Sitting of 20 November 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NATIONAL AUSTRALIA GROUP EUROPE BILL [LORDS]
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Women in Public Life
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What steps his Department is taking to encourage more women to stand for election to office. [13551]
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have introduced the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to enable political parties to use positive measures to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected. We are also reforming government to make it a more attractive option to able people of all backgrounds, including women, through improving the hours and working environments at all levels. However, political parties have a vital role to play in encouraging women to come forward as candidates, and I hope that the Government's work in that area acts as a spur to parties wishing to achieve a better gender balance in their representatives.
    Dr. Starkey: The Minister will be aware that the level of women's representation on local councils varies widely, from 51 per cent. on Cotswold council to 5 per cent. on the Isle of Anglesey council. Is he aware of any research on why the variation is so great and on what barriers exist to increasing women's participation on local councils? If there is no such research, will his Department commission it and then act upon it?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the problem of inadequate representation of women on many local authorities. Some 27 per cent. of all councillors are women, which is a better figure than this House, but it is still far below the proportion one would expect, given that women constitute about 50 per cent. of the population. Research has been undertaken by several bodies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the Improvement and
    158
    Development Agency, the Local Government Association and the constitution unit at University college, London, on reasons why women are under-represented at different levels in government. Several conclusions flow from that research, one of which is the selection processes to which I have already referred. The Government are committed to carrying forward positive measures, as set out in the legislation I have already mentioned, to make it possible for more women to be elected and play an effective role in government at all levels.

    Rail Services (East Midlands)
    David Taylor: What investment is planned in new east midlands local rail services in the next 10 years. [13552]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The extension of the Midland Mainline franchise to 2008 provides for a £240 million investment package that will benefit passengers in the east midlands. The Strategic Rail Authority's forthcoming strategic plan will set out its plans for enhancing the network to deliver key rail targets in the 10-year plan.
    David Taylor: Given the early success of the rail passenger partnership scheme in adding routes, services and stations on to the rail network, does the Minister believe that the recently revised criteria will allow more effective revenue and capital support to be given to schemes such as the national forest line through north-west Leicestershire? Will he visit our area so that he can have a look at the road congestion and community inaccessibility that projects such as that could start to tackle?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is right to say that the rail passenger partnership scheme has been successful, and some £45 million has already been approved for 31 schemes. However, he is also correct to say that the SRA has reconsidered the criteria and recently announced some improvements. I can confirm that from the end of the year, both capital and revenue support will be available. The limit for fast-track applications will also be increased from £100,000 to £ 50,000. Revised guidance reflecting those changes will be issued shortly.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's invitation to visit his constituency, I receive several such invitations and I will be more than pleased for my office to liaise with him to see whether we can arrange a visit so that he can show me the problems that he wants us to address and, I hope, reach a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that, while many of us on both sides of the House who take an interest in rail issues have worked with rail development groups to encourage investment in the east midlands and throughout the country, the Secretary of State's decision to pull the plug on Railtrack has severely damaged the prospects for rail investment? Does the Minister accept that what the House and the country now need are the civil servants' minutes—especially those of Treasury civil servants—of the meetings with the Secretary of State so that we can assess what the Secretary of State has said?
    Mr. Spellar: That contribution, from an hon. Member who represents a Surrey constituency, indicates the level of trivia to which the Opposition have descended, instead of being interested in the real issues of travel that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was rightly addressing.
    Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend talk to Railtrack about improving the western approach to Nottingham station? That improvement is essential if the local rail services are to be developed by making use of the old colliery lines in constituencies such as mine in Gedling.
    Mr. Spellar: I am pleased that my hon. Friend, unlike the Opposition, is addressing rail issues in the east midlands. I was able to see what was happening in Nottingham during a recent visit, when I had discussions with the local council. I know that the matter is being progressed.

    London Underground
    Harry Cohen: What discussions he has had with the Mayor of London and his transport commissioner about arrangements for monitoring investment in the London Underground: and if he will make a statement. [13554]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): We regularly meet the Mayor of London and his transport commissioner to discuss a range of matters to do with transport in London.
    Harry Cohen: Have the Government lost control of the public-private partnership contracts for the tube? In a letter to me, the transport commissioner said that they were immensely lengthy and involved a web of complex formulas. He described it as a dangerous game, and said that, as happened with Railtrack, the formulas would have to be renegotiated and restructured completely. He added that that process would cost a great deal—more than would be the case if they were right at the outset. Surely, given such dire warnings, the Government will not go ahead with those contracts?
    Mr. Spellar: The contracts will deliver considerable investment in the tube, and considerable improvements for the travelling public. In addition, the Government and London Underground are engaged in robust negotiations with the bidders. It is an interesting reversal to see that the Opposition seem to be against the private infrastructure companies, which have considerable expertise. My hon. Friend should look at the considerable success achieved as a result of private sector involvement on the Northern line. That has delivered real benefits for passengers in terms of both comfort and reliability.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister explain how the performance formula will work? How will the infrastructure companies be rewarded or penalised according to performance? The formula baffles
    160
    the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and the transport commissioner, and it most surely baffles me. I hope that the Minister is wiser.
    Mr. Spellar: Discussions are taking place between London Underground and the infrastructure companies. They are working together to achieve a formula that will ensure that proper performance is rewarded. There will be penalties for failure, and rewards for delivery. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed such incentivisation. The parties involved must get the negotiations right to ensure that the companies deliver for the travelling public. At the end of the process, the schemes will be evaluated to ensure that they deliver value for money. If they do, they will go ahead. That is good news for the travelling public—and for taxpayers, who will get value for money.
    Tom Brake: May I draw the Minister's attention to a few facts? Since the Government came to power, the number of cancelled peak-time trains has reached record levels. There have been 23 million customer hours lost in the past 12 months. Absenteeism among London Underground staff is at its highest level for five years. In addition, the annual service charges that London Underground will have to pay to the private—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too long.
    Mr. Spellar: I do not accept all the figures set out by the hon. Gentleman but, given all the problems that he has described, I am surprised that he wants to leave the system as it is.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: On 8 December 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the PPP on London Underground would
    "save £4.5 billion, which could be spent on education, health and other priority needs."—[Official Report, 8 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 847.]
    Things seem to have changed a little since then. The PPP contract is complex and no one understands it, and London Underground is having to meet interest rate costs of an extra £10 million a year. The Minister has just praised the contracts that have been drawn up, but they involve bonuses worth £90 million to the contractors, regardless of whether there is an improvement in the tube. What has gone wrong since 1999—besides the dead hand of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the final outcome of the negotiations and the package that will be put together. We will evaluate whether that represents value for money. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the extra £13 billion investment, which will ensure that we have a tube for this century. It will also ensure London's position as a world financial centre and capital. That is what we are doing, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to carp about it.

    Planning Reform
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What progress his Department is making in reforming the planning system; and if he will make a statement. [13555]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I shall shortly publish a Green Paper and a number of other consultation documents which, taken together, propose a comprehensive and radical overhaul of the planning system.
    Mr. Prisk: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that when large-scale planning developments, such as those at airports, are dealt with in the Green Paper, it is not his intention, nor that of the Government, to restrict the voice of local communities that may wish to challenge such developments?
    Mr. Byers: During my statement on terminal 5 at Heathrow, I will speak at greater length about our approach to major infrastructure projects. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we seek a balance between the understandable concerns of local residents who might be affected by a major planning application and the national need to make progress on some of these major projects. I think that most hon. Members agree that our present system is not working effectively. Local people often feel denied the opportunity to express their views and delay is built into the system. We will be publishing a consultation document, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's views on it.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the planning system. A public inquiry was held into a planning application in my constituency 12 months ago, yet we are still waiting for a decision. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new process is speeded up?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the speed of dealing with planning applications at a public inquiry. I share his concern about delays, which are often built into the system as a result of that process. The Green Paper, which should be published before Christmas, will deal specifically with that issue.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Government plan to build 40 towns the size of Slough in England over the next few years. If they intend to build so many houses on greenfield sites, what will happen when we have the sort of rainfall that we saw last year? Will that not mean that even more houses and businesses will be flooded?
    Mr. Byers: The Government have put in place measures to encourage the development of brownfield sites to overcome some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. However, it is interesting that the Conservative party is arguing against the building of new homes for people. It is a reversal of roles: Labour is seen to be the party of the home owner, whereas the Conservatives are denying people the opportunity of purchasing their own homes and will not allow them to be built. That is the Conservative party's position.
    162
    Our policies will ensure that the increased demand for people to buy their homes is met. We have got interest rates down and mortgages are more affordable than they were under the Conservative Government. Ten years ago, interest rates were at 15 per cent.—people could not afford mortgages then, but they can now. We will ensure that we meet the increased demand for houses. People should be able to buy their own home and, under this Government, more are able to do so.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that one of the enduring legacies of the 1945 Labour Government was not just the national health service, but the town and country planning legislation that ensured a balance between the national interest and the interests of ordinary people? As I listened to him at the Dispatch Box it seemed to be Lobbyspeak for BAA, BA and all the big battalions that are able to pour money into the Labour party and the Conservative party at party conferences, through exhibitions and by purchasing tables at fund-raising dinners. We look to the Secretary of State to protect the interests of the ordinary individual against the big battalions whose maxim is profit rather than the interests of the environment.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend, in his normal way, has highlighted a particular issue, but I say to him with all respect that, at present, major public planning inquiries have become a banquet for barristers—a lawyers' free lunch. They are the ones who are making money, not the local—[Interruption.] That may well offend the Opposition—[Interruption.]—but not people—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the Minister to answer.
    Mr. Byers: The point is that the Attlee Government—as my hon. Friend rightly said—showed how planning could be used as a key lever to achieve social renewal and economic regeneration. However, he must be aware that since then it has become highly technical; those political objectives are no longer achievable in the planning regime. What public inquiries have become is not an opportunity for local communities to have their say, but a place where barristers and lawyers represent the interests of parties to those proceedings. We need to change that, and the consultation document that we shall publish will provide new opportunities for the people about whom my hon. Friend is concerned to have their say, without the need to engage expensive barristers to argue their cause.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Not being a lawyer, unlike the Secretary of State, may I say that what people want is a planning system in which they can have confidence? What is wanted by campaigners such as those opposing motorway service areas in Meriden and Maidenhead, or those fighting to save our country spaces in Ipswich, is a Government who listen. People want homes in a decent environment with a good quality of life, not with green belt and green fields concreted over. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) were confirmed by Lord Falconer recently, when he admitted that the Government

    163
    are going to remove a tier of local decision making in planning and that as a result local communities will no longer have a voice in major planning decisions?
    Mr. Byers: I do not know who won the sweepstake for the first mention of Ipswich—2.52—in this Question Time. People in Ipswich, like people elsewhere in the country, will value the new planning regime that we intend to put in place. It will provide an opportunity to strip out some of the bureaucracy that currently exists and will make the whole planning process far more open and transparent for local people. If one talks to local people, who have been through the experience of a planning appeal and a planning inquiry, they say that the system is not friendly to individuals. We need to put in place a planning mechanism that strips out the bureaucracy and takes it out of the remit of people who are technically expert but who actually deny local people the opportunity to have their say. When the hon. Lady reads the Green Paper, I think that she will feel able to support many of its proposals, because they are straightforward common sense. They will balance the interests of development with the needs of local people and local communities.

    Housing (Brownfield Sites)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What proportion of new housing is being constructed on brownfield sites; and what plans there are to increase this amount. [13556]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): Last year, 57 per cent. of new housing was provided on previously developed land, including conversions. Our target is to raise that to 60 per cent. by 2008 through our "brownfields first" planning policy.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she tell us what progress has been made in the development of brownfield sites in Coventry, the west midlands and, obviously, nationally? I am sure that the good people of Ipswich will be interested to know the answer, too.
    Ms Keeble: I am not so sure about Ipswich, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in Coventry, the returns to the Audit Commission show that, for 2000–01, the city has achieved a total of 66 per cent. of new housing built on brownfield sites, which outstrips the Government's target. For 2001–02, the target is 68 per cent.
    Mr. John Taylor: Would not it be a good idea to build the national football stadium on a brownfield site in Coventry, and spare Solihull's green belt?
    Ms Keeble: The decision about the national stadium will, of course, be taken by colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am sure that they will put at the forefront the interests of sport, and the planning decisions will follow.
    Mr. David Miliband: Does my hon. Friend recognise the concern in the north-east that we are suffering from a planning mindset framed in the
    164
    south-east? Will she take careful note of the many representations from my constituents and others to free up the land north of the Nissan plant for industrial use?
    Ms Keeble: I am very aware of the need for a strategic site for new industries in my hon. Friend's region. We shall consider the details shortly and take a decision.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What steps are being taken to replace gap funding in the development of brownfield sites?
    Ms Keeble: We are obviously considering the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers to ensure that we achieve the maximum possible development on brownfield sites.

