because I would have liked to have heard his arguments. Nevertheless, in order to get on with the business, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 226 to 227A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 126 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Question whether Clause 126 shall stand part of the Bill was grouped with Amendments Nos. 225 to 227A. I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to pursue the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I was not present when the Committee resumed because I had to attend the
CWH 246
meeting of those who sit on the Woolsack during the week. I am sorry that I was unable to speak. My point seems to be totally unrelated to that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in that I wanted to retain the residence test. That is why I oppose the clause standing part. I do believe that there is money in this for property speculators. I believe that the modified residence test would be good but not the residence test as provided at present. I would have modified it but kept it in some form. I would certainly not have allowed company ownership. That is why I sought to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: We have gone over much of the argument. Clearly, all sides recognise that the present residence qualification is not appropriate. We believe that we have reached a position that is the best yet on the table in relation to the two-year holding of the lease. In replying to the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Williams said that we might return to the issue were we to be granted a further stage of the Bill at some point. It may be that people's ingenuity will find something along the lines of what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, suggested. At the moment, however, I am not convinced that there is anything better than what the Government have proposed. I am therefore sticking to it. I hope that the clause will stand.
Lord Richard: Before my noble friend sits down, do I take it from that the Government are open to consideration of possible amendments to the structure of the Bill and that they will be prepared to discuss the matter to see whether we can arrive, as he puts it, at something that is better than that which we have?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure what my noble friend means by "structure of the Bill". But, in relation to these provisions, were a new idea to be put on the table we would certainly be prepared to discuss it both formally and at a later stage in the Bill. However, I do not believe that there is an appropriate one on the table today.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I accept that. I shall not continue my opposition to Clause 126.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clauses 127 to 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Valuation date]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 227B:
Page 58, line 36, leave out from ("lease),") to end of line 37 and insert ("in paragraph 1, for the definition of "the valuation date" substitute—
""the valuation date" means the date of service of the reversioner's counter-notice."").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 228A.. We support the proposal to fix the valuation date but we think that it would be more appropriate for it to be fixed at the date of the landlord's counter-notice as that is the point at which the second party engages in the process. We are also in favour of standardising as many elements of the processes under leasehold legislation as possible. The amendment parallels Amendment No. 222A.
Similarly, Amendment No. 228A is a parallel proposal, matching Amendment No. 223A, that interest shall be payable on the purchase price. The same arguments apply. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord indicated, we had this discussion in the collective enfranchisement context. Our proposal to fix the valuation date for a renewed lease on a flat as the date of the initial notice was intended to provide certainty but also consistency with a long-standing approach to leasehold houses under the 1967 Act. We see no real reason to depart from that principle by adopting the date of the counter-notice, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggests. We would normally expect the landlord to serve a counter-notice relatively quickly after receipt of the initial notice and we certainly want to encourage that. In circumstances where adopting the date of the counter-notice changed the situation dramatically, clearly the landlord had delayed in replying, presumably to gain an advantage at a time of rapidly increasing property value. That is not a reaction from the landlord that we would wish the Bill to encourage.
Amendment No. 228A deals with the interest position. I can appreciate that in a rising property market landlords could, at least notionally, be disadvantaged as a result of the price being determined at the earlier date, but it would not be fair to provide a right to a payment, which would effectively amount to an interest payment, between the date used to determine the price and the date of completion. Any disadvantage to the landlord would have arisen only in a rapidly rising property market. If the property market were static, declining or rising at less of a level than the interest rate, there would be no justification for such a payment because there would not have been a disadvantage to the landlord.
The solution is that the lease renewal process should be as rapid as possible. The intention of this and other provisions is to reduce the scope for procedural delay, reduce the scope for disputes and keep a degree of consistency with earlier legislation in this field. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not pursue this matter here or in other contexts.
Lord Kingsland: It may be trite to say, but despite the passage of a week, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 228 and 228A not moved.]
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Disregard of marriage value in case of very long leases]:
[Amendments Nos. 228B and 228C not moved.]
Clause 132 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
Clause 133 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 232:
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause—
("Long leases

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]

  LONG LEASES
  In section 1AA of the 1967 Act, omit—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words "falls within subsection (2) below and",

  (b) subsection (2),

  (c) subsection (4).").

  The noble Lord said: The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 originally applied to houses that were held on a long tenancy at a low rent. The long tenancy was defined as a term of years exceeding 21, and low rent was defined as two-thirds of rateable value, the Act having been passed at a time when rateable value still existed. However, under Section IAA of the 1967 Act, which was inserted by the Housing Act 1996, the lessee of a house that was not at a low rent also acquired the right to enfranchise the house if the term exceeded 35 years. I believe that the distinction between the 21-year period for houses at a low rent and the 35-year period for houses at a somewhat higher rent was anomalous and should be eliminated.
  I can see that it is inappropriate for rack-rent tenancies to be subject to enfranchisement, but we believe that very few, if any, residential tenancies are granted for periods of between 21 and 35 years except at a premium, and that they are therefore not rack-rent tenancies. The reduction of the term of years for tenancies which are not at a low rent to the same period as tenancies which are at a low rent would end an anomaly and simplify this extremely elaborate legislation. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: My Amendment No. 233C, which is in this group, seeks only to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has suggested should happen; that is, a reduction of the period from 35 years to 21 years.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendments Nos. 232 and 233C, and also Amendment No. 233AA standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seek effectively to end the low rent test as it applies to houses. We are sympathetic to this proposal. It is only considerations of space which have prevented us from including it in the Bill so far. We will consider carefully what has been said, although we cannot make any commitment at this stage.
  Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful for that reply. It is fair to say that any additional space taken up in this Bill would be at least matched by what is taken out of existing Acts. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 233:
  After Clause 133, insert the following new clause—
  ("Excluded tenancies

  EXCLUDED TENANCIES
  In section 1AA of the 1967 Act, omit—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words "and is not an excluded tenancy",

  (b) subsection (3),

  (c) subsection (5).").

  The noble Lord said: This is another problem with the same section of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended. Section 1AA excludes from enfranchisement houses that are held for a term which is greater than 35 years, if they are not at a low rent, if they are in certain rural areas designated by the Secretary of State, and if the freehold of the house is held together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes.
  We note that properties which are let at a low rent are not excluded under that provision, so this applies only to houses which are held for a ground rent which is more than the low rent level; that is, of course, something which is very small.
  The purpose of this exclusion is not clear. Is it to enable landlords to let off surplus farm cottages on terms which would enable them to get them back if they are leased? I understand that there are some villages where a large number of houses are covered by this exclusion. One village mentioned to me is the village of Adlestrop in Oxfordshire, which will be familiar to many people from Edward Thomas's poem of that name.
  Can the Minister explain why this exclusion is justified? If the object is to enable landlords to get the cottages back, they are not likely to want to let the cottages for periods of more than 21 years. The exclusion seems to serve no useful purpose. If the recovery of these houses does not serve a purpose, how can the exclusion be justified? I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I have tabled an amendment similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, although he has outlined the issue far more eloquently than I could have done.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I remember Adlestrop. Before I go into the more general argument, we have spoken to a representative of the leaseholders of Adlestrop and, based on that conversation, we are not entirely sure whether the leaseholders are caught by the rural exemption. But that is a matter on which they must seek their own legal advice.
  The rural exemption exists to prevent the break-up of country estates. When the right to enfranchise was first extended to leaseholders who could not pass the low rent test, it caused great concern among rural landowners. They argued that they would not have leased houses which were an integral part of their rural estate if they had thought there was any risk of the house being permanently detached from the estate as
  CWH 250
  a result, and we have accepted that argument. There may be a case for amending the rural exemption to target it better at the kind of properties that we wish to exempt, and we are willing to look at this question in the longer term. However, I cannot make any greater commitment than that at this time. If we were to do that, we would have to consult interested parties, and I do not believe that we could realistically do that in time to deal with it in the Bill.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful that the Minister is willing, in the longer term, to take another look at this issue. It seems to me that this problem is almost certainly over-estimated because, if the houses are potentially part of the estate, they are distinctly unlikely to be let for substantial terms. It is almost certainly an unjustified exemption.
  Nevertheless, I accept that there would have to be consultation on the proposal in order to enable the landlords to put their case for retaining the exemption. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 233A:
  After Clause 133, insert the following new clause—

  PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
  (" .—(1) In section 7 of the 1967 Act (rights of members of family succeeding to tenancy on death), after subsection (8) insert—
  "(8A) On the death of a person who has for the three years before his death been a qualifying tenant of a dwellinghouse, the rights conferred by this Act are exercisable, subject to and in accordance with this Act, by his personal representatives; and, accordingly, in such a case references in this Act to the tenant shall, in so far as the context permits, be to the personal representatives."
  (2) In section 5 of the 1967 Act (general provisions as to claims to enfranchisement or extension), at the end of subsection (1) insert—
  "A notice under this section may not be given by the personal representatives of a tenant later than six months after the grant of probate or letters of administration.".").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 233A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 234A and 234B. Amendment No. 233B is also in this grouping but it slightly different.
  This brings us to a discrepancy in the Bill. Benefits will accrue from the Bill to those who occupy flats but not to those who live in houses. This clause raises the question of the eligibility for obtaining a new lease following the death of the owner. Under Clause 128, to which we have referred today, the personal representative of a qualifying tenant of a flat who dies will continue to be able to exercise the right to a new lease for a period of six months after the grant of probate or letters of administration. However, no such provision is available to those who are the personal representatives of house leaseholders.
  Section 7 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 provides that the heirs of a deceased qualifying tenant can inherit the right to serve a claim, but only if they are themselves resident in the property. Non-resident heirs cannot inherit the benefit of a claim if it has already been served before the death of the qualifying

  CWH 251
  tenant. They cannot inherit the right to enfranchise or extend the lease if they do not fulfil the residence qualification. As the Bill stands, that will continue to be three years for a house leaseholder.
  In practice, this residential qualification has caused serious difficulties for families when elderly parents die long after the children have stopped living at home. The problems arise particularly in the Midlands and north-east England where families have tended to treat their homes as family properties, even though they are leasehold. This amendment would give the same rights to house leaseholders as are being given to flat leaseholders enabling personal representatives to both inherit the right to enfranchise or to extend the lease.
  I turn to Amendment No. 233B. Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the owner of the leasehold house—which is where the differences arise—must satisfy a test which involves clocking up three years' residence in order to enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold. A more or less equivalent test applies in respect of flat owners under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to collective enfranchisement, and also in relation to the individual leaseholder's right to acquire a 90-year extension to his or her lease.
  The Bill, as we have discussed, scraps the residence test in respect of flats, replacing it with the two-year ownership, but it does not do that in respect of houses. In other words, it amends the 1993 Act but it does not amend the 1967 Act.
  That all seems rather odd in the light of the remarks in the consultation paper of August 2000, which accompanied a previous draft Bill which drew attention to the,
  "need to reform leasehold law and rationalise the rules and procedures where this would be justified and beneficial".
  That consultation paper goes on to state:
  "We propose to abolish the resident test for houses in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. However, we propose to replace it with a requirement that the lease should have been held for at least two years".
  That would of course have brought it into line. Had that been done, it would have prevented the inconsistency which is now about to be enshrined in this Bill. My amendment seeks to prevent such a thing happening. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments are mainly intended to provide the same kind of changes to the rights of leaseholders of houses to enfranchise or extend their leases to the rights of leaseholders of flats, as we were discussing a few minutes ago. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, propose the abolition of the existing residence test. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, proposes to allow the personal representatives of deceased leaseholders, who would have qualified for the rights, to exercise them within six months of granting probate or letters of administration.
  CWH 252
  I assure the Committee that the Government are keen to achieve a more consistent approach between the law on flats and houses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, reminded us, we made this clear in the consultation paper which accompanied the draft Bill. Unfortunately, we have not been able to include in this Bill as many changes as we would have liked. We appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter and, although I cannot make firm commitments, we will consider very carefully the views that have been put forward.
  Amendments Nos. 233B and 235C also affect agricultural tenancies and charitable housing trusts. As that aspect has not been addressed, I assume that it was not intended, so I will not reply to it.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 233AA to 233C not moved.]
  Clause 134 [Abolition of limits on rights after lease extension]:
  [Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
  Clause 134 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 234A to 234C not moved.]
  Clause 135 agreed to.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 235:
  After Clause 135, insert the following new clause—

  EXPIRY OF LEASES
  (" .—(1) Schedule 4A of the 1967 Act (certain leases granted by housing associations) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 3(1), after "a lease granted by a housing association" insert ", or which reverts to a housing association on expiry,".
  (3) In paragraph 3(2), omit paragraph (d).").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment refers to the previous Act and the low rent test. I highlighted the issue earlier. It is peculiar to registered social landlords and people who are in the process of buying their houses through shared ownership. This clause will ensure that shared ownership houses can be acquired only by shared owners, through the process of staircasing; that is, gradually increasing their interest in the property eventually to 100 per cent. As I understand it, originally there were amendments to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and to Housing Act 1996 to deal with the discrepancies. Many believe that that did not do so effectively, with the result that now shared owners may currently acquire their freehold to their houses through enfranchisement from registered social landlords for very small sums of money. I am sure that this is not the Government's intention. I believe that the amendment would deal with it. I hope that Government will either say that that is not the case or that we can deal with the situation. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the amendment will deal with it, but the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has identified a real problem with the

  CWH 253
  1967 Act. It was not designed with shared ownership in mind, and the best thing for us to do is to take the problem away for consideration.
  Baroness Maddock: I am grateful. I hope that it can be sorted out this time. There have been attempts in the past and we have not succeeded yet. I look forward to a successful amendment in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 235A:
  After Clause 135, insert the following new clause—
  (" In section 22 of the 1967 Act, insert—

  VALIDITY OF TENANTS' NOTICE ETC
  "(3A) If a tenant has given notice to acquire the freehold under this Part of the Act, and has received a notice from the landlord in response to his claim, but has not applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal to determine any of the matters referred to in section 21(1) within six months of the date of the landlord's notice, the tenant's notice shall be deemed to be withdrawn."").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply intended to harmonise the procedures for timescales for houses and flats. There is little point in my saying anything about Amendment No. 235B in view of the Minister's response on two previous occasions to amendments seeking to achieve the same objective.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 235A would mean that where a leaseholder did not take timely action to resolve any dispute over the price payable or related matters, the claim would be treated as withdrawn. Given that either party can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to resolve such disputes and that, in an enfranchisement case, there is no fee for doing so, we do not see why it is necessary to punish the leaseholder for failing to take the initiative. If the landlord wishes matters to proceed, he has only to apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal himself. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to penalise the leaseholder, and only the leaseholder, where both parties have neglected to take any further action.
  Amendment No. 235B would amend the 1967 Act so that, instead of valuing the property as at the date of the leaseholder's initial claim, the valuation date would be the date of the landlord's counter-notice. As we have said in the context of collective enfranchisement, we would normally expect the landlord to serve a counter-notice relatively quickly after the service of initial notice. We wish to encourage that.
  In those circumstances, adopting the date of the counter-notice rather than the date of the initial notice is unlikely to have a material effect on the price payable. If the landlord delays serving a counter-notice, an advantage could be gained at a time of rapidly increasing property values, and we would not want to encourage that.
  Lord Kingsland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 235B not moved.]
  Clauses 136 and 137 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 235C' not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 235D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
  Clause 138 [Extending meaning of service charge and management etc.]:
  Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 236A:
  Page 61, line 5, after ("properties") insert (", enfranchised houses and flats").
  The noble Lord said: There is a problem that charges arising from a leasehold and freehold of a building included within an estate management scheme are not statutorily subject to reasonableness, nor indeed to dispute procedures through an LVT. Estate management schemes, as I understand it, are there to maintain the character of an area—for example, the Grosvenor estate or the Dulwich estate— and to protect it from any possible damage by enfranchising leaseholders; for example, the hideous crime of pebble-dashing a house in Grosvenor Square.
  The manager of a scheme, usually the landlord, is entitled to levy charges arising from the operation of the scheme. It seems somewhat unjust that homeowners within such a scheme should have no defence against unreasonable estate charges. We therefore propose the extension of Schedule 9 to extend the application of the legislative service charge regime, including requirements of reasonableness, to enfranchised houses and flats. The later suggested amendment to Schedule 9 is designed specifically to include charges arising from EMS. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: It is clear that the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Richard needs to be looked at. I regret to indicate to the Committee that we have not worked out an option for doing so in this Bill. We are certainly not opposed to ensuring that enfranchised leaseholders have rights against unreasonable charges, but we need to ensure that such rights would work properly.
  The way in which the amendment is couched does not do so. It seeks to amend the definition of "service charge" so that it includes charges levied under estate management schemes. By implication, that seeks to allow those who pay charges under such schemes to enjoy the same rights as those who pay a service charge under their leases. The problem is that most, if not all, of the relevant rights to which that would give rise are expressly written in terms of rights being exercised by a tenant; for example the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which provides that a tenant may apply to a tribunal for determination of the reasonableness of a service charge.
  The obligation to pay a charge under an estate management scheme would normally fall on a freeholder and not on a tenant. Indeed, where it is a house—as is the case in this amendment—that has been enfranchised, the freeholder of the previous leasehold interest will in effect have merged and there

  CWH 255
  will be no tenant in any sense for that property. Changing the definition of "service charge", as these amendments propose, would not achieve the objective.
  Having said that, this is an issue which needs to be addressed, but if we are to do so the whole issue will need to be looked at very carefully. It is our judgment that it would not be possible to do that in time for measures to be included in this Bill. However, in the longer term the Government are intending to examine this area, and with that assurance I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Richard: In view of the expressions of sympathy from my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 236B not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 237 had been renumbered as Amendment No. 238YA.]
  Clause 138 agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Meaning of service charge and management]:
  [Amendment No. 237A not moved.]
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 238:
  Page 92, line 8, at end insert—
  (" .—(1) Section 21 of the 1987 Act is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3)(a) for "or a resident landlord" there is substituted "(aa) the interest of the landlord in the premises is held by a resident landlord and more than half the flats in their premises are held on long leases,".
  (3) After subsection (7) insert—
  "(7A) References in this Part to a landlord (except in subsection (3)) include any person who is responsible under a lease for the management of the premises or any part of the premises.".").
  The noble Lord said: This is a very short point. It arises under Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which exempts from the tenants' rights to apply to the court for the appointment of a manager any premises where the interest of the landlord in the premises is held by a resident landlord. We wish to allow the tenants to apply to the court for the appointment of a new manager even though in certain circumstances there is a resident landlord.
  The exemption would be restricted to cases where the interest of the landlord is held by a resident landlord and more than half of the flats in the premises are held on long leases. Where more than half of the flats in the premises are held on long leases there would in many cases be a right to collective enfranchisement, which would seem to be a more appropriate remedy. Property can be badly managed just as much when the landlord is resident as when he is non-resident and there should not be an absolute bar to the landlord in cases where he is resident. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: These amendments are designed to improve the operation of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. They make clear that the right granted by that part to seek the appointment of a new
  CWH 256
  manager would be applicable against any party appointed manager under a lease, and not just a landlord. They also deal with the restriction on exercising that right against a resident landlord.
  The Government agree that there is a need to change the 1987 Act. Indeed, we consulted on this proposal when we were proposing the draft Bill. We are prepared to consider this proposal further, without commitment at this stage, to see whether it would be possible to bring something forward at a later stage of the Bill.
  Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to look at the matter again. I hope that the Government will be able to table a suitable amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 9 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 238YA not moved.]
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 238ZA:
  Before Clause 139, insert the following new clause—

  RESERVE FUNDS
  (" . After section 41 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, insert—

  Reserve funds.
  41A.—(1) Notwithstanding the specific terms of any lease of the whole or part of the building, where the tenants of two or more dwellings are required under the terms of their leases to contribute to the same costs by the payment of service charges, the person responsible for the exercise of the management of the premises under the lease shall establish one or more reserve funds to finance the repair and maintenance of the common parts and common services.
  (2) Any demand for payment of service charges shall state the level of contribution within the total sum requested which will be paid into the reserve fund.
  (3) The person responsible for the management of the premises may from time to time vary the level of contribution made to the reserve fund from the service charge contributions, but the level of contributions may not be nil.
  (4) Regulations shall make provision for the preparation of a rolling management programme for repair and maintenance and for its presentation to the contributing tenants.
  (5) In this section—
  "service charge" means a service charge within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, other than one excluded from that section by section 27 of that Act (rent dwelling registered and not entered as variable); and
  "the person responsible for the management of the premises" means either—

  (a) the person who is the landlord under the lease,

  (b) the Right to Manage company which has acquired the management functions under Part II of this Act, or

  (c) a manager appointed under Part II of the 1987 Act to act in relation to the premises or any premises containing or contained in the premises".").

  The noble Baroness said: The proposed amendment would amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It requires all buildings to establish one or more reserve

  CWH 257
  funds. It is considered good management wherever possible to build up a reserve fund in order to cover the cost of planned major works or large renovation. However, many leases do not provide for a reserve fund. In those circumstances, some freeholders may look to borrow to fund the work and then charge the cost of borrowing back to the leaseholders through the service charge. Sometimes the leaseholders find themselves faced with a substantial service charge bill, and quite suddenly, to cover the cost of work which must be undertaken and paid for within that service charge year.
  The amendment follows the format of Clause 38 which gives the commonhold association the power to establish reserve funds. Subsection (1) overrides the provisions of existing leases in order to establish a requirement to have a reserve fund. Subsection (2) requires the service charge demand to state how much of the money paid will be paid into the service charge fund.
  Subsection (3) enables the manager to set the level of contribution, but insists that he cannot negate the purpose of setting up a reserve fund by setting the contribution as nil. The contribution level could still be set at a token figure—say, £1—which would allow those who wished not have a reserve fund to minimise the cost, but the counter argument to that would be that even a small sinking fund is preferable to none.
  Subsection (4) empowers the Government to make regulations which can set out how the manager should establish a rolling programme of work, a budget of anticipated income and expenditure and the form in which this should be presented to the lessees.
  The funds must be trust funds in accordance with Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The Committee will recall that the British Property Federation promoted an amendment to the provisions to establish reserve funds for commonhold units to ensure that they were trust funds. Leaseholders should also continue to enjoy all the relevant protection in relation to the reasonableness of service charges.
  Under subsection (4), where the Government would be making regulations as to how to do it, it is very important that it should be well worked out because there is a need for an adequate amount to be in the reserve fund. However, as I have said in speaking to many earlier amendments, it is wrong that anyone should aim to set up an excessive reserve fund. That would be bad in two ways: first, that people would be asked to produce the money for such an excessive reserve fund; and, secondly, that there might be a tendency, particularly when management agents are involved, to do the work simply because the money is there. If the managing agent is on a commission of the work done, there is a double incentive for someone to propose unnecessary works. The issue needs to be thought through in that way and there needs to be some control over the amount in a reserve fund.
  The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he would consider houses in management schemes. That is a typical example in which someone must decide how much is required. Management schemes for houses
  CWH 258
  that have been enfranchised and are now freehold are there to protect the environment and maintain the standard. However, no one wants to carry out excessively expensive schemes, particularly if the people who run those management schemes are the original freeholders and still retain a significant interest and it is in their interest to have the property maintained to a higher standard than is necessary.
  Any credit built up in the reserve fund which relates to a leaseholder should be clearly identified as belonging to that property. If the person intends to sell the flat, or to move for any reason, that money will be taken into account when the property is sold. If, for example, there is £10,000 in the reserve fund to one's credit, one would expect the person who buys the flat to have the advantage of that money. Therefore, that would help to reduce the price of the flat and would be taken into consideration when determining that matter.
  I received a letter from Mr Ernest H Shaw who said that he had replied to the government consultation document. He set out very extensively a method, which I can give to the Minister, to calculate the annual dilapidation cost paid in advance for variable service charges. There is a whole page of it here. I am very impressed that someone has put so much thought into it. I am slightly worried that it appears to involve a number of professional people and, therefore, a considerable amount of fees, which could impact upon the people who are asked to pay these service charges. I appreciate that this is a complex issue but it is an important matter to consider.
  Mr Shaw, who is a lessee in an enfranchised establishment, writes:
  "I am appalled at the lack of intent on the part of my fellow lessees to ensure that an adequate reserve fund sum is correctly estimated and appropriately collected. The standard response from lessees is that they will not be here then, so it is of no concern of theirs"".
  We have to guard against the possibility that people who have been in those flats for a long time are not disadvantaged because of the reluctance of others to maintain the standard. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 239B which is in this group. To continue with service charges, one area of concern on the part of leaseholders is the protection of service charge moneys. Since the accountancy profession accepts no responsibility for protecting leaseholders' money under Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the certification of accounts suggested by the Act seems to promise protection. That provision refers to the necessity for certification of the accounts by a qualified accountant. However, the Act does not give any guidelines, code of practice, or auditing or accounting procedures which the accountant must follow; it does not even make it a requirement that generally accepted accounting principles must be followed. The result is that the certification principle is completely ineffective and no reliance may he placed upon it.