    Local Communities (Partnerships)
    Jim Knight: What steps his Department is taking to encourage partnerships in local communities. [13557]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): The Government expect county, district and parish councils to work in partnership with one another, with local communities and other public, private and voluntary sector organisations, to provide the best quality services for local people. We are taking a number of steps to foster that work, including the promotion of local strategic partnerships to bring those groups together.
    Under the duty of best value, we also expect local councils to explore new ways to deliver public services. That is why we have just launched a new taskforce on strategic service delivery further to encourage partnership working with the private sector.
    I understand that there is effective joint working between the public, private, community and voluntary sectors in Dorset. My hon. Friend has been active in promoting those partnerships, and I commend him for that.
    Jim Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, in my constituency, Dorset county council is keen to pilot new strategic partnering arrangements with the private sector, as an alternative to using the private finance initiative to deliver important transport infrastructure improvements—in particular, the Weymouth relief road? Will he comment on how such strategic partnering arrangements might work and give me an update on them?
    Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Weymouth relief road scheme has been provisionally accepted, subject to the successful completion of the planning and statutory processes, and that the Government have asked Dorset county council to explore the opportunities for a private finance initiative, possibly to provide an increase in the scheme's value for money. However, if Dorset wishes to engage in a longer-term statutory service delivery partnership, which might include schemes such as the Weymouth relief road, we have, as I have said, recently established a strategic partnering taskforce. That taskforce will, in particular,

    165
    provide expert advice and support to authorities wishing to enter into such long-term partnerships. Earlier this month, we invited authorities to apply for partnership pathfinder status, and my hon. Friend might care to discuss whether Dorset wants to take that route when he next talks to representatives of the county council.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Before we have a partnership in local communities, could we have a partnership between Departments? Is the Minister aware of a daft anomaly whereby, when a care home upgrades its facilities in line with Government guidelines for higher standards, the local authority valuation office assesses each resident for full council tax? That has happened in the home run by the Royal National Institute for the Blind at Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency. It is a clear example of his Department not talking to other Departments and the Treasury, and it is causing great distress for elderly and blind residents. Will he sort it out?
    Dr. Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot reply to an individual case at the moment, but if he cares to write to me, I will look into it. He should be aware, however, that the Government's forthcoming White Paper on local government will, among other things, emphasise how important partnership between central Government and local government is to ensuring that local government works well.

    Rail Investment
    Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on investment in the railway system in the next 10 years. [13558]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government, through their 10-year plan, remain committed to delivering a better, safer and more reliable railway network that is fit for the 21st century. We plan to spend £30 billion over the next 10 years to achieve substantial improvements and are confident that some £34 billion will come from the private sector.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will recognise that the future of the east coast main line and of the trans-Pennine route is absolutely crucial to the regeneration and future economic prosperity of the key areas of the north-east and Yorkshire. Will he put his mind to the fact that there is a potential skills shortage in the railway industry? That might prevent the investment profile coming forward, thereby stymieing that investment and doing lots of damage to the future economy of those areas?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the current skills deficiency in the railway network. That is partly a result of decades of under-investment in the railway system. We now need to move away from a short-term approach to the industry, which leads to a lack of investment in skills, to a situation where through long-term investment, the 10-year plan and the investment of £30 billion of public money, we can, once again, begin to invest in the people at the heart of the railway system. The people who operate the signals, drive the trains and maintain the track must be the real priority for the future
    166
    and, under measures that we are introducing with the Strategic Rail Authority and other sectors of the industry, we intend to make them exactly that.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, when he told me in the Chamber on 3 July that structural change would simply introduce paralysis into the system, he was just kidding? Will he remind the House of the date that he decided that structural change was necessary to avoid, as opposed to produce, paralysis and of the date that he informed his close friend and colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of that desirable objective?
    Mr. Byers: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. Had he been here slightly more often, he would have been aware of the fact that the dates have been debated on several occasions. He will know that it was not until 25 July that the chairman of Railtrack came to me and said that it had problems in terms of the company's financial future. That obviously changed the whole nature of our response. As I have said to the House on more than one occasion, the decision about not providing additional funds for Railtrack was taken by me on behalf of the Government on 5 October.
    Jim Dobbin: Is it the Government's intention to increase investment in more strategic rail terminals and to make greater use of rail freight?
    Mr. Byers: The fact that the Rail Regulator has, in the past two or three weeks, announced a 50 per cent. reduction in the charges for freight on the railway network will lead to increased demand for freight to be carried by rail. That will make a significant contribution not just towards helping the freight industry use the railways but towards achieving our objective in the 10-year plan of seeing up to an 80 per cent. increase in freight on the railway system. That is one of a number of measures that we shall introduce over the next few months. It will send the clear message that we believe the railway system is a very good way of transporting freight in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The Secretary of State referred to the Strategic Rail Authority, but its chairman has said that the right hon. Gentleman's action on Railtrack has caused tremendous damage. Will he now confirm that it could take up to a year to put the replacement company in place and more than a year to get the first special purpose vehicle for investment up and running; that public investment is guaranteed for only two years, not 10; that there is no guarantee of private sector investment; and that his changes to the franchising regime could deter investment in the long term by the train operating companies? Will he confirm that all passengers can look forward to is more delays caused by Byers on the line?
    Mr. Byers: That fell a bit flat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question. It is clear that the Conservatives' approach to Railtrack is to muddle through and do nothing. That is the implication of everything they say.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the approach of the Conservatives that should concern the Secretary of State; it is that of the Government.
    Mr. Byers: I take the view, on the Government's behalf, that decisions have to be made if we are to create a railway system fit for the 21st century that reflects the fact that we are the fourth biggest economy in the world. Conservative Members may be prepared to accept the present situation, but we in government are not.
    In terms of special purpose vehicles, we are confident that they will succeed, and not in the time scale identified by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Public investment will come through. We are confident of that. In terms of franchises, the hon. Lady has to recognise that the present franchise system was failing to deliver. We are changing it because we want to deliver on behalf of passengers, and that is what we will do.
    I have met train operating companies two or three times in the past few weeks and they tell me that our decision on Railtrack provides a golden opportunity to create a railway system for the future. That is what the industry says. I do not know how often the hon. Lady speaks to it, but next time she comes to the Dispatch Box let us get the figures and the names of people who are saying such things because it would be informative for the House to find out what the situation is.
    Conservative Members may not like it, but the reality is that we will take the necessary difficult decisions, which they will oppose, to ensure that we improve the railway system. Muddle is not good enough. That is what the Tories want. We are taking decisive action in the interests of the travelling public.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the deplorable service provided by Virgin Trains between London and north Wales. Is he also aware of the suggestion that Virgin West Coast will be transferred to Virgin CrossCountry, which might mean that routes are diverted, so causing great inconvenience to passengers, and that it might be sold to another company?
    Mr. Byers: These are matters that can be dealt with by the Strategic Rail Authority as part of the franchising regime. The important point is that train operating companies have responsibilities to deliver on the franchise they have entered into. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are drawn to the attention not just of Virgin, as the train operating company, but of the SRA, the body with responsibility for ensuring that the conditions and terms attached to a franchise are delivered by the relevant operating company.

    Local Government (Consultation)
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What consultation process is being utilised to decide on the form of executive local councils adopt; and if he will make a statement. [13559]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): Our approach is that it is for people to choose how they are to be governed locally, and that councils thus need to listen to the views of their local communities.
    To help English councils we, together with the Local Government Association, have produced consultation guidelines to support our statutory direction that councils should use both quantitative and qualitative methods in consulting on proposals for new constitutional arrangements. The introduction of new council constitutions in Wales is a devolved matter, and I understand that the National Assembly for Wales has issued similar material to assist Welsh local authorities.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. For obvious reasons, I will not mention Ipswich.
    I have a non-political point to make. Councillors from across the political spectrum tell me that back-bench councillors feel excluded from the decision-making process on the four options. Are there proposals to increase the role of back-bench councillors in that process?
    Dr. Whitehead: The new council constitutions, which are being adopted throughout the country as councils consult on their preferred options, include a substantial role for back-bench councillors in, among other things, the local authority scrutiny process. It is up to authorities to ensure that their scrutiny processes operate well and accord with the guidelines on constitutions. Back benchers have, in a variety of ways, a central role in ensuring that local authorities work well.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Does the Minister agree that, whatever the structure of local councils, their funding is central to the delivery of high quality services? Urban districts in the north of England continue to be at a huge disadvantage in the existing funding system. We welcome the Government's decision to change the system of standard spending assessments on 1 April 2003, but can my hon. Friend say how the system will change, and how quickly?
    Dr. Whitehead: The Government's settlements have been systematically favourable to local authorities in general, but I accept that the SSA system has meant that they have not always been perceived as transparent or equally applied throughout the country. Consequently, the Government have pledged fundamentally to reform the SSA system in the financial year 2003–04. We will simplify the system and ensure greater transparency, so that people who are concerned about funding can see how settlements have been worked out.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does not the Minister realise that there is considerable public concern that the executive structures are far more secretive than the old committee system, a fact confirmed by his predecessor last December, when she said:
    "Let's have no fantasies about this being an open regime"?

    169
    Does not that, combined with a delay until 2005 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 coming into force, mean that Labour's control-freakery has made local government less open in order to hide Labour-run councils' failures?
    Dr. Whitehead: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman can make a very good case by comparing new constitutional arrangements with previous systems of local government. The new arrangements ensure that executives can make decisions crisply and in the interests of local electors. They also ensure transparency: decisions will be properly reported and, above all, properly scrutinised in public. That is how the new constitutions are working throughout the country.

    Seaside and Coastal Towns
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the impact of transience and population mobility on the ranking of seaside and coastal towns within the index of local deprivation. [13560]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): There is no assessment of transience or population mobility in the Indices of Deprivation 2000, although it was considered. We are confident that the index picks up deprivation in seaside and coastal towns, as 18 of the 81 most deprived districts in England are coastal local authorities.
    Mr. Marsden: Bearing it in mind that Blackpool is currently the 51st most deprived in that index, does the Minister agree that many of the people coming to seaside towns, particularly for employment, present with multiple deprivation problems? Will she therefore give an undertaking to work closely with her colleagues in other Departments on cross-cutting measures that will improve the analysis of the standard spending assessment for education and social services, on which coastal and seaside towns are currently at a disadvantage?
    Ms Keeble: I pay tribute to the work that has been done by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who represent seaside towns in looking at the difficulties in their areas. One reason why we did not accept the argument about transience and population mobility is that it is not necessarily a sign of success if a population remains in an area for a long time, and indeed it might be a sign of disadvantage. In recognition of the difficulties in coastal and seaside towns, the Government are spending over £297 million in those areas through neighbourhood renewal funds and the single regeneration budget. The groups studying local authority funding are also considering some of the issues that my hon. Friend identifies.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that many members of the transient population visiting towns like Hunstanton in west Norfolk often like to play machines in amusement arcades? Is she aware that the future of those arcades is threatened by the
    170
    Budd report, which may possibly lead to a significant loss of jobs and a rise in local deprivation indices? What is her view of the report and the damage that it may well do?
    Ms Keeble: Quite a few of us have been lobbied on the report, but it is not for my Department to consider; the decision is being taken by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
    Dr. John Pugh: Would the Minister support, or at any rate consider, a cross-departmental regionally based regeneration unit as advocated by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) in a debate in the Chamber last week?
    Ms Keeble: I have already set out the amount of money that is going into seaside areas. If the kind of scheme for the coalfields were available to seaside towns, it would have two elements. One allows for discretionary spending of about £80 million, which is much less than seaside towns currently receive. The larger element of the coalfields funding is for land decontamination, which is a completely different issue. I appreciate the difficulties that seaside towns have; the Government recognise them and are providing funding. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at some of the problems faced by those areas; in total, there is a very good package to deal with their problems.

    Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
    Mr. Paul Truswell: What representations he has received regarding reform of the fire call element of the standard spending assessment for fire and civil defence authorities; and if he will make a statement. [13561]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): A number of representations have been received from hon. Members and fire service interests supporting removal of the calls indicator from the fire SSA funding distribution formula. We recognise those concerns and are committed to removing the calls indicator. As part of the overall review of local government finance, we are working up proposals, in partnership with local government, on a way of funding the fire service from 2003–04 by a means of distribution that is fair and free from perverse incentives.
    Mr. Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he accept that, until the formula is revised, West Yorkshire fire authority will continue to be heavily penalised for its success in reducing the number of fire calls? Does he acknowledge that that authority is one of the most efficient in the country? Will he take steps, as in the past, to mitigate the effects on its income so that it is not forced either to make unacceptable cuts in services or to introduce a huge hike in the council tax precept?
    Dr. Whitehead: I accept that overall the fire service is succeeding and is efficient; generally, it gives excellent value for the money paid by local council tax payers. We are engaged with local authority representatives in considering changes to the SSA formula. I accept that an indicator that appears to penalise local fire authorities if they are successful in ensuring that fires are prevented,