  CWH 259
  This matter was recognised as one of many concerns in the consultation document in 1998. However, that concern was downgraded in the one that followed in August last year. The whole matter has retreated into obscurity in the Bill, in that it is not there at all. This amendment would restore the original concept by strengthening the 1985 Act.
  Lord Richard: Amendment No. 239A stands in my name. It is an addition to the proposals in the earlier draft Bill and requires separate accounts for service charge moneys and greater accounting information for leaseholders. The issue has been raised on a number of occasions and is well known.
  Lord Goodhart: Our Amendment No. 240 is in this group. We support all the other amendments in the group. The amendments seek—certainly Amendment No. 240 seeks—to bring back into the Bill one of the proposals in the consultation paper, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
  The reforms are important for two reasons. First, they are important for the purpose of transparency, in order that all the tenants in a block subject to a single service charge will be able to find out what is in their fund.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.5 to 5.15 p.m.]
  Lord Goodhart: I now return to the oration that I was about to deliver on this subject. This group of amendments concerns one of the proposals set out in the consultation paper published in August last year. Indeed, it goes back beyond that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said. The proposals are important for two reasons. First, they are important for the sake of transparency, so that all tenants in a single unit that is subject to a single, collective service charge know, when they have paid services charges in advance, what is in the fund. For that reason, they will find it easier to notice whether anything has been wrongly taken from it. As the consultation paper pointed out, if funds from different blocks are put into a single account, neither group of leaseholders acting independently of each other would have any way of knowing what sum ought to be in the account. They would therefore be unable to realise whether any money had gone from it improperly. The safeguards for fraud are indeed inadequate. Although the consultation paper suggests that there might be some additional costs—and there possibly would be—such costs would be modest in comparison with the benefit of ensuring greater transparency. I doubt whether the costs are likely to be substantial because a large leaseholder with a number of accounts would very probably be able to negotiate a deal with the bank holding the accounts, under which all the money for the payment of interest was treated as a single, global account.
  Secondly, the proposals give better protection from insolvency for the landlord or manager. Money in a client's account belongs to the client, not to the
  CWH 260
  account holder. If the account holder is insolvent, then it cannot be used to pay the creditors. If it is part of a general fund, even if technically trust money, then normally it may well be accessible to the general creditors. In such a case, the tenants would be in a position of having to claim for their money back as unsecured creditors. Moreover, as unsecured creditors almost always are, they are unlikely to be able to get back any of their money.
  For both those reasons, it is good practice to require advance service charges to be paid into a client account. We believe that that obligation should be made compulsory.
  Lord Selsdon: As I said previously, the Bill is about money. One of the most difficult areas we are about to confront is the letting loose on the property world of thousands of amateur managers. With that goes the problem of liquidity and lack of funds. The possibility of a building failing to have proper lift insurance, failing to observe health and safety regulations and all the standard matters that professional managers know about is a real worry.
  Finance and adequate resources can help. It is often the case that one tenant in a building will fail to pay the service charges but the manager does not notify the others. No penalties can be charged against someone who fails to pay and the other tenants have to cover the costs.
  Without a sink fund or an adequate reserve, there is a serious possibility of management organisations becoming completely liquid. Service charges in general are calculated with a budget in advance by a professional manager to show the expenditure that will be required during the coming 12 months for regular maintenance of the building, but not the exceptional maintenance that is often required for external or roof repairs that may take place under certain leases every four or five years, or internal redecoration of common parts. Depending on where the buildings are—for example, listed buildings in London— such charges can be extremely high and often place a severe burden on the poorer residents of a building. The richer ones will say "I would rather pay as and when the bill comes up". Other people would like to have the opportunity to save something on account for the future.
  It is difficult to legislate for that and it is difficult, too, to get banks to adopt these smaller kinds of account. But in general it is reasonable to point out that between 15 and 20 per cent of an annual service charge should be set aside for a reserve fund. The point has been made by my noble friend that if the reserve fund becomes too large, people try to spend it and then in come the professional charges. "Of course, my dear chap, you must have a surveyor to survey it. You must have an engineer as well". They then send a four-page letter with all the standard scales and before you realise it, 25 per cent of the expenditure has gone out of the window. They must, of course, obtain three or four quotations and there is a duty on them to take the lowest one, though often the lowest one is not the best. It is a worrying area, but I do not see how it can be

  CWH 261
  legislated for. There should be an obligation on people to put aside a percentage of each annual service charge, which should be budgeted in advance.
  This is fairly easy to do, because most of the buildings that we are talking about will have been in existence for a long time and there will be a record of what the expenditure has been. Many will be in default under their leases when they try to extend the refurbishment outside for a further two years because it may have been done properly before. They try to make short cuts from time to time to save money. It is all about money. If the management companies do not have an adequate reserve, they are bound to fail.
  Lord Whitty: We have some understanding of the concerns which lie behind this group of amendments. The lead amendment, Amendment No. 238ZA, seeks to protect leaseholders' interests by, among other things, requiring managers to set up separate reserve funds. Amendment No. 240, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would also require managers to use separate accounts and, moreover, would provide that leaseholders could not be held liable for charges unless they were paid into such accounts. Amendments Nos. 239A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Richard, and Amendment No. 239B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, are intended to improve the existing arrangements for accounting for leaseholders' money.
  This is a delicate area and the use of property money by people unused to managing it, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, will be a new phenomenon. In our consultation paper last August, we put forward proposals to improve the accounting regime. It is only considerations of time and space that have prevented their inclusion in the Bill. We therefore have general sympathy with much of what has been said today. While I cannot make any firm commitments, we will consider carefully the views that have been put forward and perhaps return to them at a later stage. That is not an unqualified view. There are parts of some of the amendments that we would not, in any circumstances, be prepared to introduce in quite the way proposed.
  The lead amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, would put landlords under an active obligation to set up reserve funds, to plan ahead and to demand regular advance payments from leaseholders. That is all very good practice, but requiring managers to prepare and present plans is quite a limited use, unless there is some means of controlling the quality of the plans, which is necessarily very complicated, and indeed of enforcing their implementation, which is even more complicated. Nor would it necessarily achieve much to insist that managers demand advance payments, if one cannot ensure that those payments are set at the right level and at the right frequency and that they are used to fund repairs in a timely and appropriate fashion. The amendment would probably go too far from anything that we would look on favourably. We understand the more rule of thumb formula proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and might consider it. It would be important to ensure
  CWH 262
  that any requirements introduced could be enforced in a practical way. However, with regard to some of the intentions of the amendments, particularly of the lead amendment, we have difficulty in seeing how that could be done. Where managers neglect their responsibilities, we have an LVT procedure, which could replace them. We are also considering ways in which we could improve the standards of accountancy—of the presentation of the accounts and of the accuracy of the accounts—as addressed by the amendments of my noble friend Lord Richard and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The whole issue could be looked at in that context, although much of it, as the noble lord, Lord Selsdon, said, is difficult to deal with through a simple legislative requirement.
  Nevertheless, we will look at much of this area again. With that assurance, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for his reply, which gives me considerable encouragement. I agree that the amendment is far too detailed, but I was impressed that someone had put all that work into preparing it. If the legislation were amended in such a way as to give at least enabling powers to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act in order to create a reserve fund—particularly where leases are defective—that would be progress. It would go some way to protect people's money and to ensure that an excessive amount could not be taken into the reserve fund. That is as important as being able to have a reserve fund. The Minister's officials have been outstandingly good in applying their minds to these issues. I am confident that they will do whatever they can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 139 [Consultation about service charges]:
  [Amendment No. 238A not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 139 shall stand part of the Bill?
  The Earl of Caithness: Clause 139 takes us on to consultation about service charges. I am not against the clause in principle. I simply seek clarification on two points of detail. I use the example of a block of flats in respect of which there are a number of different types of lease and different types of tenant. It introduces service charges at different levels for different purposes, which is not uncommon in London. When the trigger point has been reached under the regulations, is the landlord or managing agent required to consult all the tenants; or is he required merely to consult the tenant who has triggered the process?
  In simple terms, let us assume that there is a charge. Let us assume that there is a block of flats in which the only person who will be liable to pay the charge is the person who owns the penthouse. It is the biggest flat; the rest are one-bedroom flats. Perhaps there are 10 such flats and a decent sized penthouse. Does the

  CWH 263
  landlord have to consult the 10 people in the one-bedroom flats, who will now have nothing to do with it, or does he have to consult everybody within the block?
  The second point is a matter of nit-picking detail—
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.29 to 5.39 p.m.]
  The Earl of Caithness: As I was saying, my second point is one of nit-picking detail. Subsection (2) of Clause 139, at line 19, refers to,
  "a term of more than twelve months".
  However, on pages 46 and 47 of the Explanatory Notes, paragraphs 228 and 229 refer to "12 months or more". Can the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, give me a definitive answer?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take it that I do not have to give my long speech in defence of Clause 139 and attacking Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Explanatory Notes are wrong. At the front, the Explanatory Notes state that they do not form part of the Bill, and in any such conflict the Bill is right and the Explanatory Notes are wrong.
  In answer to the noble Earl's specific question about who has to be consulted, all tenants have to be consulted. I do not think that that is the answer he wanted.
  Clause 139 agreed to.
  Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 239:
  After Clause 139, insert the following new clause—

  DISCHARGING OBLIGATIONS BY MANAGING AGENT
  (" .—(1) Section 30B of the 1985 Act is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (3)(b) insert "; and

  (c) giving reasons in writing for any decision made by the landlord relating to the manner in which the managing agent has been discharging his obligations and the desirability of his continuing to discharge them".

  (3) After subsection (4)(a)(ii) insert "; and

  (iii) giving reasons in writing for any decision made by the landlord relating to the manner in which the managing agent has been discharging his obligations and the desirability of his continuing to discharge them;".").

  The noble Lord said: The amendment would amend the 1985 Act. It is a modest amendment based on specific experience. I have talked to a number of people in the field and there is a growing recognition of the phrase "amateur managers". There is going to be a major question in many areas of leaseholding about the competencies—in both senses of the word—of the managing agent and of the residents' association, which is the typical generic title. In today's environment, they are generally not called "tenants' associations"; they are generally called "residents' associations", but that is by the by. We are talking about the same animal.
  Apropos the point that has just been made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the realities are that a residents' association would have some
  CWH 264
  responsibilities. It can often be a company and, as I understand it, it can often take responsibilities for members as well as non-members, provided that the members constitute more than 50 per cent of the total number of leaseholders. We are talking about quite an important part of the jigsaw puzzle here, and yet nowhere is there a very clear statement about the standing and competence of the residents' association. Neither is there very much about the role of the managing agents. This seems to be an under-explored part of the whole equation that we have been debating for weeks in this Bill.
  I have a very interesting document here; it is the management code of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Many Members of the Committee will be aware of this document, and some Members of the House of Lords have probably written it. It is an interesting attempt to codify the existing law. It also tries to go a little beyond that and maybe mention what one might call good practice.
  One of the difficulties is that on the one hand one does not want to make the law too prescriptive and rigid. On the other hand, a typical code of practice on relations and practice procedure between residents' associations and managing agents, and indeed landlords—in other words, freeholders—tends to rely on the statutory requirement as being the basis of its own code. In other words, I do not know that there is very much in this code of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which is any different from an intelligent person's guide to the law. That is understandable, but I suspect that there is more to it than good practice, which goes beyond the law.
  Unless we want the law to be very detailed and prescriptive in this area, we ought to be looking for a bigger role for good practice documents, both on the part of the Property Owners' Federation—I do not know whether it has a code, but it probably does—and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That is my first general point before I mention the actual terms of the amendment.
  At the moment, the law requires consultation on the appointment of a managing agent and in respect of many other matters. It follows the basic doctrine that the managing agent is responsible solely to the freeholder, and there is no way round that legally. In practice, however, the managing agent has a week-by-week relationship not only with the landlord—in other words, the freeholder—but with the residents' association. It is bad news for that relationship if the landlord can at will sack the managing agent and appoint another one, which is the position at the moment. The amendment seeks to improve that procedural relationship.
  The issue arises in cases in which there will be the right to manage. It arises in a different way in the right to enfranchisement, but the Bill will change the context in which many blocks operate even if they are precluded from availing themselves of RTE or RTM. My own personal intuitive guess is that out of the 1 million people quoted, about half will still be in the position of the relationship being with the managing agent through the residents' association.
  It is necessary to have some proper recognition of the residents' association, and this is a probing amendment to see whether we can throw some light on that relationship and give some recognition to its importance. Will the Minister say something about the status and role of codes of practice in this area? Would it not be useful to encourage a code of practice about relationships when the Bill has been enacted, which we hope will be soon? Otherwise there will be a large gap between the fine words written in the Bill and many residents' associations and managing agents struggling in difficult, circumstances as regards who they represent, who is legally liable for the decisions which they reach and so on. To use the vernacular, it could become a dog's breakfast. That is why I seek some wider discussion on this whole area. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment before us is very limited and specific but the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has quite legitimately used it as a peg on which to hang more general criticisms of the position in leaseholds that do not qualify for the right to manage or the right of enfranchisement. I shall respond first to the more general points before turning to the amendment.
  It is true that there are still major problems in ensuring good standards of leasehold management. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has discussed the matter with Ministers and has been told that we want to do something about the issues but must consult more widely. It does not seem possible that we can do so within the time-scale of the Bill. I accept that his points deserve consideration. In particular, the noble Lord makes an interesting point about codes of practice. The answer as to their status is that they can be used as evidence in proceedings; for example, on the question of the appointment of a manager under Part II of the 1987 Act, which is very close to the specific amendment that is before the Committee. It is not possible to do anything within the framework of the Bill. but it is certainly necessary that standards of management of leasehold properties should be improved.
  As regards the specific amendment that is before us, the Bill provides that there must be consultation before the appointment of a manager. We agree that it would be wrong for a landlord to sack a managing agent for trying to be fair to all parties. However, a requirement to consult before sacking him would simply result in delay and would not change the decision. There could be all kinds of other reasons for sacking a manager— and much more likely reasons than that he is being too fair and equitable in his treatment of the leaseholders. Although we are sympathetic to the thinking behind the proposal, we cannot accept the amendment that is before us.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I indicated that this was a probing amendment, but the recognition of, and regular meetings with, residents' associations will become a big issue when the Bill is implemented. If circumstances arise under which the Bill does not
  CWH 266
  reach the statute book soon, there may be scope for further consideration of how this matter can be addressed more satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 239A and 239B not moved.]
  Clause 140 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 240 not moved.]
  Clause 141 agreed to.
  Lord Richard Lord Richard had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 240A:
  After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—

  VARIATION OF LEASE
  (" .—(1) The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 35 of the 1987 Act (application by party to lease for variation of lease), leave out "court" and insert "leasehold valuation tribunal".
  (3) In section 35(2)(a) of the 1987 Act (which provides the grounds for the variation of a lease of a flat based on repair or maintenance) after "under it" insert "circumstances when a lease "fails to make satisfactory provision" under this subsection includes the obligation to repair and maintain the property, the person responsible for the repair and maintenance and the frequency at which such works and services are undertaken".
  (4) In section 35(2)(b) of the 1987 Act (which provides insurance matters as a ground for the variation of a lease of a flat) after "paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii)" insert "circumstances when a lease "fails to make satisfactory provision" under this subsection includes where the premises containing the flat are insured as part of a group of properties owned by the landlord or a superior landlord".
  (5) In section 35(2)(e) of the 1987 Act (which provides that the recovery of expenditure by one party to a lease from another as a ground for the variation of a lease of a flat) after "other party" insert "reasonable expenditure means expenditure incurred or to be incurred as a result of repair, maintenance, management and administration of the building, insurance premiums and costs arising from loans in respect of works of repair and maintenance".
  (6) After section 35(2)(1) of the 1987 Act insert—

  (g) the payment and collection of service charges in advance of works (whether repairs or maintenance) being carried out;

  (h) the charging and recovery of a reasonable rate of interest on arrears of service charges;

  (i) such other grounds as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State.

  (7) In section 42(2) of the 1987 Act, substitute the words after "payee" for "in a separate bank or building society account designated as the client account specific to the building, or estate, subject to those charges".
  (8) After section 42(2) of the 1987 Act insert—
  "(2A) A person who without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (2) commits a summary offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale".
  (9) In section 60(1) of the 1987 Act (general interpretation) at the end of the definition of "landlord", insert "or a party to such a tenancy otherwise than as landlord or tenant".").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is marked as already having been debated. It was in part debated when we considered an earlier group of amendments. I do not desire to reopen the matter. In so far as details of the amendment were not debated at an earlier stage, I give notice that I shall be contacting Ministers for their response.
  [Amendment No. 240A not moved.]
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Clause 142 [Requirement to notify long leaseholders that rent is due]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 240B:
  Page 64, line 10, at end insert (", and
  (d) (in the case of houses) such information as to enfranchisement and lease extensions, and (in the case of flats) such information as to the right to manage and to collective enfranchisement and lease extensions, as may be prescribed,").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us back to an issue that we debated earlier this afternoon: the potential inequality in terms of expertise, sophistication and knowledge as between landlords and tenants. On the one hand, very often the landlord may have a special interest in property; on the other hand, the primary concern of a group of leaseholders is their flats as places in which to live. When we discussed this issue last week, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to one side being undergunned. This amendment is intended to bring up some extra artillery.
  Some have argued that there should be a duty on the solicitor who has arranged a new lease, or the purchase of an existing one, to continue to take an interest and advise his client on the particular privileges or rights that he or she might have. This is either unduly onerous and long-lasting for the solicitor, and probably more likely to involve counsel. But the lease is a very important document; it concerns a person's home; it is long-lasting; and it has substantial financial and other consequences for the leaseholder.
  As we have noted during the Committee stage, there are a number of critical points in a lease. For example, we have agreed to the 80-year click-over point for marriage value coming in and having an impact. I am not sure how many unsophisticated groups of tenants would realise in advance the significance of, and the difference between, 80 years and one day and 79 years and 364 days. I suspect there are many other examples as well.
  Perhaps I may compare this with other similar instruments without stretching the analogy too far. An endowment mortgage has a similar long-lasting impact for people. Policy holders receive a yearly statement which explains the value that they have so far built up within their endowment; it shows the gap, if any; and it shows the additional contributions that may be required in funding. If that is true of endowment mortgages, it is even more true about pensions, which have a similar long tail to them.
  My amendment seeks to try to balance the knowledge and sophistication of the parties involved by requiring additional information about the leaseholder's rights to be included in the rent demand made by the landlord. These should remain by regulation; they clearly cannot be prescribed on the
  CWH 268
  face of the Bill. I do not suggest that the amendment is perfectly worded, but the general impact is to have the kind of warning bell that you have on a prospectus; a warning bell which says, "Get professional advice on these points or risk damage to your life and/or your financial health". I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Amendments Nos. 241 and 242 are grouped with this amendment. They concern a totally different point. It may be for the benefit of the Committee if the Minister answers the point raised by Amendment No. 240B and then deals with my amendments.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 240B proposes that we should require certain information relating to other statutory rights to be included in the notice demanding ground rent, and this clause is about ground rent. I appreciate, and have some sympathy with, the concerns about the balance of information and negotiating power which lie behind that suggestion. It is clearly important that leaseholders are aware of all the background information relating to their leasehold position and the options which are open to them. Under the present legislation, it is clear that many do not. Many do not even realise that they are leaseholders in that sense.
  There is a gap in the balance of information but I do not agree that this clause is the right place to deal with it. This is a targeted provision—as I shall explain when we come to deal with the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—to deal with a specific abuse. It would be inappropriate to use this clause as a portmanteau provision to make leaseholders aware of their rights more generally, not least because not all of the rights that the noble Lord is concerned about have any relationship to ground rent as such.
  Our view is that this is probably best dealt with outside the statutory provisions and to make people more generally aware of their rights and obligations as leaseholders when this legislation comes into force. Even if I were persuaded that this should be on the face of the Bill, this would not be the appropriate clause to which to attach it.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I understand the point about the right clause. However, leaseholders have certain fundamental privileges and rights and there should be some obligation for them to be informed about those rights. It is good practice. It appears in other financial instruments of a similar nature; in contracts with a long tail, for example. I am disappointed that the Minister does not feel able to undertake to put this matter somewhere on the face of the Bill, although not in this particular clause. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment, I should like the opportunity to think about this matter, and I give notice that I may wish to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 241:
  Page 64, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 242. As the Minister said to my noble friend Lord Hodgson in responding to the previous amendment, here we are talking about ground rents. Subsection (3) prescribes that the tenant is not liable to make payment of ground rent before a period of 30 days, but no more than 60 days, has elapsed. These are very small payments. In relation to some leases that I have dealt with the rent is £1; in other cases it is a peppercorn. In one particular case the ground rent was one red rose. Why does one require a period of 30 days for such a payment? The average person will shelve that immediately; he will look at the rent demand, realise that he has 30 days to pay the one red rose, if that is claimed by the landlord, and put it into the filing tray. That is not how it is done in practice. I believe that in this case the Minister is being somewhat over-officious and making a relatively simple procedure complicated.
  I believe that subsection (3) should be deleted but that a landlord ought to give notice of his right to recover through proceedings. In particular, there should be written notice of 30 days should he wish to recover two or more periods. He may wish to claim a previous red rose that has not wilted. That is the reason for Amendment No. 2.
  While I am on my feet, it may save the Committee's time if I raise one matter that I could deal with on clause stand part. I refer to subsection (6). Given the chaos of the Post Office at the moment, must the landlord present proof or certification of posting? Given the number of letters lost in the post, is this a requirement? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I am not sure of the answer to the last pointed raised by the noble Earl. If the landlord were challenged, that would be some proof. I do not know whether that could be built into the law. Perhaps I may write to the noble Earl on the matter. It is unlikely that that would be a requirement.
  The main reason for this clause is the fairly widespread abuse that takes place, particularly in various leased properties in the north east of England. It is often the case that a long lease provides that the leaseholder pays a nominal ground rent, which may be relatively small. Frequently leaseholders forget to pay it on the due date. Technically, that puts them in breach of the totality of the lease and opens the way for the landlord to take forfeiture action. One might argue that in practice the courts would never uphold that action. It is nevertheless a threat that unnecessarily oppresses the leaseholder. There is a widespread practice of threatened forfeiture in these circumstances, unless the leaseholder pays not only the ground rent but also a penalty; in other words, it amounts to something close to extortion.
  I appreciate that the amendment of the noble Earl is designed to get away from bureaucracy and to simplify the issue. However, this oversimplifies it and does not
  CWH 270
  deal with the abuse. As I read the amendments, they appear to have the unintended effect, except in those cases where there are two periods involved, as in subsection (2), of allowing the landlord not to give any period of notice at all. Therefore, that would not give the protection that we need from this abuse. We consulted on these arrangements. There was concern that under the original proposals the landlords would be prevented from recovering ground rent until it was 30 days overdue, but that is not the case as the Bill now stands. The Bill allows the landlord to send out the demand up to 30 days before the rent is due. Where that is done, the rent becomes legally payable on the due date, so there is no disadvantage to the landlords in that respect. This is to deal with a noticeable abuse.
  Clearly, landlords will wish to minimise the cost of such notification where there is such a small amount of ground rent required, and no doubt they can incorporate it in other communications with their leaseholder. There is an abuse and the clause is intended to deal with it, but the noble Earl's amendments would undermine that ability.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the Minister look at the opposite side of the story? The noble Earl mentioned a peppercorn rent which depended on when the lease was written. In quite a number of leases the ground rent goes up considerably every 25 years, and some of them are now reaching quite large amounts. Some people are deliberately not paying or simply delaying a payment to save themselves money. Earlier in Committee, we said that interest should accrue from the date when the payment was overdue. I have no objection to the 60 days mentioned in this clause, but from the landlords' point of view there should be provision to ensure that they receive their money on the due date.
  The other point raised by the noble Earl related to the post. Any landlord would be very unwise, /She was aiming for forfeiture, not to have sent his second demand by recorded delivery. Therefore, we do not have to worry about that. However, we must consider both sides. I am very interested in what the Minister has said about people using it as an extortion technique, but the reverse situation also occurs.
  Lord Monson: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that sending a letter by recorded delivery is no guarantee that it is going to arrive. More and more often one finds that recorded delivery letters are simply pushed through the letterbox and not signed for, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I experienced that situation regularly in industrial tribunals. The Post Office are asked to produce a record showing exactly who signed for the recorded delivery or whether it was not signed for. If no one signs, that is a different matter, but the evidence certainly is effective in terms of tribunals and courts.
  Lord Whitty: I do not want to divert this debate into one on the efficiency or otherwise of the Post Office. If