    171
    in addition to putting out fires, is not the best way of ensuring that they carry out their duties as efficiently and effectively as possible.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that in this year's settlement floors and ceilings will be applied to the grants settlement for fire and police authorities. I hope that that will provide comfort by ensuring that settlements are appropriate to the costs incurred by fire authorities.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Minister will be aware that if the Hereford and Worcester combined fire authority were to operate at the level funded by the Government, it would be operating an illegal service. In his forthcoming review, will he promise the people of Hereford and Worcestershire that they will not have to top up that service from a central Government grant that could be used for other services? Will his review ensure that he funds the service at a level at which it will be legally viable?
    Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Lady will be aware that reviews are based on attempting to ensure that funding for fire authorities and local authorities in general is fair and properly distributed. On the suggestion that I should promise today particular funding for one authority, which would be unique as far as the review is concerned, I do not think that she seriously expects me to come out with such a statement. However, the review that is currently being undertaken of fire call indicators, and especially the proposals that are being put in place to replace them, will ensure that fire service funding is more fair and transparent, and that fire services overall can do for the future the job that they are succeeding in doing at the moment.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Chris Pond: What measures he is taking to improve rural bus services. [13562]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): Traditionally, rural areas have been poorly served by bus services, especially since deregulation in the 1980s. That is one of the reasons why we introduced new powers in the Transport Act 2000 that will improve bus services throughout the country by raising standards and improving access to services. Furthermore, a 50 per cent. increase over the current three-year period in funding for rural bus grants will provide for further improvements to rural bus services. My hon. Friend will be aware that Kent has received a generous allowance this year of £1.6 million in the form of rural bus subsidy grant.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Gravesham has an award-winning town centre, a brand new hospital on its doorstep and two fine leisure centres, but that these facilities are not easily accessible to many of my rural constituents who do not have a car? Indeed, neither can many of those who live in urban areas enjoy the fine countryside nearby. Will he give my constituents some optimism that, in the not-too-distant
    172
    future, they will have something other than the rather sparse and expensive bus services that are now available, but which are often not available at all on Sundays?
    Mr. Jamieson: I know that my hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on behalf of his rural constituents. I can appreciate why he wants them to reap the benefits of the excellent new facilities provided by Gravesham borough council, which is, I believe, a Labour council. Not only has Kent had a generous settlement for rural bus subsidy, but it has had several bids accepted under the rural bus challenge scheme of more than El million in the past three years. If he wants to find an example of a good scheme that is currently operating, there is one outside his area that was last year awarded £275,000. The scheme, which is called the Bike and Bus Butty, uses minibuses for towing trailers to bring cycles to their riders place of work or destination. If he is considering making a journey out of London in the next few days, he should know that he will find that scheme in Ipswich.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that his Department has just turned down a grant for Ipswich borough council in a rural part of that constituency. If the people of Ipswich cannot get a decent bus service during a by-election, when can the people of this country ever expect this Government to support rural buses again?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am sorry that I pre-empted the hon. Gentleman by announcing a scheme that has been undertaken in Ipswich. I am sure that, in the by-election, the people of Ipswich will be reflecting on just how much money they would have received for their rural bus services in the unfortunate event of his party having won the election in June.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that rural bus services have doubled in some areas in my constituency. Unfortunately, however, the buses still travel at the wrong time to get people into the town centre of Loughborough, which makes it almost impossible to increase bus usage. Will he ensure that this money, which is very welcome, is targeted at the sort of people whom we need, including bus commuters and people who travel during the day? We need much more flexible use, so that people can not only use bus routes from villages straight into town, but visit large numbers of villages in the surrounding area, perhaps by using minibuses or other innovative schemes.
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He may not be aware of the number of innovative schemes that have been introduced throughout the country under the rural bus challenge. Some of them involve car taxis, one of which I visited recently in Lincoln. The scheme is very successfully bringing people who dial-a-ride into centres where they can either catch a bus or get on to the rail services. We are committed to looking at innovative ways of improving bus transport for people not only in rural areas, but in urban areas.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Commercial buses already get a fuel duty rebate. Some 18 months ago, the Government promised to give community transport such a rebate. When will they fulfil that promise?
    Mr. Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is under urgent consideration.

    Railtrack
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If he will outline the structure of the company replacing Railtrack; and what has been the cost to date of the administrators. [13563]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): It will be for the administrator to bring forward a transfer proposal. Proposals will be put before the administrator for a company limited by guarantee. The Government welcome the interest shown by third parties in taking over the railway network to date, and have recently published guidelines to assist the formulation of such proposals. The cost of the administrators to 2 November 2001 was just under £2 million.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State knows that unless the new Railtrack is more engineering based than its predecessor, all the problems of incompetent management could arise again. Will he give us an undertaking today that the new Railtrack will genuinely tackle problems such as maintenance, modernisation and development and put responsibility to the passenger at the top of its agenda?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which she chairs, was unanimous about the litany of failure that constituted Railtrack's stewardship of the railway network. It recommended the use of engineering skills to the full if we are to get the network into a suitable condition.
    That is one reason for the Government's belief that any successor to Railtrack should focus on operations, renewals and maintenance—the day-to-day job of running an effective railway network We want to do that, and the administrator is aware of the guidelines that I have set out and that we published in the House three weeks ago.
    I am confident that we have an opportunity to recast the railway network out of what happened to Railtrack and its insolvency. Some major decisions remain to be made. They will be taken in the next few weeks to ensure that we can provide the structure that will enable this country to have the railway network it deserves.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the new company be obliged to take on Railtrack's capital programme? In Somerset, we shall believe that we live in the world's fourth largest economy when trains occasionally stop in my constituency. We had persuaded
    174
    Railtrack to do a feasibility study on reopening stations on the main line. Does that commitment have any substance? Does the capital programme continue to exist?
    Mr. Byers: Yes. I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that the capital programme remains; it has not gone with Railtrack. Improvements are needed, but I believe that decisions are being made more quickly because of the current position. We need to ensure that major decisions, such as those that affect the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the west coast main line, are not delayed because of administration but concluded. We can thus look to a positive future for the railway network when we move out of administration.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the structure of the company that replaces Railtrack is important to my constituency? That is true not only because of the importance of the continued investment in the west coast main line that he mentioned, but because Railtrack, Virgin and Macclesfield borough council had agreed a partnership scheme to upgrade the station. Macclesfield is a major profit centre for Virgin Trains. If we are to use rail to its maximum extent, which the Secretary of State requires, the improvements must go ahead urgently under the new company.
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know through the questions that he has asked in the House that he is dissatisfied on behalf of his constituents with the quality of the railway service that they experience in Macclesfield. I believe that the changes will mean genuine improvements.
    On the specific point about Macclesfield station, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will investigate exactly where it is—[interruption.] I know that it is in Macclesfield and, indeed, in Cheshire. However, I shall investigate where it is in the planning process, and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Ken Purchase: What progress has been made with negotiating local public service agreements with English local authorities. [13564]
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Negotiations were completed and agreements concluded with 20 local authorities during the pilot stage of the scheme. We are currently concluding negotiations with the first four authorities involved in the roll-out of the scheme to all top-tier local authorities. Negotiations have started with the next 12 authorities involved in the roll-out, and negotiating slots have been timetabled with a further 103 authorities, including Wolverhampton, over the next 18 months.
    Mr. Purchase: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but I draw his attention to the fact that despite the many more millions of pounds that have been ploughed into local authorities over recent years, many local authorities feel that much of the cash has been targeted and ring-fenced, with the effect that it has impeded rather than improved the good and efficient management of those

    175
    authorities. Can my right hon. Friend tell us that the targets that he intends to set will assist the good management of local authorities, rather than constrain them unnecessarily with targeting and ring-fencing?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. He will not have to wait too long for the publication of our local government White Paper, which will set out an
    176
    ambitious and, I believe, welcome programme to reduce the number of constraints and controls on local government, to reduce the extent of ring-fencing, and to extend opportunities for freedom and flexibility for authorities to succeed. It is precisely that freedom and flexibility that has been so welcome among local authorities as part of the LPSA programme, which is why we are rolling it out throughout the country.

Heathrow (Terminal 5)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the proposal to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport, and to outline our intention to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system.
I am today publishing the inspector's report into Heathrow terminal 5, as well as my decision letter. Copies of both have been placed in the Library of the House. My decision and the reasons for it have been set out in the decision letter itself.
The inquiry into terminal 5 was the longest in British planning history. It opened in May 1995 and closed in March 1999. The inspector, Mr. Roy Vandermeer QC, reported to my Department on 20 December last year. I thank the inspector for his report, and I am grateful to him for the great diligence that he has shown.
The delay in reaching a decision since the report was received in December arises because, since the inspector reported, the applicants—BAA, which owns and operates Heathrow airport—warned in May that they wished to revise the twin rivers scheme, which was a part of the original application. It was August before they put forward any details. That then required consultation, which was completed by the middle of October.
After considering the inspector's report and taking into account all the relevant considerations, I have today given my approval to the development of terminal 5 at Heathrow airport. Such a development is in the national interest. It will enable Heathrow to remain a world-class airport, and it will bring benefits to the British economy. At the same time as giving my approval to the development, I have imposed conditions in order to protect the interests of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow airport.
In his report, the inspector stresses that the issue is essentially one of striking a balance. He identifies clearly the benefits of terminal 5, which are considerable. He sees Heathrow as essential for keeping the United Kingdom air transport industry strong and competitive. However, the inspector sees wider benefits, beyond the aviation industry. He points to benefits for London and for the UK as a whole. He says that Heathrow has done much to attract investment to the UK, and that London's success as a world city and financial centre could be threatened unless Heathrow stays competitive.
The inspector states that by ensuring Heathrow's continued success, terminal 5 would make a major contribution to the national economy. He also says that it would be good for passengers, providing a terminal equal to the best in the world and relieving the pressure on the other four terminals.
I also agree with the inspector that the real beneficiaries if terminal 5 is not given the go-ahead will be Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Schipol in Amsterdam and Frankfurt airports.
The inspector, though, rightly draws attention to the disadvantages of giving the go-ahead. Those, too, are important. There is noise, and the inspector addresses the
178
issue at length. He considers matters such as extra road traffic, air quality, intrusion into the green belt and the effects of construction.
The inspector weighs all the benefits and costs very carefully. He says, and I use his words, that he has come to the clear conclusion that the benefits of terminal 5 would substantially outweigh the environmental impact, as long as its effects are properly controlled. I agree with him that terminal 5 should go ahead, but subject to conditions. I shall outline the key conditions to the House.
First, a limit on the number of flights each year has been set at 480,000. The limit has been imposed on a precautionary basis, and because of the inspector's concerns about noise. It was recommended by the inspector himself. Last year, Heathrow handled some 460,000 flights and just under 65 million passengers. Even with a limit of 480,000 flights, the inspector adopted a figure of 90 million passengers each year as the capacity of Heathrow if terminal 5 is built—an extra 25 million passengers at Heathrow each year.
Secondly, the noise effects of terminal 5 will also be limited by a condition restricting the area enclosed by the 57-decibel noise contour to 145 sq km as front 2016. Again, this follows the inspector's recommendation.
The inspector recommends stricter controls on night flights. I recognise that there is considerable concern about night noise, but I am not legally entitled to change the night noise regime without consultation. I shall consult on extending the night quota period when I next make proposals for the night noise regime for the BAA London airports. I have decided that the consultation will take place by 2003 at the latest.
The House should also be aware that we have already announced a change to the system of so-called westerly preference at Heathrow to reduce the number of night flights over built-up west London. That is in line with one of the inspector's recommendations. We have also announced a major research study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. That will permit a fresh look at the present LEQ noise index on which the inspector commented.
I have agreed with the inspector on the need to promote the use of public transport, so I have imposed conditions, as he recommended, requiring the extension to terminal 5 of both the Heathrow express and the Piccadilly line before the new terminal is opened.
I have also agreed with the inspector to cut the provision of car parking spaces for the airport as a whole below that in the original proposals. I am imposing a condition limiting total spaces to 42,000 rather than the 46,000 proposed by BAA. Of those, only 17,500, rather than the 21,700 originally proposed, will be available for employees.
The terminal proposals also included widening the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b, but I agree with the inspector that that widening is inappropriate. I have therefore refused approval for it.
As to the timing, I have imposed conditions requiring that work to implement any of the planning approvals should not start until a separate approval has been given to the essential scheme for diverting the twin rivers that flow across the terminal 5 site. That will ensure a proper opportunity for full examination of that scheme.
I should touch on three further points. The first relates to the tragic events of 11 September, and the effects of those terrorist attacks on air travel. In reaching my

179
decision I noted that the inspector had based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016, and terminal 5 is clearly expected to be in operation for much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis.
Secondly, Members will know of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, delivered on 2 October this year, in the case of Hatton and others against the United Kingdom. The case concerned night noise at Heathrow, and the court held by a majority that there had been an infringement of the European convention on human rights. I am considering that judgment, which will not become final until at least three months after its delivery. Quite apart from my decision on terminal 5, I will of course wish to ensure that the night noise regime at Heathrow complies with the convention.
Thirdly, I am well aware of the time that was taken by the process of the public inquiry into terminal 5. In saying that I mean no criticism of the inspector, but whether such lengthy inquiries are appropriate must be an issue. I announced on 20 July that we were considering a package of measures to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. That included a commitment to publish up-to-date statements of Government policy before major infrastructure projects were considered in the planning system to help reduce inquiry time spent on debating the policy, the introduction of new arrangements to give Parliament an opportunity to approve projects in principle, and improved public inquiry procedures. We shall publish further details for consultation in the next two months.
Together with the other steps that we shall propose to improve the operation of the planning and compulsory purchase systems, those measures will both safeguard the rights of people to have their say and reduce the time taken in future to reach decisions on major infrastructure projects.
My decision and the reasons for it are set out in full in the decision letter that I issued today. Nothing that I say here today should be seen as in any way a substitute for what is in that lengthy letter. I have decided that giving the go-ahead for a fifth terminal is essential if we are to maintain Heathrow as one of the world's leading airports and bring benefits to the British economy. I have no doubt that the national interest requires the project to proceed, as long as we establish measures to safeguard local people and their communities. I believe my decision achieves that, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Eric Pickles: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a copy of his statement in advance. As he will recall, the last statement arrived somewhat late. I am delighted that this one arrived in plenty of time, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Let me also associate the Opposition with what he said about the inspector, who must have spent a considerable part of his professional life preparing for and deliberating on the fifth terminal.
The statement has indeed been a long time coming. It has been eight years in the making, and the cost has been £84 million. Moreover—the Secretary of State explained why this was necessary—the report gathered dust on his
180
desk for a year after its completion. It will, of course, be welcomed by the aviation industry as a vital boost in these difficult times, while being received by some residents with a degree of regret.
During the right hon. Gentleman's statement I had sight of the decision letter, which is indeed complex. It is right for conditions to be set: it would be entirely wrong to establish a fifth terminal without setting conditions relating to night flights, to the number of flights, or to noise. However, there is a deep tragedy about parts of the announcement. Instead of its being a triumph for the aviation industry and for addressing the environmental concerns of local people, T5, at least the planning side, will be remembered as the last hurrah of a cumbersome planning system.
Much has happened in the past eight years. Seven terminals have been built in Europe and eight runways have been planned and built while terminal 5 was deliberated on. Heathrow's position as the main gateway to Europe cannot be guaranteed, despite terminal 5, until beyond the end of the decade, but there is a danger—I would be grateful for the Secretary of State's views on this—that we might be reading the wrong message on terminal 5. The points made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) have some merit. We need to draw a balance between competitive decision making and the rights of local people. Communities have a right to a say on regional issues because they have to bear the consequences of those decisions.
It must be said that much of the time was taken up by pointless verbal repetition of written statements on terminal 5. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we see a streamlining, but not a stifling, of debate? We need to ensure that key issues are addressed. Local voices do matter.
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a vote of confidence in the future, but any contraction in the airline industry will make it more rather than less likely that Heathrow will be used, as airlines start to fall back on Heathrow rather than other airports, and that the terminal will bring nothing more than a catch-up on capacity?
With regard to the conditions, I have a number of points to raise. In his consultation, does the Secretary of State envisage looking towards a reduction of the 16 night flights? On noise, will he ensure that the studies on the effect of sleep deprivation, which I understand have been carried out only in Manchester, will take place in Heathrow and the wider area? Will he in particular ensure that the flight lines are vigorously monitored and that those who fail to follow them are prosecuted? Does the Secretary of State recognise that limiting the number of flights will further squeeze the number of slots available to regional airports? What are his views on that?
On the Secretary of State's conditions on public transport, does he understand that, until that public transport is readily available, the squeezing of car parking places will just make congestion worse? With regard to the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly line, do his conditions ensure a degree of flexibility, particularly with regard to links in the west, to relieve pressure? I notice that paragraph 55 of his conditions seeks to limit the number of passengers on the Heathrow Express. How does that relate to the squeezing of the car parking spaces? Does he support Mayor Livingstone's suggestion that congestion charging may be introduced at Heathrow?