  CWH 271
  there is a legal point here—and what the noble Baroness described is also my recollection of practice in other arenas—we shall write to noble Lords to indicate whether there is anything we can do about tightening up on this and making clear what proof of posting would be required.
  In relation to the situation referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, ground rents can amount to a significant amount of money. People hold back on paying landlords and landlords use the rent as an extortion. The provision would allow the landlord—provided he had written 30 days in advance—to demand the money from the due date. Some leases provide for interest when payment is late. However, that is a matter for contract rather than statutory law, given that the landlord, provided he has gone through the proper procedure, will have the ability to recover that ground rent.
  The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to what the Minister said in reply to my Amendment No. 242, and he was right to point out the deficiency in it. Would he consider that it might be a better way of tackling the problem? We are both trying to find a way to solve this problem with the minimum bureaucracy and in the best way possible. One may have to come back with an amendment at a later stage and turn the emphasis around, stating that the landlord cannot take action unless he has made a written application to do so and after the expiry of a certain period. In other words, the onus is on the landlord to initiate the action. Although my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is right about some cases of ground rent in central London, for the majority of long leases in the country, a fairly small ground rent exists throughout the term of the lease. Will the Minister consider looking at it from that point of view, rather than his own, bringing forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage?
  Lord Whitty: Without commitment, if the noble Earl cares to put forward an amendment or to outline one in writing that we can consider, we could return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill, should such be conceded to us.
  The Earl of Caithness: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 243:
  Page 64, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) In this section "long lease of a dwelling" does not include—

  (a) a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (business tenancies) applies,

  (b) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in relation to which that Act applies, or

  (c) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 244, 245, 248 and 249. Amendment No. 243 ensures that the new requirement to have demanded ground rent before being able to take action for non-payment applies only to residential tenancies and not to business or agricultural tenancies. Amendments Nos. 244, 245, 248 and 249 tidy up the Bill and ensure consistency of terminology. They make no change to the effect of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 244 and 245:
  Page 64, line 36, leave out (""long lease",").
  Page 64, line 37, after ("Part,") insert—
  (""long lease" has the meaning given by sections 73 and 74 of this Act,").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 247:
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—

  LOW RENT TEST: EXTENSION OF RIGHTS
  (" . In Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (low rent test: extension of rights), after subsection (3)(c) of paragraph 1 (1AA) insert—
  ", and
  (d) the freeholder satisfies a leasehold valuation tribunal that the house is integral to the management of the estate concerned and has been leased on terms relating to that purpose.
  (4) An application to a leasehold valuation tribunal in accordance with paragraph (d) above shall be made by the freeholder within two months of his receipt of the relevant notice of the leaseholder's claim to enfranchise under the terms of this Act."").
  The noble Baroness said: As I did not speak to Amendment No. 247 earlier, perhaps I may have the leave of the Committee to do so now.
  The Housing Act 1996 removed the low rent test in respect of leasehold houses with leases that were originally granted to terms exceeding 35 years. However, it excluded from the reform houses in designated rural areas where the freehold is owned, together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes.
  There are leasehold houses scattered throughout the country where the freehold is owned, together with the adjoining land and not occupied for residential purposes, but where the houses have no connection whatever with the management of an estate or other agricultural activity. Since the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, there have been cases in which landlords have fixed the ground rent just above the low rent limit, thus frustrating enfranchisement.
  The amendment would have the effect of limiting the rural exclusion in respect of the low rent test to cases where a freeholder is able to establish that the house in question is genuinely part of the functioning of an estate and has been leased on terms relating to that purpose. The position of the rural exclusion,

  CWH 273
  however, is anomalous and the amendment would provide a compromise solution recognising the difference between the tenures. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: Earlier today I moved Amendment No. 233, which proposed the complete removal of excluded tenancies on this ground. I would be happy to support, as an alternative, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In response to the earlier amendment, I said that there is a case for amending the rural exemption to target it at the kind of properties we wish to exempt. I said that we were willing to look at that in the longer term but I did not think there was anything that we could do within the time scale of the Bill.
  It is true that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is more targeted than the complete removal of the rural exemption. It restricts the rural exemption to cases where a house is integral to the management of a rural estate and had been leased on terms relating to that purpose. We shall certainly consider that element of targeting, although I do not believe that is what was intended by the rural exemption.
  The point of the rural exemption is not whether the house is integral to the management of the estate but whether it has a historical connection to the estate. There is scope for argument about that, but the point that the noble Baroness made in relation to Amendment No. 247 can be taken into account in our considerations.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I am not quite sure of the difference between the historical aspect that he mentioned and the legislative aspect. I do not think that it matters. I am grateful to the Minister for the concern that he has shown about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 247A:
  After Clause 142. insert the following new clause—

  INSURANCE PROVISION UNDER A LEASE
  (" .—(1) Any provision in a lease of a dwellinghouse to which this Act applies, whensoever created, requiring a tenant to insure with a nominated company and through the agency of a lessor (or both) or any other person, firm or company shall be void.
  (2) Such provision shall continue to be effective so far as it relates to the insurance of a dwellinghouse against the usual household risks, for the full reinstatement value and index-linked, with ally reputable insurance company.").
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to deal with the question of insurance companies and the necessity to insure with particular companies. Under the terms of most leases, there is a requirement for the lessee to insure the leased premises. More often than not, the requirement is that it should be with an insurance company named by the landlord or through the landlord's agency. Under such circumstances,
  CWH 274
  leaseholders do not have the freedom of choice to obtain the best terms and conditions for their insurance. Flat holders can apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal on this matter, but house leaseholders do not have that protection.
  Threats are often made by landlords to take forfeiture action in cases of non-compliance, which can sometimes result in tenants being intimidated into taking out double insurance, with the complications that that entails in the event of a claim.
  The lessees on a long lease, on a full repairing basis, have the major interest in the premises and should be able to insure with any reputable insurance company of their choice. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: I rise to support the amendment. The practice is an abuse. The motive for including such provisions is, almost always, to enable the landlord to obtain commission. I have long taken the view that commission paid by insurance companies is a form of legalised bribery. Anything that reduces it seems to me to be a good thing. It will enable insurance policies to be cheaper than they are now, although that is clearly a long way beyond the scope of the Bill. I am happy to support the provision in the amendment.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I rise briefly to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hanham. I declare an interest in that I am director of a building society. The good practice in a building society now is to allow people to insure more widely. There was previously a practice whereby insurance could be obtained only from one company because that assured the position of the society. The amendment is in keeping with modern consumer choice and gives people a preference.
  Lord Whitty: Again, we have some understanding of the concerns behind the amendment. We have received many reports that leaseholders have been required, usually under the terms of their lease, to insure their property with a nominated company, sometimes at inflated premiums. Under the present provisions, the leaseholder can go to art LVT to challenge the landlord's choice of nominated insurer. We recognise that under the present system the cost of launching such a challenge may turn out to be greater than the money saved. For that reason, among others, we plan to reduce the minimum fee for applying to the LVT in such cases.
  The amendment takes a more sledgehammer approach and suggests that we should ban nominated insurer clauses outright. I have some sympathy with that. But we need to give considerable thought to how that works out in detail. Landlords have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their property is properly insured, and we need to make sure that any new arrangements are fair to the landlord and also give some flexibility to the leaseholder. Moreover, the clause as drafted would require overriding the insurance terms of existing leases. While that might be desirable in certain cases, we could not do that without having previously consulted widely on the implications. I hope, therefore, that the noble

  CWH 275
  Baroness will not pursue the amendment. We undertake to look at this matter as a possible longer term measure outside the scope of the Bill.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I make two points in response. First, as I suggested in my opening remarks, I believe I am right in saying that leaseholders of flats have the right to go to a leasehold valuation tribunal but leaseholders of houses do not. I am concerned about that discrepancy. I see noble Lords shaking their heads, but I believe that that is the situation. Secondly, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of all the wonderful lawyers—it may be beyond mine—to devise a system whereby the landlord can be satisfied that the required insurance is in place. I am sure that nowadays that is perfectly tenable. None the less, I am glad that I have raised the matter. I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 247B:
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—