181
The Minister of State, Lord Falconer, has promised a clear statement on national policies on infrastructure. Can the Secretary of State give some indication whether airports will be the subject of the first such statement?
The Secretary of State promises a paper on aviation in the spring. Will that paper give a clear indication whether the Government see the need for an additional runway in the south-east and whether it should be at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or on the Thames estuary? Is that how he now envisages planning should take place?
We recognise that a lot of hard work has gone into the deliberations, and that this is just the beginning of a very long process before terminal 5 is concluded. We would be grateful for a response from the Secretary of State on those specific issues.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions, and I shall try to answer them in the order in which they were asked. He mentioned the very good work of the inspector, Mr. Roy Vandermeer QC, who I think has done a very thorough and effective job. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is able to associate the Opposition with my opening remarks on the work that he has done. The report has taken a long time, but I should say that it has not been gathering dust on my desk. I should have liked to take a decision on the matter soon after I entered office, but we had to wait for BAA to come up with the changes that it wanted to the twin rivers scheme. That has delayed today's announcement.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was right about contraction in air travel. There may certainly be contraction in the next two years, in the light of events on 11 September, but the experience of the Gulf war was that, after no more than six months or so, air traffic took off again and numbers began to increase. Although I had to consider that issue in relation to the inspector's report and the forecast to 2016, it was not an issue that affected the inspector's report. The important point for Heathrow is that it goes to quality and is considered around the world to be a first-rate airport. It is a quality airport that we can provide in the United Kingdom.
No decisions have been taken yet on the detail of the consultation document in relation to the issue of night flights; they will have to wait until we embark on that particular process. I am perfectly willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should extend the number of factors such as noise that are taken into account, to include sleep disturbance, for example, which is clearly a very important issue. When flight paths are agreed they should be followed and we shall ensure that that is done stringently.
The inspector's view was that 480,000 flight movements annually was striking the right balance. It is worth reflecting on the fact that he strongly believed that with 480,000 flight movements annually and other changes, such as the move to larger aircraft which are still quieter than current aircraft, 90 million passengers annually at Heathrow is the potential that could be achieved.
On public transport, the hon. Gentleman was right to point out the importance of the Piccadilly line and the Heathrow Express, which we will want to see extended to terminal 5. As the decision letter makes very clear, the number of people using the Heathrow express is a particular issue in relation to possible problems at Paddington. That issue will have to be addressed.
182
We do not expect the 480,000 flight movements to be in any way detrimental to regional services. Indeed, one would have thought that the increase of 20,000 flight movements annually offers potential from which regional airports can benefit. An aviation White Paper will be published in 2002 that will address some of the wider issues, over and above the planning application, affecting Heathrow airport and the terminal 5 application.
I have not seen any proposals from the Mayor on congestion charging at Heathrow. I have seen newspaper comment on such proposals but no detail from the Mayor. It is not an issue that he has raised in the regular meetings that we have with him.
On the wider issue of infrastructure projects and a streamlined planning process, I am very clear that, when it comes to planning, our responsibility is to take people with us in the process. I do not want people to feel that they have to resist change totally. The real challenge facing us is to put in place a planning process that enables people to feel that they are partners in change, not victims of change. What that means in practice is allowing people to articulate their own concerns, either through their Member of Parliament or without having to do so through very expensive lawyers. I do not believe that the current system allows individuals to do that.
I may be overly optimistic, but I believe that we can propose a better process that allows Parliament as a democratic body to have a say on the principle of policies and also allows local people to express their concerns about the local impact and detail of any particular planning application. It is streamlining, not stifling, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has to be the objective of any reformed and changed system. However, I am also clear that change must be made. Terminal 5 is a lesson in how not to plan major infrastructure projects that are in the national interest. The current system does not help our competitive position in a global economy.
Alan Keen: I have lived within six miles of Heathrow airport for nearly 40 years, and for the 13 years before I was elected in 1992, I worked only half a mile from the touch-down point. Therefore, I know and have experienced the problems that Heathrow causes, but we are very proud of the air transport industry. I wish to raise what will seem a small problem to other people but is a large problem for those of my constituents who face the worst of the noise and who live close to the touch-down point in Cranford ward.
At the poorly designed junction between the A4 and the A312, the local people who face the worst noise sometimes have to queue for 20 minutes to join the traffic jam. The Mayor says that he cannot find the money to help, but if anybody deserves assistance it is those people who live so close to Heathrow. I could make an hour-long speech about many other issues, but if the Secretary of State would consider the point I have raised, my constituents and I would be most grateful.
Mr. Byers: On the question of noise, when my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the decision letter, he will see that that issue is addressed, and the inspector gave proper consideration to it. If he can provide me with the details of the issue that he raises—it is separate, in a sense, from the planning decision that has been taken today—we will be happy to consider it as part of our local transport

183
initiatives. We are committing significant extra finance to support local transport schemes and the example that he has given may qualify for the new consideration that we are giving to such projects.
Tom Brake: I also wish to thank the Secretary of State for providing the statement in advance, and to commend the planning inspector on the work that he has done. We have waited a long time for the decision, but unfortunately it is the wrong one from our point of view. The Secretary of State has imposed some welcome conditions, but several areas of uncertainty remain. I have a few simple questions that I hope the Secretary of State will be able to answer.
Can the Secretary of State rule out a third runway, in a way that would be legally enforceable? Can he confirm that the figure of 480,000 flights a year is a permanent and legally enforceable limit? Can he guarantee that as a result of the construction of terminal 5 no additional road widening—for example, of the M25—will be necessary? Can he confirm that no erosion of safety standards will be allowed? One of the concerns is that more flights will equal shortened distances between planes, with the consequent risk to safety. Finally, can he confirm that the changes he proposes to the planning process will ensure that it is more streamlined and that communities will be able to have their say, with an independent appeal process available to them?
Mr. Byers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the inspector's work. This is a difficult issue, especially for people who live nearby, and we are trying to strike a balance between the national interest and the need to safeguard the quality of life of people living nearby. The decision letter and the inspector's recommendations strike that balance, which is why I agreed with the majority of the recommendations made. We will address the issue of a third runway in studies being carried out on the needs of the south-east of England and in the aviation White Paper.
With regard to the limit of 480,000 flight movements, I was very aware of the concern expressed about terminal 4. Planning conditions were not laid down with regard to the number of flights. The view was expressed that there should be a limit on the number of flights, but that was not part of the planning decision. Importantly for people living nearby, we are making it a planning condition that there will be a limit of 480,000 flight movements a year. That means that the limit cannot be changed, even by my successor, unless a fresh planning application is made and new consideration given to the matter.
The decision letter makes clear our approach to the question of road widening. As for safety standards, safety cannot and must not be compromised, as that would be no way to run a project that will have the support of the public. As I said earlier in regard to the changes to be introduced to infrastructure projects, a consultation document will be published in the next six to eight weeks on the role of Parliament in such matters. Most important, we must not deny local communities the opportunity of having their say
A planning system can work in a democracy only if people feel that their voices have been heard and their views taken into account. The present system is not
184
successful when it comes to major projects such as terminal 5, as it does not allow people to feel that their voices have been heard. A better procedure would involve local Members of Parliament, and therefore Parliament, and would find a new way to involve local people in the planning process. I hope that our proposals will command support across all sections of the House.
John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency—myself included—consider that allowing terminal 5 to go ahead is an error of judgment? They will bitterly regret that my right hon. Friend did not include the condition that there should be no third runway. Will my right hon. Friend make a commitment to meet me and local community representatives to consider a package of environmental and financial measures to protect my local community against the worst effects of terminal 5? My constituents have sacrificed their environment for the future of the aviation industry and the strengthening of the British economy. I think that they deserve to be protected and compensated.
Mr. Byers: I am fully aware of the strong views held by many people and, in representing his constituents, my hon. Friend has expressed his. As I said in my opening statement, we must strike a balance in this matter: the development of terminal 5 is in the national interest, but we must also safeguard the interests of the local community. When my hon. Friend is able to consider the decision letter in detail, I think that he might agree that the right balance has been struck. However, we are always willing to listen to Members of Parliament expressing and representing the views of their constituents. That will apply in this case, as it does in others.
Mr. David Wilshire: As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, the terminal 5 site is a few yards from my constituency boundary. Is the Secretary of State aware that I and a big majority of the people whom I represent welcome his decision announced this afternoon? As he said, it will help protect the future of Heathrow and the United Kingdom economy. Above all, it will help protect the interests of my constituents.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that we will never again subject a planning application of this sort to an eight-year delay and a four-year public inquiry. That was utter madness, and must never happen again. Now that the decision is behind us, will the Secretary of State try to ignore the howls of protest that are sure to follow from the self-appointed and self-opinionated few who seem hellbent on putting tens of thousands of my constituents out of work? Those people must not be allowed to succeed. Heathrow must flourish, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his decision.
Mr. Byers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words in response to my decision, and I am pleased that his constituents will also welcome it. I take the point that it is unacceptable for a decision on a major project such as this to be delayed for eight years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he sees our proposals for change in respect of major infrastructure projects, will see that we are serious about changing the planning process.
There will be people who will, quite legitimately, disagree with the decision that we have taken today. I simply ask them to look at the decision letter and

185
consider the balance that we have struck between the national interest and the interests of the local community. I hope that they will agree that the inspector and I have done a reasonable job in the circumstances. Even if they do not agree with the decision, I hope that they recognise that it has been made in an open and transparent way.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I have been a long-standing supporter of T5 for many years, since I was elected in 1992. I know that the environmental lobby has expressed concerns, but I believe that the Government have taken those issues into consideration and addressed them.
My constituency is very close to the airport and thousands of my constituents work in its terminals. The decision will bring business and employment benefits to my constituency. Will the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions provide a good transport service for people who have reason to go to the airport? I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems that workers and businesses have regarding access to the airport, so I hope that he will deal with that when it is raised with him individually.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. He has been a strong supporter of terminal 5 and a powerful advocate for the interests of his constituents in terms of the benefits for business and employment. Many people in his constituency work at Heathrow, and I am sure that they will welcome the decision that we have taken today.
The issues to do with public transport which are relevant to the planning application are addressed in the decision letter. If there are other issues to do with public transport links and new demands placed on the system, they will be considered in the same way as we would normally consider new demands for public transport. We will certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account.
Mr. John Randall: Although I agree that the decision should be seen as being made in the national interest, does the Secretary of State recognise the increased financial and environmental burdens that will be placed on my constituents and the council tax payers of the London borough of Hillingdon? Will he agree to a meeting with the local authority as soon as possible to discuss those implications?
Mr. Byers: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being so quick off the mark in representing Hillingdon's interests. I am not sure whether we can do anything for the local government settlement to be announced in a week or two. However, on a more serious note, the hon. Gentleman is right that any major development is bound to have implications for a local authority which are separate from the planning process. We will consider those implications as we would do concerning those for any local authority. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, we will facilitate a meeting between the relevant Minister and representatives of Hillingdon to discuss the detail of any issues of concern.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I put it to the Secretary of State that the terminal 5 decision was a golden opportunity to phase out the 16 night flights at Heathrow? Did he consider making his decision conditional on the phasing out of those flights? I am not
186
in the least reassured to hear that he will commission a lot more research on the subject. In my 18 months as Minister with responsibility for aviation, it seemed that we had research coming out of our ears. Most of it led nowhere, and I am sure that this new lot will lead nowhere too.
Mr. Byers: My hon Friend has raised two issues. With his inside knowledge of the way in which the Department works, he has given the House an insight into the operations of government.
I know that my hon. Friend has looked closely into night flights, and the inspector makes clear comments about them. As I said in my statement, I cannot change the night flight regime unilaterally. I have to consult, within the statutory provisions and consonant with aviation law. The consultation will begin, and we will complete it by the end of 2003. That is the decision that I have taken within the powers that I have. I hope that people will understand that it would have been unlawful for me to have taken a decision without consultation. When the consultation document is published, we will consider what we can do about night flights.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State realise that, although he has talked about striking a balance several times this afternoon, what he has actually done has weighted the scales very, very heavily against the environment and against the quality of life of the people of south-west London? Could he perhaps offer a crumb of comfort to those people who regularly have their air polluted and experience the deafening noise that comes from the skies all day long, and most of the night on some occasions, by saying that, if there is a third runway in the south-east of England, at least it will not be at Heathrow? Can he also say that the alternation of runways will continue? Will he give a categoric assurance that it will continue? That at least gives peace at some time during the day. Will he also give us an assurance that the ultimate attention will be paid to safety in the skies over a densely populated part of London?
Mr. Byers: I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady on behalf of her constituents. When I considered the inspector's report, it was not an easy decision. It was not merely a question of signing up to the inspector's recommendations, but of giving detailed consideration to the balance between the needs of local people—safeguarding local communities—and the wider national interest. I felt that on balance the development of terminal 5 was in the national interest.
The third runway will be considered in the context of both the south-east of England study and the aviation White Paper, which we shall publish next year. I am aware of no proposals to change the alternation of runways that gives some respite to the hon. Lady's constituents. I understand why that is important.
I should like to think that the westerly preference decision that we have already introduced is bringing real benefits and is making an improvement to the quality of life of people living in the west of London. We shall certainly want to ensure that those benefits are retained.

187
I appreciate that there will be strong feelings. This was one of those occasions when whatever decision the Secretary of State had taken—whether to give approval or disapproval—there would have been disagreements from one side or the other.
Jane Griffiths: I am a long-standing opponent of terminal 5, not for the reasons given by some environmental groups, although they have validity, but because the whole process of planning for terminal 5 has never looked holistically at the need for proper transport links in the surrounding area. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that those transport links will be considered? I am indebted to the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for their comments, in which they have referred to the need for transport links and, especially, for a western rail link to Heathrow that would terminate at Reading. That is vital for the future of transport in the Thames Valley and for proper air and other transport links. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be looked at? Will he also assure me that the crossrail project will also be considered? That, too, needs to have its western end at Reading.
Mr. Byers: The details of public transport in relation to the planning application for terminal 5 are dealt with in the context of the decision letter. When my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to read that detailed letter, she will see how those points are addressed in it.
In a sense, crossrail is a separate issue. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and I have been acutely aware of the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend on behalf of the people of Reading. One of the options under active consideration is to extend crossrail right through to Reading. Obviously, no decisions have yet been taken as to the precise route that crossrail will take, but a powerful case can be used for that westerly link from Reading. I believe that, as a result of the decision that we have taken today on terminal 5, the arguments in favour of crossrail being extended to Reading may well have been enhanced.
Mr. Michael Trend: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that my constituents in and around Windsor will be disappointed by one aspect of his important announcement today? Of course, there should be a balance between the vital national interest of the country and the rights of local people, but there is no such balance in his statement. Indeed, he talks about the changes in westerly preferences, but I understand that although they benefit some hon. Members' constituents, they work against the interests of others, including mine.
The European Court of Human Rights judgment is outstanding. The Secretary of State has talked about putting the issue out for consultation, which he is probably obliged to do any way in the next couple of years. That is a long time scale for people who have already suffered for a long time. I do not believe that he cannot indicate clearly what the Government's preference on night flights is now and, therefore, provide a real balance, instead of leaving us suspended.
Mr. Byers: I am still giving detailed consideration to the European Court decision on the Hatton case. We have
188
three months before a decision has to be taken, and I want to use that time to give proper consideration to the details in that judgment.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the time scale, and it is worth reflecting on the fact that, even on the most optimistic forecast, terminal 5 will not be in operation for six or seven years or so. so the changes that we are considering will not be made until then.
On consultation, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be inappropriate for me to say today what the consultation on the night noise regime will involve; it must be proper, open consultation, and it will be. People would think it rigged if I were to say, "This is the Government's preference." We need to have an open consultation because, as I have said several times this afternoon, the point is that, if the planning process is to command public support, it must be seen to be open and transparent and there must be an attempt to involve people in the process.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that aviation is just one of the industries that has suffered horrendously since 11 September. His decision today is so vital that it will have an immediate effect. Is he now prepared to accept that some very rapid decisions need to be taken on where a third runway will be built in the south-east, how the air traffic space over the south-east will be organised and, above all, how we shall develop our aviation industry? If this decision had not been taken, not only would many jobs have been lost, but the United Kingdom industry would have been rapidly overtaken. Most people will accept that today's decision is a cost worth paying.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we cannot over-estimate the importance of Heathrow to our national economy. If we had not given terminal 5 the go-ahead today, there was a real danger that Charles de Gaulle, Schipol and Frankfurt would have overtaken Heathrow as the premier destination airport in Europe, and we simply could not allow that to happen. The decision strikes the balance between meeting those aviation needs and those of the local communities as well.
The aviation industry is important to the United Kingdom. It is one of those industries that has developed through innovation and by taking responsible decisions, giving good customer satisfaction and service, and providing proper investment over the years. We need to consider the aviation industry in the round, particularly in the aviation White Paper, which we intend to publish next year. It offers a good opportunity to consider the future aviation industry comprehensively.
We need to consider the detailed options for an additional runway in the south-east. A south-east study is being undertaken at present, in which that issue will be considered, and it will also be looked at in the context of the White Paper. Both those pieces of work should be viewed as almost complementing the decision that we have taken today in relation to terminal 5, because they will build on the strengths of the aviation industry, not just in the south-east of England, but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State's decision will keep London in the

189
forefront as one of the world cities for business and tourism. Is it not true that, over the past 10 years, Heathrow—which was the premier hub airport in Europe, serving more destinations than any on the continent—has slipped to No. 4 in the league? This decision could help to reverse that trend.
May I also point out that aviation is not incompatible with protecting the environment? The measures the Secretary of State has announced for surface transport links will help and the industry is also helping with quieter engines that produce a much smaller noise footprint than those of 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has many years of expertise in this subject and he makes important points. In particular, he referred to the way in which technology has helped to develop quieter aircraft. Aircraft are also significantly larger than they were. Therefore, although the number of flights will increase to only 480,000, there will be an increase of 25 million passengers a year at Heathrow as a result of the development of terminal 5.
For reasons that the hon. Gentleman touched on, a balance can be struck between the needs of the aviation industry, the travelling public and business and those of the environment. Heathrow is crucial to business, tourism and the competitive position of Britain in the world economy. We should not forget that Heathrow and other national airports play a role, as those of us who have travelled have seen, because they often provide the first impression that a visitor gets of a country, so we must ensure that visitors to this country get the best possible impression. I happen to believe that terminal 5 will be able to show Britain at its best.
Mr. Clive Soley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, subject to the important constraints on transport and noise, he has made the right decision not just for the country but for west London? Although I receive complaints from my constituents about noise, more of them recognise that, if Heathrow were to go down the world league of airports, west London would suffer the same fate that east London suffered when the docks closed. It is vital to recognise that there is the equivalent of a high-tech city in west London and that it is keeping the economy of the whole area buoyant. We should maintain it in every possible way.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend's description of the high-tech city that is Heathrow accurately depicts airports at the beginning of the 21st century. I would like to think that the decision that we have taken has struck the right balance. It will bring benefits to his constituents and will ensure that we do not ignore the environmental concerns expressed by those who live near Heathrow airport.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As a Member for a constituency near Heathrow, I fully accept that it has been a difficult decision for the Secretary of State to take. On balance, I think that it is the right decision in the national interest. However, if he is to allay the fears of my constituents who live under the flight path, will he accept that we need real action quickly on night flights and on reducing the noise levels of modern aircraft?
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman has touched on two important points—noise and night flights—that the inspector addressed in his report and that I consider in the
190
decision letter. Once the right hon. Gentleman has had the chance to examine the decision letter, which is of necessity rather lengthy, I would like to think that he will feel that we have addressed those issues. I assure him that the consultation on night flights will proceed with appropriate haste to make sure that we can take decisions in 2003 so that the concerns of his constituents can be addressed within a reasonable time frame.
Mr. Tony Colman: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that my constituents will not welcome the statement. Certainly, they will not think that their views have been taken account of.
My right hon. Friend has referred two or three times to the westerly preference. It was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) when he was the Minister responsible for aviation, and it applies to only 16 night flights. As part of the decision that my right hon. Friend has taken, is he considering introducing a westerly preference for daytime flights, because that would alleviate a huge amount of the noise that affects west London?
Mr. Byers: The reasoning behind the decisions that I have taken on the specific planning application for terminal 5 is contained in the decision letter. We will continue to consider particular issues that my hon. Friend believes will benefit his constituents in Putney if he wants to raise them with us. We want to be helpful wherever possible to those people who are affected not just by today's decision, but by Heathrow being a major airport. The reasons for my decision and the way in which we intend to carry it forward are contained in the decision letter, which should now be available to hon. Members.
Dr. Vincent Cable: As another Member who represents thousands of people under the take-off and landing paths, I know that there will be considerable concern about whether the Secretary of State's limited concessions will be enforced. How will the 480,000 planned limit be enforced? As local authority planning enforcement procedures are weak, will he take direct responsibility for it and describe the sanctions that will be employed if the limit is breached?
Mr. Byers: As I said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), the important thing about the restriction on the number of flights is that it is a planning condition which is attached to the decision. That was not the case with terminal 4. A similar approach was not part of its planning condition, so it could be ignored. The planning authority is responsible for ensuring that planning conditions are met, but if any hon. Member, including the hon. Gentleman, believes that a relevant planning authority is not discharging its responsibilities, they should inform me or my ministerial team and we will ensure that that happens. Statutory duties fall on planning authorities, and we will ensure that when such conditions are imposed they will be enforced by the relevant planning authority.
Andrew Mackinlay: The Secretary of State did not answer the question about the M25. Conservative and Labour Ministers, the Highways Agency and the applicants made it clear that widening the M25 in the west is indivisible from the application. What is his response to that?

191
The same arguments on inter-lining, which form the crux of his argument that we must maintain our competitive position in relation to Charles de Gaulle and Schipol airports, will be advanced, as sure as night turns into day, in the case for a third runway at Heathrow. The stage has to come when we say, "Thus far, no further." The rapacious appetite of the industry is such that it goes for the terminal and then argues for the runway, and once it has done that, it argues for another terminal and another runway. The Secretary of State has accepted arguments that could also be accepted for terminals 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and so on for ever. That is the profound mistake.
Mr. Byers: If there are to be terminals 6, 7, 8 or 9, they will have to go through the planning process and no doubt someone else will consider them.
On the specifics, in the time available to me I was not able to go through all the conditions that are reflected in the decision letter. I apologise for referring continually to it, but it is, of necessity, a lengthy document. It contains the reasoning behind my response to the inspector's report. My hon. Friend will see in the decision letter that we are supporting improvements to the M25. I have accepted the inspector's recommendations on it, although I have not agreed to his recommendation on widening the M4, which I think I mentioned in my statement.
Mr. Philip Hammond: The Secretary of State talked about the benefits to the wider community of terminal 5, and I concur with that view. He also talked about the need to balance the wider benefits against the costs imposed on the local community. Does he accept that many people locally will be disappointed that he has not been able to announce today a clear trade-off between the decision to go ahead with terminal 5 and the end of night flights?
The benefits that accrue to people who use night flights are tiny compared with the huge costs that are imposed on what is a wide community. Will he assure the House that when he reviews night flights it will be on the basis that night flying will be allowed only if the benefits can be shown, in aggregate, substantially to outweigh the costs? Will he also assure us that he understands that a mere reduction in the number of night flights will not deliver a significant benefit to the people of west London, Surrey and surrounding areas, who need a complete blackout on flights if they are to get some sleep?
Mr. Byers: The important point will be the nature of the consultation. The inspector makes strong statements about night flights in his report, and I shall ensure that the consultation document reflects his concerns. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation that I have to conduct on any changes to the night noise regime will be completed, and decisions made, before terminal 5 is in operation.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: In making his decision, my right hon. Friend will realise its likely effect on line-to-line traffic between mainland Europe and regional airports. What assessment has he
192
made of that effect? Has he placed any restrictions on the building programme for terminal 5 concerning the space available for retail opportunities?
Mr. Byers: Yes, the decision letter makes it clear that the planning inspector has introduced restrictions on the number of air traffic movements, but not in any particular direction or to a particular destination. I know that a number of Members are concerned about retail floor space. When they have the opportunity to read the decision letter, they will see that I have placed a restriction on the amount of retail floor space that can form part of the terminal 5 development.
Pete Wishart: I do not think that the Secretary of State fully answered the first point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). Surely further concentration of air facilities at Heathrow will have a detrimental effect on international air services from Scotland, Wales and even the English regions. Surely the Secretary of State should now turn his attention to other areas of the UK which badly need the massive improvements in infrastructure and tourism that enhanced air services can provide, and the jobs that go with them.
Mr. Byers: We are dealing today with a specific planning application on terminal 5 at Heathrow, and we have to address that. It would be improper for me to take into account a range of external factors in arriving at a decision on a specific planning application. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw my attention to wider issues in aviation. That industry is important for the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly for regions such as the north-east, where my constituency is, and for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland—
Caroline Flint: Yorkshire.
Mr. Byers: And Yorkshire. Many parts of the country will benefit from a vibrant, strong aviation sector. That is why the aviation White Paper, which we will publish next autumn, will be a significant document. I want it to map out the future for the industry in the UK. It will be published at an important time, because, one hopes, we will be over the worst effects of 11 September and there will probably have been changes in the industry. The Government need to respond to those changes and to the needs of countries such as Scotland, and the White Paper will be significant in helping us to achieve some of the objectives outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Declaring an interest as one who, like Scottish colleagues, has become familiar with every cubic metre of the upper atmosphere above Watford, may I ask whether this decision will do anything about the stacking problem? What is the technical advice from air traffic controllers? Anecdotally, we are told that there are problems in the sheer control of the hugely increased capacity at Heathrow.
Mr. Byers: The development of air traffic control and the projected expansion will accommodate the projected increase in flights; there are no worries about that. I understand people's concern, however, as I occasionally travel down from Newcastle by plane, sometimes travelling over Windsor; the view is lovely, but I am sure

193
that that is not good news for the residents of Windsor. My hon. Friend is right; stacking is a sign of Heathrow not being able to cope with the existing capacity. Terminal 5 shall help Heathrow to accommodate the increase in flights in a way that ensures that the stacking that occurs at the moment can be alleviated for airlines and passengers.