  TENANTS OF HOUSES ON LONG LEASES TO HAVE RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL ON DISPOSALS BY LANDLORD
  (" .—(1) Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2), before paragraph (a) insert—
  "(za) they consist of an individual house;".").
  The noble Baroness said: The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 makes provision for qualifying tenants in blocks of flats to have rights of first refusal when the landlord sells his interest. The Housing Act 1996 strengthened this provision and made it a criminal offence for the landlord not to offer the freehold to his tenants if he decided to sell it. There is again a discrepancy between flats and houses. House leaseholders do not have the right of first refusal. There have been instances in which whole estates of houses, in particular in the Midlands and the North East, have been bought over the heads of their leasehold owners by professional freehold companies. The amendment will put house leaseholders on a footing of equality with flat leaseholders as far as concerns the right of first refusal. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I understand the concern but I do not believe that we can deal with it as simply as this amendment. In this case the noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is a difference between houses and flats. There are some problems with the existing legislation that governs the right of first refusal in relation to flats, and we may need to look at that. However, it would require lengthy amendments to existing legislation to achieve this objective. We would probably need to draft fresh provisions with which we cannot realistically deal in the timescale of the Bill.
  We are aware that there is a loophole in the existing right of first refusal in relation to flats, in that it does not apply to the sale of a company that owns a freehold
  CWH 276
  as opposed to the sale of the freehold itself. Therefore, companies can be sold without the flat leaseholder having the right of refusal in real terms.
  If we looked at the whole area we would look at the shortcomings of the existing provisions as well as their extension to the housing area, which raises separate issues. The noble Baroness must be fed up with my saying that I have deep sympathy with what she is trying to do, but I do not believe we can do it simply by this method. We do not have the time or scope to do it within this Bill.
  Baroness Hamwee: As the Minister said, this is similar to answers that the Minister has given to other amendments. I do not expect him to respond to this point but nevertheless I make it. I hope that the Government will consider, if the Bill falls because of the dissolution of Parliament in the event of an election, but is brought back afterwards, making real efforts to use the opportunity to pick up many of the points being made in this technical area. It is fairly unlikely that we will have a chance to come back to the question during the next Parliament. We might, of course—who knows—but it would be a pity if opportunities were Missed.
  Baroness Hanham: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said something that I was going to say. A number of the amendments that I have produced are technical, but they concern practical issues that have arisen as a result of previous legislation not working as well and as comprehensively as it should.
  I hope that the Minister will not tire of me saying that I am grateful for his response. I hope that we can keep an eye on these matters and, as appropriate legislation becomes available during the coming months and years, we can look forward to an opportunity to put them right.
  Lord Monson: Many of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, are indeed technical. She is right to ask the Government to get them through at some stage. However, Amendment No. 247 is more than technical; it is quite serious. I admit that I was caught off guard and have not studied it, but I hope that the Government will think carefully before adopting it. It represents quite a major change and should not be accepted, even in principle, without very serious thought.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she did not expect a response; the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, then added to that. Clearly, we take this matter seriously; the Government will look at it further.
  As to the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seemed to presume the result of the general election, the contents of the Queen's Speech, and the parliamentary programme for the next Session, I could not possibly comment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 143 agreed to.
  Clause 144 [Section 143: supplementary]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 248 and 249:
  Page 66, leave out lines 13 to 15.
  Page 66, line 17, at end insert (", and

  "long lease" has the meaning given by sections 73 and 74 of this Act, except that a shared ownership lease is a long lease whatever the tenant's total share.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 250:
  After Clause 145, insert the following new clause—

  CONTINUATION OF TENANCIES
  (" . In section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (continuation of tenancies to which section 1 applies), omit subsection (3).").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 250, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 251. Since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, under which other leasehold tenants were given security of tenure, tenants of houses with higher rateable values have been without security of tenure at the end of a lease. That has had an impact particularly in inner city areas, where higher rateable values are likely to be the most prevalent.
  The Bill again fails to give security of tenure to such leaseholders. Instead, it gives security of tenure at the end of the lease to leaseholders who surrender their rights to security of tenure in exchange for a 50 year extension of lease, without premium but as a modern ground rent. This does not really address the problem of those houses with a higher rateable value.
  Amendment No. 251 deals with the valuation basis on which such tenants face enfranchisement. It is because of' their higher rateable values that they come under the special valuation basis which was introduced into the Housing Act in 1974. The Hansard report of the debate in this House on this aspect made it clear that there was an assumption of security of tenure at that time.
  Schedule 15 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 provides for this assumption in respect of houses that came into eligibility for enfranchisement under the Housing Act 1974. It does not, however, provide for it if the house is coming into eligibility under the 1993 Act. This proposed amendment is again aimed at tidying up unfinished business as far as enfranchisement is concerned.
  Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to clarify my previous remarks. Whichever party is running the Government, and whoever sits on the Front Bench, the civil servants will be there.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Although we are sympathetic to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, it is not possible to include it in this
  CWH 278
  Bill, or any successor to it. The real problem raised by the noble Baroness, which is security of tenure for high value houses, is not faced simply by long leaseholders; it also affects those who rent such property. The Long Title of the Bill is restricted to commonhold and leasehold property, and if one were to cover this problem properly one would require a more general housing Bill. Even if there were no general election and we had time to deal with it, the matter would not fall within the scope of the Long Title.
  To some extent, that also applies to Amendment No. 251 which would alter the valuation basis of higher value houses. Obviously, the vacant possession value of a house is greater than the value of the house with a tenant in it, particularly when the tenant has security of tenure. This means that leaseholders without security of tenure have to pay more for their freehold. Amendment No. 251 would mean that a house would be valued as though the leaseholder was entitled to security of tenure even though that was not the case. We do not believe that it is proper to accept that amendment. If the law does not give security of tenure, we cannot pretend that it does so for valuation purposes.
  Baroness Hanham: Even if I have not flushed out too much sympathy, I have elicited the fact that there will be a general election quite soon. I am grateful for confirmation of that given the way that the Minister put it. I note what he says and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 251A:
  After Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
  Notices of claim to be overriding interest

  NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE OVERRIDING INTEREST
  .—(1) Section 5 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5), the words "nor shall any right of a tenant arising from a notice under this Act of his desire to have the freehold or to have an extended lease be an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925; but any such notice shall be registrable under the Land Charges Act 1925 or may be the subject of a notice or caution under the Land Registration Act 1925, as if it were an estate contract" are omitted.
  (3) In section 70(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925, after paragraph (f) there is inserted the following new paragraph—
  "(fa) The right of every tenant of a dwelling held on a long tenancy at a low rent within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as amended, arising out of a written notice of his desire to have the freehold or an extended lease;".").
  The noble Baroness said: This is a shorter matter. The purpose of this amendment is to make a tenant's notice of his wish to have the freehold on an extended lease an over-riding interest within the meaning of Section 71 of the Land Registration Act 1925.
  The registration of a caution against the landlord's title is an unnecessary expense and burden on a tenant. As the law now stands, a notice of claim unprotected by a caution is not binding on a purchaser, although such a disposition to a third party will be a breach of contract.
  It is not unknown for landlords to try to thwart a leaseholder's claim by transferring the freehold, subject to a claim, to a third party such as an associated company. This amendment serves to protect the tenant's position without the complication of the registration of a caution. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: This amendment would deal with a situation where in the middle of an enfranchisement process a landlord sold the freehold to a third party. It is obviously desirable in those circumstances to ensure that one does not have to start the process all over again. As the Bill now stands, leaseholders can register with the land registry the fact that they have issued a notice of their intention to enfranchise or to obtain an extended lease. If they do so, anyone who purchases the freehold before the enfranchisement process is complete, or the lease has been extended, is already bound to complete the process.
  Moreover, in the case of flats the new owner will often have to offer the freehold to the leaseholders under the right of first refusal. The amendment will therefore simply save the leaseholders the expense of registering their notice. On the other hand, it would have the effect of meaning that a potential purchaser would no longer have anywhere to check whether there was an outstanding enfranchisement process in train when the existing lessees had expressed their wish to the existing owner to buy the freehold or extend their lease. This would encourage non-registration and therefore make it more difficult in a moving property market for a potential third party buyer to establish whether there was a process proceeding or not—unless the vendor of the freehold informed them of the position.
  Although I have some sympathy with the amendment, it would have a detrimental effect because it would not allow the process to move smoothly and ensure that everyone knew that an enfranchisement process had started.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. The intention behind the amendment was, first, to save tenants some expense and, secondly, to make it compulsory upon the landlord to declare that a caution had been issued. I note the Minister's reply and I thank him for it and for all that sympathy. I am hugely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 147 and 148 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 [Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: Procedure]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 252:
  CWH 280
  Page 95, line 40, after ("tribunal") insert ("and to any such other party as the leasehold valuation tribunal may direct").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 252, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 253 to 255 and to Amendments Nos. 256 to 258. As far as Amendments Nos. 252 to 255 are concerned, at present leasehold valuation tribunals have no power to direct disclosure of documents or information relevant to an application. As the Committee will be aware, this is anomalous in the context of civil litigation and may lead to parties withholding information, or documents harmful to their case, without sanction. In short, leasehold valuation tribunals need to be given teeth and their new powers should be exercisable for the benefit, and on the application of parties to the proceedings before them.
  As far as Amendments Nos. 256 to 258 are concerned, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the Bill provides a power to make regulations enabling leasehold valuation tribunals to exclude the whole or parts of cases of parties who fail to comply with directions. However, no such power appears in the Bill, as far as I am aware or, at least as far as I can see.
  At present, leasehold valuation tribunals cannot make directions either about the preparation for or about the conduct of an application, and have no sanction except for adjournment—with no power to award costs if a party does not heed its exhortations to produce reports and documents in good time before a hearing. As a result, all too often a party turns up on the day of the hearing with an expert's report which has not been disclosed before thus leaving the other party with a dilemma: whether to go ahead without having a proper opportunity to verify the contents of the report or to prepare a cross-examination on it, or whether to ask for an adjournment, thereby losing the cost of the day. This practice—as some Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware—has gained notoriety among users of leasehold valuation tribunals. It must cease, and it can cease only if the tribunal is given the teeth envisaged by this group of amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept the implied criticism of some of the aspects of leasehold valuation tribunals in the past, but I hope I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the provisions we are making in the Bill, although largely by regulation, address the issues that he has raised.
  Starting with Amendments Nos. 252 to 255, the power in paragraph 4 of Schedule 11 already enables leasehold valuation tribunals to do all the things that these four amendments would seek to allow them to do. Paragraph 4 is about information, and documents are but one form of information that an LVT might require. It is the normal practice of LVTs to share any information that they receive with all parties involved, as a matter of natural justice. The LVT can exercise the power under its own initiative although, of course, it may equally well decide to do so in response to a request made by one of the parties.
  Amendments Nos. 256 to 258 relate to the ability of LVTs to make directions. We share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that they should be given

  CWH 281
  sufficient teeth to ensure that their directions to parties are obeyed. Again, we think that the measures in the Bill as they stand make adequate provision.
  Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 would allow LVTs to issue directions at a directions hearing. However, it is the usual practice of LVTs to use pre-trial review hearings to issue any necessary directions and, if they see a need, they can also use the review to try and find common ground between the parties. We think that it would only confuse matters to create the concept of a directions hearing as something separate from the pretrial review.
  Amendment No. 258 provides that the procedure regulations may include provisions enabling LVTs to enforce their directions by dismissing applications and so on if a party fails to comply. We agree that the LVTs need this kind of power. In other words, I accept the case which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is making. He is certainly right that the fact that they have not had these powers until now has been a hindrance to their work and ii has been a major factor in the disappointingly long time it can take for LVT cases to be dealt with.
  However, I am advised that, as they stand, the powers in this Bill to make procedure regulations are wide enough to allow us to provide that the LVT may exclude the whole or part of any party's case where that party has failed to comply with directions. I think that would answer the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; for example, an expert opinion of which no notice had been given. Obviously, where the whole of the applicant's case is excluded, that will amount to dismissing the case.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 266. Although the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not spoken to this amendment, it might speed things up if I reply to it because it was spoken to on the second day of the Grand Committee proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he moved the amendment because he wished the LVTs' powers to appoint managers to remain unchanged. I want to reassure him that we have no intention of taking away the existing rights that leaseholders enjoy under Sections 21 to 24 of the 1987 Act.
  Amendment No. 266 would retain Section 23(2) of the 1987 Act. This particular subsection merely enables procedure regulations to make provision for certain persons to be notified when the leaseholder seeks the appointment of a manager and for certain persons to be joined in these proceedings. However, paragraphs 2 and 6 of Schedule 11 make equivalent provision for the purpose of any application brought before the leasehold valuation tribunal, including an application for the appointment of a new manager. Therefore, Section 23(2) is obsolete, which is why we think it is safe to repeal it.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. When contemplating what amendments to table to Schedule 11, I considered simply one, which would have provided that the civil procedure rules
  CWH 282
  apply to leasehold valuation tribunals. That would, at a stroke, have provided me with everything I needed and given the noble Lord a very short reply to make to the Committee.
  However, if I understand correctly the response of the noble Lord, he is saying that he agrees with the substance of all the amendments that I have tabled so far but that I ought to be happy with what is already in Schedule 11; that is to say, the appropriate national authority may make regulations about the procedure of leasehold valuation tribunals. May I, therefore, take it from his reply that the regulations that will be made under Schedule 11 will afford leasehold valuation tribunals all the powers necessary to achieve the objectives that are implied by my amendment?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can give the noble Lord that assurance, but I cannot say that the regulations will cover all the points in the civil procedure rule, because there are other matters which are not referred to in these amendments. On the points raised in the amendments that we have been debating, yes, the regulations will cover those points.
  Lord Kingsland: That is a most satisfactory reply and I thank the noble Lord very much indeed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 253 to 258 not moved.]
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 259:
  Page 96, line 26, at end insert ("if all the parties so request").
  The noble Lord said: Paragraph 8 of Schedule 11 provides for regulations to include provision for the determination of applications, or transferred proceedings, without an oral hearing and by a single panel member.
  It is not clear what kind of applications are envisaged to be appropriate for determination in this way. It would be necessary, in order to satisfy the Human Rights Convention right to a fair and public trial, to require that such regulations should include provision entitling an aggrieved party to a hearing before a full tribunal.
  In the circumstances, it is to be doubted whether the regulations foreshadowed by paragraph 8 will have any real use unless all parties agree to dispense with a hearing and to a determination by a single panel member. That is the purpose of the proposed amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We certainly do not want to deny either party their right to an oral hearing where they honestly believe that natural justice requires that there should be a hearing. We also do not wish to open the way for machiavellian landlords to prevent leaseholders from using the written representation route merely as a way to push up costs and discourage leaseholders from exercising their rights. That might be the effect of these two amendments.

  CWH 283
  Perhaps I may explain our reasons for deciding to have a written representations route and the kind of circumstances under which we think it could be used and how we might encourage it. The written route is primarily aimed at simple cases involving small sums. In those cases, the fees payable for challenging unreasonable service charges could be disproportionate to the amount at issue. For example, disputes over insurance premiums or administration charges could involve relatively small sums. It is not worth spending £300 or more to take a case to the leasehold valuation tribunal unless substantially more than that sum is at stake.
  We propose to make changes to the fee structure through procedure regulations which would relate the amount payable to the amount in dispute. That would mirror the approach adopted in the county court and reduce the minimum fee payable. However, these are publicly funded bodies and we have to consider the interest of the general taxpayer when deciding on the level of fees. The cost of a full hearing with three members in attendance might not be justified. One purpose of the hearing fee, which does not begin to cover the full cost of a hearing, is to discourage parties from wasting public funds on cases having little merit.
  However, some of these small cases could be resolved by making representations to a single member with relevant expertise. For example, a dispute over insurance could be a matter of considering alternative quotations. That would reduce the cost of providing the LVT service and enable more cases to be dealt with in a shorter timescale, which is what we propose to do with the fee structure. All applicants would be required to pay an application fee, which could be as low as £50, but a further fee would be payable only if the matter were dealt with at a full hearing. The written representation route would be a more cost-effective way to deal with disputes over small sums both from the Government's perspective and that of the parties concerned.
  We do not want to deny either party the opportunity of a full hearing before a tribunal. In some cases an important principle could be involved, even though the sum was small. However, we do see a danger that some landlords may insist on a full hearing simply to push up the costs to a disproportionate level and discourage the leaseholder from proceeding. Therefore, we intend to provide that where a respondent to a case wants a full hearing, he can have one provided that he pays the hearing fee. That will encourage the use of the written representation route. Amendments Nos. 259 and 260 would discourage its use.
  Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am partly reassured by his comments and will look carefully at Hansard to see whether I want to raise these matters again at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 261:
  Page 97, line 9, after ("pay") insert ("the whole or part or).
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 261, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 262 to 264. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 11 would, for the first time, provide leasehold valuation tribunals with powers to award costs; but only where an application is dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, or where the party in question has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. Even then the amount payable cannot exceed £500.
  It would perhaps be wrong, bearing in mind the perception of the leasehold valuation tribunal as an informal, inexpensive tribunal, to empower such tribunals to award costs following the event in all cases. However, there must be a greater power to impose sanctions where a party has failed to comply with directions—thereby occasioning an adjournment—or where, although a party's conduct of the proceedings themselves might not have been unreasonable, that party, nevertheless, acted unreasonably in bringing the proceedings at all or in pursuing them after a reasonable offer is made by the other party; or where a party has been forced to take proceedings because of the unreasonable conduct or stance of the other party. Examples of unreasonable action might be: specifying a ridiculously high or low enfranchisement price; or, in the case of a landlord, by shocking mismanagement, or by a tenant, in refusing to pay service charges without any justification, thereby throwing the costs of recovery onto his fellow tenants through the service charge provisions. Only when the leasehold valuation tribunal has the powers envisaged by the amendment will there be a proper deterrent from "playing the system", as it is often called.
  Furthermore, a costs limit of £500 is both arbitrary and too low to operate as a sanction in the case of wealthy parties. Tribunals should be empowered to award costs at such level as they think fit up to the full amount incurred by the innocent party, subject only to an obligation to have regard to the paying party's needs.
  Finally, under Clause 85 of the Bill an RTM would be liable for a landlord's costs before the tribunal if the tribunal dismissed its application for a determination that it was entitled to the right-to-manage premises. As things stand, such a power would be anomalous in the context of the tribunal's limited powers as to costs, and paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 11 would appear to be inconsistent with Clause 85. This group of amendments would reduce the anomaly and remove the inconsistency. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments take me back to my days as a borough councillor in the 1960s. They were the great days of Rachmanism. I hope that we do not follow this route because it would take us back, not to the 1960s, but to some of the

  CWH 285
  problems that we experience under the existing legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has correctly described the function of paragraph 10 of Schedule 11. The present position is that leasehold valuation tribunals sometimes find it difficult to deal with parties who refuse to comply with directions or who act abusively at a hearing. The power in paragraph 10 would enable them to control the parties more effectively. If the noble Lord is worried about the £500 limit, the maximum sum payable could be increased through legislation. However, that could be done only with the approval of both Houses.
  The grounds on which costs might be awarded are deliberately expressed in very broad terms. In Amendment No. 262 the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tries to particularise them and be more explicit. The danger of that approach—I am not allowed to use lawyers' Latin since lawyers themselves cannot use it— is that the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of others. These are good examples of the kinds of behaviour that we believe should be subject to a cost penalty, but we believe that the provisions as they stand encompass all the specific grounds that the amendment seeks to introduce. If we accepted Amendment No. 262 we might encourage the courts to interpret paragraph 10 more narrowly and exclusively than we would wish. We cannot accept this amendment.
  I referred to the issue of the maximum amount because the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes to empower LVTs to award costs without limits. Even allowing for the precaution in Amendment No. 263 that the tribunal should have regard to the financial resources of the party who is to pay the costs, it would still disadvantage leaseholders. When service charge disputes were still a matter for the county courts, landlords would intimidate leaseholders with the threat of large bills for costs since they could afford the best legal advice. Leaseholders were concerned about their ability to win their case even when they felt that they were clearly justified, and they often decided not to take their case to court. That is why we provided a cap. If we did not, they might fear that even an innocent mistake in interpreting directions or a failure to meet a deadline could lead to a very large bill for costs. Those fears would be exaggerated if they were not familiar with the LVT proceedings. Unscrupulous landlords could encourage those fears and use them to discourage leaseholders from exercising their rights.
  When it comes to the suggestion of considering the financial resources of the offending party, we do not consider it right to fetter the discretion of the tribunals in this way. We would not want tribunals to feel inhibited from punishing unreasonable behaviour merely because that could cause a little hardship.
  I can be more accommodating with Amendment No. 264—indeed, much more accommodating— because it addresses the conflict between Clause 85 and paragraph 10 of the schedule. It may be that when we look at it more closely, the conflict will be more apparent than real, but we are willing to consider this matter further.
  7 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: I found the Minister's reply to my noble friend's Amendment No. 263 very disappointing, in particular his comment that legislation through both Houses could change the £500. Members of the Committee know how difficult it is to get legislation at any time, let alone get it through both Houses.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say legislation; I said regulation.
  The Earl of Caithness: I stand corrected, but regulation is equally difficult to get, and it is impossible to amend unless one prays against it and it is thrown out.
  I am concerned about this, as is my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Some of the Minister's replies seem totally to ignore subsection (b) of Section 2. Given some of the points that the noble Lord mentioned in defence of tenants and against an unscrupulous landlord, I would have thought that the leasehold valuation tribunal would have seen fit to put many of those into the category of Section 2(b). I hope that my noble friend Lord Kingsland does not go away and forget about this; I hope he will come back with renewed vigour at another stage, when I shall certainly support him.
  Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for the support he has given me. I thank the Minister for agreeing to look at Amendment No. 264, but I must confess to being extremely disappointed at his reaction to Amendment No. 263.
  It is my impression, standing back and trying to look objectively at my own amendments, that far from being pro-landlord, these amendments discriminate strongly against the landlord—because it is the landlord's financial power that enable him to spin things out at a tribunal in a way that quickly exhausts the resources available to the leaseholder.
  Amendment No. 263, by taking into account ability to pay, will assist the leaseholder in resisting that kind of conduct from the landlord. That is a crucial part of the framework I am trying to put in place here.
  I hope that the Minister will reflect on this between Committee and the Report tage, because I assure him that I shall return to this matter again when we get there. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 262 to 264 not moved.]
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Clause 149 [Appeals]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 264A:
  Page 68, line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) Leave to appeal under subsection (2) shall only be given if—

  (a) the appeal would substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties, and

  (b) the decision is at least open to serious doubt.").