Points of Order
4.35 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. From media reports in the past 48 hours, the House will be aware that tomorrow night "The Money Programme" on the BBC will show footage of interviews with people who were present during the captivity and decapitation of the four hostages, one of whom was a constituent of mine, who were taken and murdered in December 1998. Given that Ministers have assured the House that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Metropolitan police would carry out a full investigation into how those men came to murdered, and given that we now have new information after the coroner's inquest, have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that a Minister from the FCO will come to the House this week to explain why officials failed to identify those key witnesses and how they intend to take the matter forward?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication, but now that the hon. Lady has mentioned the matter, it is on the record and the appropriate Minister will take note of what she has said.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, had a constituent decapitated in December 1998 in the same incident. Can you ask the Foreign Office whether it can clarify rumours of a link with al-Qaeda? I fully understand that it is up to the relevant Minister to come to the House, but this is an important matter of great delicacy and, indeed, urgency.
Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. My advice is that it would be better if he, rather than I, approached Foreign Office Ministers.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but when a statement has national impact, is consideration given to balancing the Members called to ensure that the interests of all areas of the country are reflected in exchanges with the Secretary of State?
Mr. Speaker: I note the hon. Gentleman's disappointment. The Chair gives no reason why some hon. Members are called and others are not. All that I can tell him is that next time round, he will be high on my list of priorities.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. By extension, could that declaration of preference be extended to other Members who could not catch your eye?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that some days he wins and others he loses. They, he lost.

Extradition (Amendment)
4.38 pm
Mr. John Maples: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on extradition.
It is interesting that two of the points of order that have just been raised concerned terrorism. There is a well-known alleged link between Chechnyan so-called freedom fighters and al-Qaeda. One example that I intend to use concerns three people whose extradition from this country is being sought and who are members, or alleged members, of al-Qaeda.
On 7 August 1998, terrorists blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 people were killed and more than 4,500 injured. The United States sought the extradition of Khalid al Fawwaz in September 1998 and Abdel Abdelbary and Ibrahim Eiderous in July 1999 in connection with the bombings. All three are still in custody in the United Kingdom, fighting extradition on legal aid paid for by our taxpayers. All are alleged to be part of Osama bin Laden's organisations. Their cases have only just been heard in the House of Lords, more than two years later.
However, that is not the worst case. In November 1995, some three years earlier, Rachid Ramda was arrested at the request of France in connection with terrorist bombings in Paris that summer. The bombings, which took place on the metro and elsewhere, killed 26 people and injured more than 200. The House of Lords took until 1998 to decide that Ramda should be extradited, but it has taken the Home Secretary until October this year—no doubt, the process was speeded by the events of 11 September—to order his extradition, six years later. That decision of the Home Secretary is, of course, subject to judicial review, and the decision of that review is subject to appeal.
At the present rate, it appears that it will be another couple of years before Mr. Ramda has to face a French court. He has succeeded in gaining that delay by alleging—preposterously—that the French judicial system is inherently racist and that he cannot get a fair trial in France. There has been uproar in the French press. Allegations of hypocrisy have been made against the Prime Minister about being at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism while allowing such an extradition system to persist. My Bill would allow him a way out of his dilemma and I hope that the Government will see the sense of it.
Those cases have all been fought on legal aid. In answer to a parliamentary question, we have been told that that has so far cost more than £450,000. We do not know what the Government's legal costs are, and I have been unable to find out. The suspects have all been in prison at a cost of about £30,000 a year each, so it seems that the total prison costs are more than £400,000.
If we are serious about fighting terrorism—I believe that the Government are absolutely right to take the matter so seriously—we cannot allow this situation to continue. Before 11 September, five other suspects were fighting extradition requests from France, Italy, Spain and the United States, which issued two of them. Of course, they had not been held for as long as the suspects whom I have mentioned. More suspects are now being sought by
196
the United States in connection with the events of 11 September. It is unlikely that any will be extradited for some time.
I raised these matters with the Prime Minister in September. He blamed the complexity of extradition law. To some extent, that explanation is correct, but it is not the whole story. The courts proceed at a snail's pace. Frankly, the process is scandalously slow. The Home Office has been responsible for a considerable amount of the delay in Mr. Ramda's case, which took two years from the first hearing in June 1996 until the House of Lords appeal was heard in 1998. That is leisurely even by the courts' standards. The Fawwaz case took more than three years to get to the House of Lords.
I suggest that the courts not only can but should do much better in cases of national importance. The Pinochet case was dealt with in 15 months. That included three appeals to the House of Lords. Hon. Members may remember what a mess was made of the first one. The first appeal to the House of Lords was made two months after Pinochet's arrest. It appears that our courts—especially the senior ones—simply do not understand the vital national interest that is at stake, but surely there can be no excuses after 11 September.
The courts are not the only problem. In the Ramda case, it took the Home Secretary more than two years after the House of Lords decision to order deportation. He did so after 11 September. The law gives him two months in which to make that decision, but the Home Office took more than two years. I suggest that the Home Office has even fewer excuses than the House of Lords. In future, it simply must act very much faster.
The Government recognised the problems in our extradition system some time ago. In March, they published a consultation paper that covered many of the difficulties. The last day for the submission of responses was 8 June, which is almost six months ago, but they still have not made firm proposals. On 3 October, the Home Secretary was reported in The Times as saying that he could not wait for a new extradition Act to deal with terrorist cases. Of course, after 11 September, the United States would want to interview more suspects. However, he has waited a considerable time longer than one would have thought necessary.
The consequences of the delays are incalculable. We will never know whether faster extradition of the three bin Laden suspects to the United States could have provided some intelligence or information before the 11 September attacks that might have helped its security services to foil them or at least take some measures against them.
One argument used in many such cases is that we cannot extradite people to countries where the death penalty might be imposed. I would not want to extradite someone to face execution. However, the courts have decided that that is not a matter for them but for the Home Secretary when he considers whether to order extradition after the court processes are over. There are examples of people who have been extradited to the United States on condition that it undertakes not to apply the death penalty. That seems a reasonable compromise.
The consultation paper considers in detail the proposal for a European arrest warrant, which is being discussed under the home affairs pillar of the European Union. That proposes the automatic enforcement in one country of

197
warrants that another country has issued. I find that an unacceptable solution. When it comes before the House, I hope that I shall have an opportunity to explain my reasons.
There are long delays in many countries. Perhaps hon. Members have constituents who have been in jail, in, for example, Spain for more than a year before their cases come to trial. The judicial systems of some applicant countries are perhaps not as fair and timely as ours and those of France and Germany.
The general law reform that the consultation paper proposes will take a long time. The problem of terrorist suspects cannot wait until then. France and the United States, which are currently affected, are among our closest allies. We must help each other more constructively to fight terrorism; that means faster extradition. The law should be changed immediately to allow the Home Secretary to designate countries that are allies in the fight against terrorism and whose judicial systems we respect. Extradition requests from those countries would be tackled on a new, fast-track basis with limited exceptions and rights of appeal. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we discussed yesterday, provides for that in the case of deportation.
Suspects who are in the United Kingdom illegally should be deported immediately. It is interesting to note that the Home Secretary deported Kamel Daoudi back to France a few weeks ago almost before his feet had touched the ground. The right hon. Gentleman seems willing to act when the law allows him to do that. He needs to change the law quickly to allow him to act in the circumstances that I outlined.
International terrorism is one of the greatest threats to our security and that of our allies. It is right that the Government are prepared to use military force and introduce new security measures to fight that threat. However, we must also be prepared to co-operate better with our allies on extraditing suspects. The United Kingdom has acquired an unfortunate reputation in some countries for being a haven for terrorists. That is understandable, but it must not be allowed to continue.
We must convey a message to our courts that lengthy delays are intolerable, to the Home Office that it cannot take two years to deal with cases that have been through the courts, and to the Government that new legislation cannot await a general reform of extradition law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Maples, Sir George Young, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mr. Francis Maude, Richard Ottaway and Mr. Andrew Tyrie.

Extradition (Amendment)
  EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Maples accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law on extradition: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 52].
Orders of the Day

  National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): MR. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I also remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back-Bench Members.
  4.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill implements commitments in the national health service plan that was published in our manifesto for the general election. That election presented people with a fundamental choice. For many, it came down to a choice between short-term tax cuts and investment in public services. I am thankful that the British public chose the latter. It was the right choice for Britain, and a choice that the Labour party made.
  Some claim that getting patients to pay privately for health care is the only answer to the problems in the national health service. However, Labour Members believe unequivocally that the NHS is the fairest and most efficient way of providing health care for our people. It is based on the right principles of care according to people's need, not the size of their wallets.
  Those were the right principles when the NHS was created and they remain the right principles now. It is not NHS principles that need to change but NHS practices. That is what the Bill seeks to address. People today grow up in a consumer society. Services, whether public or private, succeed or fail according to their ability to match modern expectations of service delivery. People exercise more choices in their lives than at any point in history. Many can afford to walk away from public services that do not command their confidence.
  Our task as a nation surely must be to make the NHS a service of first choice, not last resort. We in the Government recognise that we cannot build a one-nation Britain on two-tier health care. There is, as we know, a long way to go to give patients the flexible, convenient, high-quality services that they expect. Patients wait too long for treatment. There are staff shortages, dilapidated buildings and outdated equipment.
  In their amendment, the Conservative Opposition crow about failings in the NHS. They know a lot about failings in the NHS because they were responsible for many of the present failings. They complain about doctor shortages, but they cut the number of doctors in training. They complain about nursing shortages, but they cut the number of nurses in training. They complain about bed shortages in hospitals, but they cut the number of beds by 40,000. They complain about the state of NHS hospitals, but they were spending less capital at the end of their last Parliament than at the beginning.
  Only a fool—and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—would believe that decades of neglect in the NHS can be reversed in a few years of investment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is good on those figures, and he will get better over time.

  199
  The NHS plan that we published last year is not for one year or for two years, but for 10 years. We need a decade of investment to follow decades of decline. The years of health care on the cheap are at an end. The NHS is growing at twice the rate that it grew at under the Conservatives. Under the Labour Government, it is the fastest growing health care system of any major country in Europe.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: The Secretary of State refers to increasing expenditure. Does he recall that when he visited Basingstoke during the general election, according to the local media, he reported additional funding for cardiac treatment? The local media have tried to get news on that extra funding from his private office, but have not received a reply.
  Mr. Milburn: I will try to be responsive to the local media in Basingstoke. I hope that they are as responsible as the national media on matters relating to the health service. If the hon. Gentleman has specific questions about investment in Basingstoke, in cardiac care or otherwise, I am happy to look into them. If he writes to me, I will gladly write back to him.
  Staff, who do such a brilliant job in the NHS, are increasing in number at record rates. There are 6,000 more nurses and 1,300 more doctors in just one year, and there are 20,000 more nurses and 10,000 more doctors to come. The cuts in nurse training and general practitioner training that took place in the 1990s have been reversed. Applications for medical schools, and the number of medical schools, are up for the first time in years. Applications for nursing degrees are up by more than 80 per cent. I can report to the House that the latest figures show that the number of nurses returning to the NHS is well in excess of 9,000.
  This year, 1,000 GP surgeries are being improved. Thousands of new intermediate care beds and places have been established. The biggest hospital building programme in NHS history is under way. This year, for the first time in 30 years, the number of beds in NHS hospitals is rising rather than falling.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for interrupting his flow of statistics. The news about nurses coming back to the health service is welcome. Has he any data on how many nurses are still leaving? Was his figure a net figure or a flow one way?
  Mr. Milburn: I reported the number of nurses who left the health service and have now returned. In terms of the number of nurses overall—the number recruited minus the number who have left—I am happy to report that there are 17,000 more working in the NHS than when the Government came to office.
  The number of people waiting more than 12 months for a hospital operation is down 13 per cent. in just a year. That is still too long, but we are moving in the right direction. Cancer patients are being seen by a hospital specialist within two weeks when they used to have to wait months. There are 3,000 more heart operations, over 150 more chest pain clinics and 17 per cent. More
  200
  cardiologists. Prescription of cholesterol-lowering drugs is up by over a third in just a year. We are spending more than £250 million in this financial year alone on new drugs for conditions such as cancer, heart disease, dementia and arthritis. None of that progress would have been possible without the investment made by this Labour Government.
  No one should fall for the fallacy that, unless every problem in the NHS is solved by yesterday, no problems are being solved today. The programme that we outlined in the NHS plan is well on course to be delivered, but, as we recognise, investment alone will not do the trick. Delivering improvements in care to patients depends on fundamental reform of how that care is organised and provided. Here, too, there is progress.
  For the first time, there is a sensible relationship between the public and private sectors to expand the care available to NHS patients. For the first time, there are clear national standards and the ability to implement them. For the first time, there are real incentives to reward good performance and to deal with poor performance. For the first time, I am pleased to say, we are finally getting health and social care working together rather than against one another.
  Those reforms are based on one fundamental insight: although the values of the NHS are right for this century, its structures owe too much to the last. Services are too slow. Staff are run off their feet. The NHS is too bureaucratic and too monolithic. In my view, public confidence demands a fundamental change not just in the level of investment, but in the culture of the whole health service, to put patients' needs first in the hospitals and surgeries just as we seek to put parents and pupils' needs first in the schools.
  Throughout the past two decades of organisational change in the NHS—there has been a lot of change during those years—the essential post-war structure of top-down control remained largely intact. The result was that, too often, Governments of all political persuasions defended the interests of the NHS as a service provider when they should have focused on the interests of patients as service users.
  It is right, of course, that there should be national accountability for the workings of our country's health care system. For the sake of fairness, clear national standards should be applied not just in parts of the country, but across the whole country. It is right, too, that the Government should allocate resources to ensure that NHS cash genuinely meets the greatest health care needs. Beyond that, the old top-down model of the 1940s can no longer be expected to deliver health care in the 21st century.
  Vesting control at the centre has diminished control where it counts—in local communities where local health services interact with local people. Our aim must be a more pluralist, decentralised health service that is capable of overcoming bureaucratic inertia and encouraging genuine innovation.
  That is what the Bill will help to achieve. It has its origins in the White Paper that we published in December 1997, and the resulting Health Act 1999 abolished the Conservatives internal market, which was fragmented, bureaucratic, divisive and disruptive. While it promised that the money would follow the patient, the patient followed the contract. That market damaged equity and failed to promote patient choice.