  The noble Lord said: I have the feeling that the Committee is rounding the final bend and approaching the finishing post, so I will be brief.
  The amendment is concerned with potentially capricious appeals to the Lands Tribunal against decisions of the leasehold valuation tribunals. We should be seeking wherever possible to reach a speedy resolution to disputes, particularly where they concern such sensitive matters as exist between landlords and tenants. The bitterness of disputes can increase in direct proportion to the length of time that they last.
  I am told that a practice has grown up whereby when landlords receive unwelcome decisions from the LVT there is a knee-jerk reaction to reach for the lands tribunal and to appeal. Apart from the delay that this causes, there must also be potential inequality between the parties as to both financial resources and readiness to take risks involving further professional fees and further costs. The landlords may have nothing to lose; the tenants may be concerned about increasing their financial liabilities and their exposure.
  The amendment seeks to restrict appeals to bona fide cases as laid out in the amendment and the wording broadly follows Section 69(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, which does not seem to be a bad precedent for us to follow. I beg to move.
  Lord Kingsland: My Amendment No. 265 is grouped with Amendment No. 264A in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It seeks to limit the nature of the appeal to the lands tribunal as being by way of a review rather than a full hearing.
  The success of the amendment will in part depend upon the success of the noble Lord's regulations under Schedule 11. One of the reasons why review has not been as successful a way of dealing with matters that have come from the tribunals, is because of the varying quality both of the evidence and of decisions that have emerged from the LVTs. The reason why that quality has varied has had nothing to do with the ability of the individuals sitting on those tribunals, which has been mercifully very high, but because the rules have been so broadly based that they have allowed a wide variety of approaches by panel members.
  While I urge this amendment upon your Lordships, at the same time it has to be coupled with appropriate amendments to Schedule 11 to which I have already spoken.
  Lord Whitty: I shall deal with the amendments in reverse order. The amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has spoken seeks to limit the circumstances in which an appeal, if granted, should involve a full hearing of the lands tribunal.
  As with one or two of the earlier groups, one of the difficulties is that it strays into realms that are operated in this area, stemming from the procedures of tribunals in general, and we already have an independent review under Sir Andrew Leggatt which is still going through the process of conducting a strategic determination of
  CWH 288
  the tribunal system. That includes the LVTs and the lands tribunal and the whole question of appeal. It would therefore seem probable that that review will have a bearing both directly and indirectly on whether appeals should involve a full rehearing and the circumstances in which new evidence should be admitted in the appeals proceedings. Our view is, therefore, that it would be premature to write into the Bill something in advance of receiving a further report from Sir Andrew Leggatt.
  Amendment No. 264A from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, again gets into this territory. It seeks to clarify the circumstances in which a party to an LVT decision should be given leave to appeal against it. It is our view that an appeal to the lands tribunal is justified where a case raises important or novel issues of principle or where there are grounds for arguing that the LVT itself has erred in law or erred in fact. However, there is a widespread concern that in the past some landlords have abused the unfettered right of appeal and enfranchisement in lease renewal cases with a view to persuading leaseholders to settle at a higher price. It is that abuse that we wish to bring to an end in this section of the Bill.
  In service charge cases, the right to appeal is already subject to a leave filter; that is, the need to obtain the leave of the LVT or the Lands Tribunal. The relevant statute does not set out the circumstances in which leave should be granted, but rather gives the tribunal wide discretion to decide whether an appeal would serve the interests of justice. We feel that in that area it has worked well. We therefore wish to apply similar arrangements extending the right to appeal against any LVT decision. For the sake of consistency, we wish to do that in the way provided in the Bill.
  I repeat that it would be premature to consider any move—especially in relation to the grounds on which appeals maybe granted—in advance of the general review of this process for tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt. We will await his report before enacting legislation on that basis. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister. I have listened carefully to what he said. I understand his desire to include this matter in a wider review. I see the force of the argument and, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
  Clause 149 agreed to.
  Clause 150 agreed to.
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  Clauses 151 to 154 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 266 not moved.]
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 267:
  Page 100, leave Out line 53.
  The noble Earl said: We now come to the last amendment on which we shall speak. Having put my name to the first amendment, perhaps it is appropriate that I should speak to the last one. It seems a long, long time ago that we discussed Amendment No. 1 with the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
  This is a technical amendment, but an important one. Clause 115 provides for the removal of the requirement for two-thirds of the qualifying tenants to participate in enfranchisement. Clause 123 fixes the freeholder's share of the marriage value at 50 per cent in all cases. The effect of reducing the qualifying number for enfranchisement and the repeal of Section 18 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 simply compounds the issue. The result will be to ensure that only the minimum number for eligibility rather than all tenants who wish to participate in enfranchisement will apply in the first instance.
  With the marriage value fixed at 50 per cent. it effectively means that the landlord's value falls to 25 per cent. That, I believe, is unfair to the landlord. It also indicates that Clause 123 is misleading when it mentions 50 per cent. It is for that reason that I believe that Section 18 of the 1993 Act should be retained. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We certainly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that it would be unfair to the landlord if a group of qualifying tenants conspired together so that only the bare minimum number participated in the enfranchisement—thus keeping the price down—and then all the others climbed aboard afterwards. I think that that is the fear he expressed.
  It is true that Section 18 of the 1993 Act was intended to address the problem. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to be effective. It would be very difficult for landlords to prove that agreements with nonparticipating leaseholders existed at the relevant time and, as a result, the provision would be unenforceable. Therefore, we decided to repeal it. Apart from that, we believed that the existence of Section 18, combined with its unenforceability, could serve as an advertisement for the very malpractice at which it was aimed. 'We do not have any evidence that abuse of this kind is perpetrated on any scale. That possibility will arise only in cases where the unexpired terms of the lease are relatively short, since the potential abuse relates only to the marriage value component of the purchase price.
  Although in theory there might be a temptation for people to conspire in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I described, surely that would be restricted by the fact that a conspiracy would require the others not to participate in the enfranchisement in order to join in afterwards to keep down the marriage value. They might be reluctant to do that, and they might believe that there were risks in not participating. Therefore, at the moment we are not convinced that there is any reality in this threat. However, if it can be shown that there is a real risk—so much so that it
  CWH 290
  would be better to keep Section 18—we are open to any representations that may be made between now and a later stage.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister answered the point and for the courtesy with which he and all the Ministers have responded throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I am a little surprised by the noble Lord's answer. When we debated Amendment No. 263 moved by my noble friend Lord Kingsland, the Minister put forward an argument about landlords being oppressive, threatening and beastly to tenants. Yet here we have a situation where the Government open a Pandora's box and tenants behave in an extremely nasty way to a landlord. I can visualise some of the tenants with whom I have dealt ganging up against a landlord and having a side agreement that some of them will not participate in order to reduce the marriage value and settle the matter later. That would not be beyond the wit of a good number of tenants, and there must be some way to stop that happening. By the time we get legislation to correct it, it will be too late: many landlords will have had their interests and assets taken away from them without compensation, which I believe to be totally wrong.
  There must be a method by which the landlord is entitled to hope value, or those who do not subscribe in the first instance cannot receive enfranchisement without payment. The Minister might even consider that the landlord could take an overriding lease of the non-participating flats, which would solve the problem. We can get round the problems of the service charge, because the landlord would be obliged to pay the service charge for the non-participating flats, whether or not he had received the money from the occupying lessee.
  I believe that this problem needs to be addressed by the Government before the Bill is enacted, because if we do not deal with it now it will be too late. The Government open a Pandora's box by the removal of Section 18. I take the point that it may be unenforceable and difficult to implement. If that is the case, let us find another way to tackle it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl decides whether this matter should be pursued, I thought that I made conciliatory noises at the end when I said that if evidence could be produced that this problem was widespread we would think about it again. I should also say a word about hope value. The landlord is entitled to hope value in relation to sales of lease extensions to participants as well as non-participants.
  The Earl of Caithness: I do not dispute that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made some conciliatory noises towards the end of what he said. I hope that I thanked him for that. If I did not make it clear to begin with, let me do so now. I thank him. I was just re-emphasising the point. This is a matter on which I should like to test the opinion of the Committee, but I cannot. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 13 agreed to.
  Clause 155 [Commencement etc.]:
  [Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 not moved.]
  Clause 155 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Title agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Question is that I report the Bill to the House with amendments.
  Lord Goodhart: Before that happens, perhaps I may expand a little on a point made earlier by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. If, as is still more likely than not, this Parliament is dissolved in approximately two weeks' time, it is surely clear that the Bill will not be rushed through in the last few days and will therefore fall. I can also see the attraction to the Government—in the event of their being re-elected—of bringing back the Bill early in the next Parliament on the grounds that your Lordships' House may have a certain amount of time on its hands at that stage. I ask the Government seriously to re-consider this matter. A great number of points have been made. A number of issues have been raised today at which the Government have said they will look again. It would be unfortunate if those could not be looked at because of lack of time.
  Many other points have been made, of which the most important is the question of the 100 per cent requirement for the introduction of commonhold. It is no doubt possible to devise a system that would enable commonhold to be introduced with something short of 100 per cent agreement, though it would undoubtedly require substantial agreement. It is also clear that there is a large demand among leaseholders— certainly among leasehold organisations—for that to happen. That would require fairly substantial amendment to the Bill and a number of additional provisions. Therefore, I seriously ask that the Government
  CWH 292
  consider taking the Bill away for a period of a few months and not bring it back until after the Summer Recess.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: Some of us noticed the implication that there would be a reasonably substantial delay. I do not know the order of these matters coming back. However, as we are debating the issue, I would put the emphasis slightly differently. We should look at the matters that need to be considered if we are to make some structural improvements to the Bill. Some of those have been highlighted. The order of the day should be to keep up the momentum. That is the message I leave with noble Lords.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken at this rather unusual stage of proceedings. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said and we will consider it in the reasonable way in which he mentioned it. What has struck me is the degree of consensus on the Bill and on the broad topics covered by it. By that I mean the introduction of commonhold as a form of land tenure. I listened hard but there seemed to be no disagreement at all about the concept. That is hardly surprising: our predecessors in their own turn proposed commonhold, just as we have done. For the life of me, although there are details—perhaps even important ones—that divide some of us, they have come down to very little when compared to the principle of commonhold, which is broadly accepted. That also seems to apply to the reform of leasehold. Of course there have been differences and some are important ones. On the whole, however, there has been a consensus that I and all Ministers have noted. In fact, it would be hard not to notice it from wherever one has sat in the Committee.
  My noble friend Lord Lea has a serious point when he says that it would be a great shame for the many people outside the House who are looking to us—by "us" I mean the Houses of Parliament—to legislate on these important matters that affect their daily lives if somehow the Bill were to disappear, not to return again for a long time. Therefore, we will think very carefully about what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. In return, we should be grateful if noble Lords on all sides would consider carefully whether there is very much that divides us at this stage.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

  South East Europe Stability Pact
  South East Europe Stability Pact
  Diplomatic Posts
  Diplomatic Posts
  Romanian Information Centre
  Romanian Information Centre
  Sustainable Development
  Sustainable Development
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate
  Annuity Reform Proposals
  Annuity Reform Proposals
  Foot and Mouth Virus: Danger of Spread from Carcasses
  Foot and Mouth Virus: Danger of Spread from Carcasses
  BSE and Seasonality of Births
  BSE and Seasonality of Births
  Sports Funding
  Sports Funding
  Digital Services
  Digital Services
  Ports of Entry Recommendations
  Ports of Entry Recommendations
  English Tourism Marketing
  English Tourism Marketing
  Airports: BTA Recommendations
  Airports: BTA Recommendations
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
  Social Exclusion
  Social Exclusion