  201
  It was right to end that failed internal market. In its place, there are primary care groups and trusts, which put front-line staff in charge of front-line services. The NHS plan, which we published last year, set out our proposals for further devolution. Since then, the important Kennedy inquiry has reported on the tragedies at Bristol royal infirmary. The Kennedy report called for further reforms to move the centre of gravity in favour of a more responsive, patient-centred NHS.
  The three big measures in the Bill aim to achieve just that: first, by devolving more resources to front-line services; secondly, by giving local patients more power in their local health service; and thirdly, by strengthening independent regulation of those services. It might help if I deal with each measure in turn.
  Mr. Steve Webb: A frequently expressed truism is that we should focus less on the national health service and more on public health itself and the prevention of illness. Would the Secretary of State consider establishing a people's health survey, rather like the labour force survey, which would be conducted continuously? Every month or every quarter, we would be given information not about how many operations were being performed, but about how healthy people were. That might focus our attention on whether we could keep people healthier, rather than on whether we could ensure that more operations were carried out.
  Mr. Milburn: I do not know about the specifics, but the hon. Gentleman's general point is important. For too long the debate, in this country at least, has been more about health inputs and structures than about health outcomes.
  When we produced the coronary heart disease blueprint a year or so ago, one of the most striking figures that emerged—which, as the blueprint was drawn up by clinicians, had some force—related to the time which people wait for heart operations. Reducing the maximum wait to three months would save approximately 600 lives a year. We need desperately to do that because too many people are waiting for too long. Moreover, taking some simple steps in primary care—prescribing statins, aspirin and so forth, and doing so more effectively—could save 1,800 lives a year.
  We need to strike a balance between prevention and treatment. Sometimes the debate, certainly in the NHS itself, suggests that one must be chosen above the other. It is rather like the debate about primary and secondary care. If it came to choosing between the two, we might as well all give up and go home now. We need good primary care services, and good secondary care services. Even more, we need good preventive services.
  The hon. Gentleman's point about reporting is interesting. As he knows, we have set ambitious targets to try to ensure that the number of deaths from, in particular, coronary heart disease and cancer is reduced, and we shall want to report to both the public and the House on a pretty regular basis.
  Mr. David Heath: I thank the Secretary of State for his thoughtful reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). May I test him further on primary care? As he knows, the ability to recruit and retain general practitioners is now a real issue.
  202
  He has told us that more people are entering GP training, but is he as concerned as I am about the number who are leaving general practice in their 50s, never to return? We are losing experienced practitioners.
  Is there anything in the Bill—or can the Secretary of State do anything—to keep GPs aged 50 and over in practice? That is needed in Somerset, but also, I suspect, throughout the country.
  Mr. Milburn: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman an equally thoughtful reply, but I shall try.
  I am less pessimistic than the hon. Gentleman about the number of retiring GPs. Data from the NHS pensions agency suggest that early retirements are and will remain more or less static in terms of the age at which people are retiring. I think that the average retirement age is about 62; if I am wrong, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
  As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have been working on the issue, partly because of concerns that have been expressed. We submitted some evidence to the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body as part of our evidence on pay this year. I am relatively satisfied that the number of entrants and the number of retirements are not out of sync; what we must do, however—as I think I have said in the House before—is achieve a better balance in a doctor's career.
  Rather bizarrely in my view, we are getting doctors into practice and working them hard throughout their lives, but working them harder as they approach retirement than at the beginning of their careers. In most walks of life that does not happen. As we expand the capacity of the NHS, we need to view doctors' careers—and, indeed, other careers—in what could be described in a much more fragmented way. We should get them to work hard and give a big service commitment during the early part of their careers, but towards the end of their careers we should harness their commitment and expertise for the benefit of the next generation of doctors. Those issues will need to be dealt with during the discussions and negotiations that are taking place now on the GP contract.
  On the first main measure—devolution—when we came to office GP fundholders controlled about 15 per cent. of the NHS budget. Today, primary care groups and primary care trusts control over 50 per cent. The Bill will give doctors and nurses in PCTs the power that they need to match local services to the needs of the local communities that they serve. The Bill paves the way for PCTs to control up to 75 per cent. of the total health service budget. As Ian Bogle of the British Medical Association has rightly said, this is
  "a dramatic move away from centralised health authority control"
  which
  "should bring decision making closer to the patient."
  Far from increasing bureaucracy, it will cut it. By the end of March next year, the changes we have already made by ending the internal market will have taken £1 billion from NHS administration and invested it in patient care.
  With this Bill we can go further still. It will abolish health authorities as they currently exist. The NHS regional offices will go, too. As our manifesto promised, to reinforce the actions that we need to take to improve recruitment and retention, not just of doctors and nurses but of other staff, we will use the £100 million that we save to improve child care for working parents in the

  203
  NHS. Improving services relies on staff having greater involvement and a greater say. In the way it is organised, the NHS needs to give control to front-line services where patients and professionals interact.
  That brings me to the second major measure in the Bill. A health service designed around the needs of patients must give more power to patients. The present structures for giving patients a voice in the NHS lack teeth and are out of date. Community health councils were a bold innovation more than quarter of a century ago. Many have done a good job, but who in this House, still less in the service itself, believes that public expectations, either as citizens or consumers, remain unchanged from the 1970s?
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that on the Labour Benches and, I think, elsewhere, there is a feeling that the Government have yet to present a coherent case for the abolition of the CHCs? It is as though they have been found guilty and sentenced to death, and we have yet to hear the case for the prosecution. Can he give us some concrete arguments as to why the CHCs need to be abolished and why the system proposed in the Bill will be better?
  Mr. Milburn: If my hon. Friend insists, I will try to do precisely that.
  Just as reform is needed elsewhere in the NHS, reform of the CHCs is needed too. As the Kennedy report, which I am sure my hon. Friend and others have read, made clear:
  "the public should be on the inside rather than represented by some body on the outside."
  The Bill seeks to deal with the failings identified in the Kennedy report. Independent patients forums will be established in every trust and every primary care trust. A new commission for patient and public involvement in health will co-ordinate the work of patients forums, promote the involvement of the public in NHS decision making and represent patients and the public nationally.
  Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Milburn: May I go just one stage further?
  I know that in this House and in the other place there have been concerns about the replacement of community health councils. As hon. Members are aware, there is much interest outside the House, too, evidenced by the more than 1,000 responses we received to our recent consultations on the proposals.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: It says here.
  Mr. Milburn: It does say it here because it is a speech that I wrote earlier, believe it or not. I thought that that is what I was here to do. The hon. Gentleman sits there and makes benign and stupid comments.
  The Bill strengthens the patients' voice inside the NHS. The CHCs had no role in primary care; patients forums will have that role. The CHCs were refused the right to inspect GPs' premises; patients forums will have that right. The CHCs were partly appointed by the Secretary
  204
  of State for Health; patients forums will all be appointed independently of both the Secretary of State and indeed the NHS. The CHCs had no formal rights of representation within NHS organisations; patients forums will elect, as of right, one of their members to sit on every trust board. This is about not diminishing patients' rights in the health service, but increasing patients' rights in the health service.
  Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are to strengthen the voice of communities and patients in the health service, we have actively to seek to involve people from communities that are currently under-represented in the NHS's decision-making process? Will he give us an assurance that the commission will actively seek the involvement of people from deprived communities not only on advisory bodies, but in the NHS's decision-making process?
  Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. One of the functions that we shall be locating with the new commission is to ensure that, so far as is possible, we have better representation in the national health service of the patient and the public voice. I think that we are all aware that wherever appointments are made in the NHS or in other public services, in some senses, although there is an independent appointments system, those who come up for appointment tend to be self-selecting. We need to get a better balance, to ensure that precisely the type of people whom the national health service serves are themselves serving in decision-making capacities in the health service.
  Unless we improve the NHS's governance and make it more representative of the local communities that it serves, we shall never reach the position at which local services are responding to the needs of local communities. By giving the commission the tangible function of broadening the scope of representation in former NHS structures, it will be able to perform a very important function in democratising the NHS and the way in which it is run locally.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Perhaps the Secretary of State can answer a question that was not satisfactorily answered in Committee. When the CHCs are abolished, what will happen to all the information, including confidential patient information, that they hold? Who owns that information and where will it go?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sure that those issues will be discussed again in Committee—
  Dr. Fox: What is the answer?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away—[Interruption.] I am glad that he has apologised.
  We shall have to get right the transition from the old structure to the new one in relation to staff who are currently employed in the CHCs. Many of them will have a new function and a new job within the new structures. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point on the available information. It would be tragic if we lost the wealth of information that is available on individual patient problems and on more general problems in the

  205
  local health service. We have to find a way of transporting that information into the new structures. There will be a formal transition process to do precisely that.
  Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend accept that community health councils have said all along that they recognise the need to change and become more responsive and more representative locally of the broader health service? As for the point on local accountability and local representation, the concern is precisely that patient health forums are self-selecting. We can choose to appoint to a forum the last person to get off the bus outside the local hospital, but unless that person has some expertise he or she cannot effectively represent the local community. We need that expertise. As I understand it, the CHCs will be abolished when the Bill is enacted, assuming that it is. Can my right hon. Friend say whether, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, the transitional advisory committee will reach some conclusions on the CHCs and their expertise?
  Mr. Milburn: The transitional advisory committee is currently working on precisely the issues that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and my hon. Friend have raised. I pay tribute to the work of the very many CHC staff and to local community representatives who have served on local CHCs and done a very good job of work. It is important not to lose that body of expertise and knowledge.
  The first point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made is very important. We need to ensure that the patients forums are not only representative of the local community but can express expertise on behalf of that local community. Consequently, as a result of consultation that we have been conducting in recent weeks, the Bill's proposals are different from those that we put out to consultation. We have now lodged with the national Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health the duty of appointing patient forum representatives, precisely to ensure that the commission, as an independent patient organisation, can feel satisfied that the people being appointed locally are up to doing the job on behalf of the local communities that they serve. I hope that my hon. Friend will take some comfort from that change.
  The third main measure in the Bill is the strengthening of independent regulation. As the Kennedy report highlights all too clearly, for almost 50 years there was confusion at the heart of the NHS about where regulatory responsibilities began and ended. Indeed, it is only in the past few years that national standards have been put in place in the NHS alongside the means to implement them. The system of professional self-regulation has been changing too, and I pay tribute in particular to the leadership of the medical profession for responding to public concerns about a perceived lack of accountability and transparency in the old arrangements. The Bill builds on those changes.
  The Bill takes its cue from the Kennedy report in introducing a new Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals to which all of the individual professional regulators will become accountable. It will have a majority of lay people and people appointed from the NHS. The council will be independent of the Government and it will, instead, report to Parliament.
  206
  The Bill will also strengthen the role of the Commission for Health Improvement. It will give the commission a new function of carrying out inspections of the quality of local health services. Where it identifies significant failings in the way services are being run, the commission will report and recommend any special measures that might need to be taken. Its independence will be strengthened too, not least by being required to make an annual report to Parliament on the quality of NHS services. From next year it will be the CHI, through the new Office for Information on Health Care Performance—called for in the Kennedy report—rather than the Department of Health that will be responsible for assessing the clinical and organisational performance of each part of the NHS.
  Together, those changes will provide a powerful incentive for local health services to raise standards. What motivates people working in the NHS is the desire to improve the care they provide to patients. Just as we are tackling the postcode lottery in prescribing, so the Bill addresses the postcode lottery in performance. Just as we have made appointments to NHS boards independent, so we are now making independent the assessment of NHS performance. A strengthened NHS independent regulator will leave the Department of Health to concentrate on what it should properly do in an accountable public service—provide resources, set standards and hold the overall system to account.
  The Bill marks a decisive shift in the centre of gravity in the NHS. It moves towards regulation that is the hands of independent regulators rather than Ministers or the health service. It moves towards resources that are in the hands of front-line staff and towards power that is in the hands of patients. It is opposed, as I see from the amendments tabled by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, every step of the way by the two main Opposition parties. They are two sides of the same coin. The Tories have their hostility to investment; the Liberal Democrats have their hostility to reform.
  The Conservatives, who for two decades did so much to damage the NHS then, have the nerve to talk of an NHS crisis now. They scaled up bureaucracy and scaled down investment. They had the wrong policies then, but they have no policies now. Just as the Conservatives would starve the NHS of investment, the Liberal Democrats would starve it of reform. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon makes policy by ducking every difficult issue, avoiding every harsh decision and appeasing every lobby group. Theirs is a policy of oppositionalism and opportunism.
  Only the Labour party and this Government have the will to make the necessary investment and the necessary reforms to improve the health service. The Bill is about decentralisation and decreasing bureaucracy. It is about increasing the power of the patient and decreasing the power of Whitehall. It represents the biggest devolution of power in the history of the NHS. It will provide the basis for a health service rebuilt and renewed; a health service with its principles strengthened and its performance improved; and a health service capable of meeting the expectations of the people that it serves. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.19 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill because it is irrelevant in the face of a worsening health care crisis; will lead to increased bureaucracy; increases political interference by augmenting the role of the Secretary of State; fails to deal with the downward spiral of morale afflicting health professionals; imposes unnecessary structural change which will further detract from patient care; and abolishes the community health councils, which have served the interests of patients and communities.'
  I shall begin by apologising to the House through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have apologised already to Mr. Speaker and to the Secretary of State, for the fact that I am unable to present for the winding-up speeches later this evening.
  Many charges can be made against the Bill, the most serious being that it is irrelevant to the crisis currently facing the NHS. It is a centralising Bill that pretends to he decentralising. It is highly bureaucratic, it is being rushed in far too quickly and it diverts activity and money away from patient care. Its provisions are unclear and confusing and it does nothing to increase patient choice.
  To understand how irrelevant the Bill is, we need only take a quick look at what is happening in the NHS. Despite all the promises made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers at two general elections, patients in Labour's NHS are waiting longer in accident and emergency departments and to see their GPs. They are also waiting longer for their hospital operations.
  Only last week, a poll commissioned by the BBC showed that six out of 10 people questioned thought that Labour had made no difference to the NHS, while 62 per cent. were not confident that the Government would improve the service in the next four years. Moreover, 27 per cent. of those questioned believed that the standard of care was getting worse.
  It is little wonder that people should respond in that way: the recent Audit Commission report showed that, although investment had increased and the number of doctors had risen faster than the rise in patient numbers, patients were still waiting longer to be seen, or to be admitted to hospital from casualty. Fortunately, Ministers' blushes were spared, because the Audit Commission did not delve into the murkier aspects of modern casualty management. For example, it did not investigate the way in which targets for trolley waits are being reached by keeping some patients waiting in ambulances rather than in casualty departments. That tactic allows hospitals to pick up one of the Secretary of State's precious stars.
  In the NHS today, patients wait longer for treatment. After a bit of a mix-up as they tried to work out whether the figures had risen or fallen, Ministers had to admit a couple of weeks ago that the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment in English health authorities has risen by 63 per cent. since March 1997. That is the proud boast of the Government's record.
  Much of the difficulty arises from the number of beds in our hospitals that are blocked because patients cannot be discharged somewhere else. In Buckinghamshire, 17 per cent. of beds are officially blocked. The figures for Hillingdon and Birmingham are 18 per cent and 15 per cent., respectively. Goodness knows what the real figures
  208
  are, given that what we have are subjected to the mathematical ethnic cleansing of the spin doctors in the Department of Health.
  Why has the problem arisen? In September, Laing and Buisson published the 2001 market survey "Care of Elderly People". It revealed that, by April 2001, there were an estimated 525,900 places in residential settings for the long-stay care of elderly and physically disabled people across all sectors.
  That should be of interest to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who the other day said that the Opposition's figures were wrong. The estimate in the survey represents a fall of 49,700 places since the peak level. That is why so many beds are blocked. There is no point in Ministers talking about the record of the previous Government. This is a disaster entirely of their making: during the passage through the House of the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000, they were warned about what would happen, given the Government's approach to local government funding. They would not listen, but every Opposition prediction has come about—the blocked beds, the increased waits for operations, and the delays in accident and emergency departments.
  The list of failure goes on. Today's Daily Express talks about huge NHS waste and, in the latest chapter of Labour's internal war, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer's men have described the Secretary of State as useless.
  What is the Government's response? It is the one thing that nobody working in the profession suggested—wholesale reorganisation yet again. The respected health academics Kieran Walshe and Judith Smith have voiced concerns, saying that the NHS does not need fundamental reform. They point out that the opening paragraph of the Secretary of State's White Paper "Shifting the Balance" states that
  "everything possible should be done to minimise disruption if the NHS is to remain focused on the delivery of the NHS Plan."
  The document goes on to outline a reorganisation that will affect virtually every NHS organisation. Walshe and Smith believe—and they are not alone—that the reorganisation will lead to the NHS plan being delayed for at least 18 months as tens of thousands of people change their jobs, their job titles, their organisations—or all three.
  The Government have changed their tune. I wonder who said:
  "The last thing the NHS needs is a programme of wholesale reform … The imposition of further change and upheaval could not be justified in terms of cost alone and more importantly, it would be confusing for the public and grossly unfair on doctors, nurses and other NHS staff."
  The Secretary of State need not worry—it was not him. It was his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who will no doubt be trekking into the Lobby to support the very thing he said should never happen.
  In the true Orwellian double-think so beloved by new Labour, the Bill is described as decentralising. It is nothing of the sort. It contains 58 powers for the Secretary of State for Health, either gained, retained or enhanced. I wonder whether Labour Back Benchers actually understand what is involved when the Secretary of State determines the level of allocation for every primary care trust in the country. I ask them to consider the trouble

  209
  that arises over the local government financial allocation. Multiplying that by as big a number as they can gives an idea of what their postbags will look like. Very decentralising.
  This supposedly decentralising Bill will set up the strategic health authorities, each one of which will have its own chief executive. Let us guess who will be appointing the chief executives—the head of the civil service at the Department of Health, who also happens to be the head of the NHS executive. So the personal appointments will lie, very neatly, in the Secretary of State's office. How very decentralising.
  The Bill will appoint a council to oversee the regulatory bodies. However, there will always be a majority of one, appointed by—guess who?—the Secretary of State. Calling this a decentralising Bill is a fantasy.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the considerable shift of devolution of resources to primary care trusts is a centralising move?
  Dr. Fox: The measure is decentralising only if people have the freedom to do what they like with the money. If the Secretary of State sets the budget and the criteria to be used for performance targets and can withdraw money if people do things that he does not like, that is not decentralising. That may be how new Labour's lexicon defines decentralising, but the rest of us think it a dangerously centralising move.
  Not only is the Bill dangerously centralising, but it breaks specific promises to both Houses about the pace and nature of the development of health care. On 25 February 1999, Baroness Hayman told the House of Lords:
  "It is important to say at the start that it is no part of the Government's agenda to impose primary care trusts on the service … We want measured change, progression to trust status, driven locally, based on local views. That is why the Secretary of State will be able to establish a trust only after local consultation."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 25 February 1999; Vol. 597, c 1268.]
  Even more explicitly, the former Minister of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), told the Standing Committee considering the Health Bill on 27 April 1999:
  "it is not part of our agenda to impose PCTs on the national health service … Full and proper consultation must therefore always occur before a PCT is established, and due consideration should be given to the views of a full range of local stakeholders."—[Official Report. Standing Committee A, 27 April 1999; c. 228–29.]
  Nothing could be further from what is proposed. Given the breathtaking effrontery with which Ministers have broken their specific promises on the subject in the past, how can we believe anything they say now?
  The Bill will do nothing to stop the flow of centralised direction and instructions. It will strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State to interfere at local level. The Secretary of State will allocate the money to the PCTs so that he can determine what they will do. He can withhold money; he can set resource limits as well as cash limits; he sets performance rewards. It is micromanagement of policy, and it is folly.
  Is the current system ready for this deluge of change? The remaining 130-odd PCGs will be rushed into becoming PCTs whether they want to or not—so much for the GP freedom that was promised. Some existing
  210
  PCTs and PCGs are being rushed into mergers, whether they want to or not, and all the PCTs will be given extra responsibilities, notably commissioning, whether or not they want it or are prepared for it.
  The Government have financially supported the tracking survey carried out by the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre in collaboration with the King's Fund. The survey suggests that there are many doubts as to the ability to absorb the pace of reform. Professor David Wilkin, the project director, said that the pace of change was being dictated by Government timetables rather than by a
  "process of learning and building on experience".
  He also pointed out that
  "it is not merely a question of resources to sort out this issue … what is needed are managers with the right skills and experience coming through the system. Managers from trusts and health authorities can be taken on, but we are dealing with primary care and they don't necessarily have the skills needed".
  The survey pointed out that the average number of managerial, financial and administrative staff employed by PCGs was 6.8, compared with an average for PCTs of 15.8. That is a serious discrepancy. Equally worrying is the fact that one in seven PCGs or PCTs still has no financial director.
  According to the report, the situation relating to information management and technology was perhaps of more concern. It stated:
  "Information to support core functions of PCG/Ts is inadequate and shows little sign of improving. PCG/Ts have made some progress in formulating development plans … and increasing"
  what the report calls
  "connectivity, but shortages of skilled staff and resources make it doubtful whether they will achieve key national targets."
  Of greater worry to the authors of the report, to the BMA and many others is whether the changes in the Bill will divert activity and resources away from front-line patient care. Three quarters of the chief executives questioned believed that the reorganisation would delay the delivery of the national plan and a quarter thought that the delay would be severe.
  Will the measure save money or cost money? The Secretary of State claims that £100 million will be saved by the reorganisation. We have all heard that before in the House—from one side or the other. Hands up all those who think that any reorganisation of the NHS has ever saved money! No one who has ever been involved in running the NHS would think that. No one in the NHS thinks that there will be a net saving; indeed, there may be increased costs.
  For clarification, I turned to the Government's estimate of public sector financial effects. Line 1, paragraph 184 states:
  "None of the provisions in this Bill will entail significantly increased public spending".
  Then I noticed that the arrangements for patient and public involvement will necessitate "some" increase in expenditure, that the new functions of the Commission for Health Improvement, or CHI, will result in "some" increase in expenditure and manpower, and that the creation of the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals will have "a small financial cost". So costs are up by "some" amounts, although the Secretary of State

  211
  does not know—or will not say—by how much. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Chancellor is having doubts about him.
  How are those costs to be offset? There will be unspecified "reductions in bureaucracy" and "significant savings in management", but no "decreases in manpower" and, best of all, a
  "significant increase in volunteer input … is forecast to bring about a reduction in costs".
  The secret of the plan is unveiled: the WRVS to the rescue. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment now that not a penny will be diverted from front-line patient care while these changes are being implemented? That is what people on the front line want to know.
  There is also concern, not least in the BMA comments, that PCTs will inherit health authority deficits and the revenue consequences of capital schemes. As that is of extreme importance, will the Secretary of State now say clearly to the House that PCTs will be given a fair chance by starting with a clean slate? In other words, will he say that they will inherit no health authority deficits or revenue consequences of capital schemes?
  It is clear that we are not being given that assurance, so the worry of the BMA and others is very real. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the criteria he uses to allocate budgets to individual PCTs will be published, so that the process is as transparent as possible? We look forward to the winding-up speech. Perhaps when some of the pieces of paper arrive from the civil servants, we shall receive answers to those questions.
  Everything will be more confusing in Wales, where the plans are even less clear than those for England. Will 22 commissioning bodies mirroring the local authority be set up or not? How much bureaucracy will be entailed and will the result be territorial disputes on the border—all to the detriment of patient care?
  Other aspects will cause concern, not least—as has already been mentioned—the Government's continued malevolence towards the community health councils, whose only crime seems to have been having the audacity to criticise the Government's handling of the NHS. Far too many questions remain unanswered about the new structures and the transition phases.
  The Secretary of State was unable to answer one of the most basic questions: who owns the information? CHCs throughout the country keep large amounts of confidential patient information. It would be quite wrong for that information, which contains many patients' complaints about trusts, to go to the trusts, so who owns the information? Someone in the Government must know where the ownership of that information lies, yet neither during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, nor apparently during that of this Bill can the Government answer a simple technical, but fundamental question.
  We find the same lack of detail in the relationship between the new inspection bodies. Given the time required to prepare for any inspection, the BMA asks how such activities will be co-ordinated to ensure that even more time is not diverted from patient care. Indeed, why have the Government not taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to streamline regulation, by creating a single regulatory body covering the private sector as well as the public sector?
  212
  Given the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for his concordat and having NHS patients treated in private hospitals, I should have thought it made great sense to create a single regulatory body to ensure that patients are looked after in exactly the same way, irrespective of where the state pays for their treatment. Perhaps the Government will want to rethink that; or perhaps tomorrow's Unison cinema advertising campaign might have something to do with the Secretary of State's new bashfulness.
  Perhaps the most depressing thing about this Bill is that it will do absolutely nothing to increase choice for patients. Only this week, data have been published that show an unacceptable level of variation in the quality of care delivered by the NHS. With Labour's abolition of GP fundholding and extra-contractual referrals, which allowed doctors far greater freedom and choice as to where their patients could be treated and by whom, the net effect has been to inform patients that they may live in health ghettos, but that the Government are depriving them of the means to escape to where cure and survival rates are better. It is Labour's role, as the anti-choice party, that damns it most in the health debate.
  This Bill is irrelevant to the current NHS crisis. It is hugely centralising, bureaucratic, rushed and wasteful. It will divert time and resources from patient care, and it will offer no choice to patients who have already seen their choice restricted under this Government. It is best summed up in the comments of some of the chief executives quoted in the Government's own report. The first said:
  "This is the most ill-conceived, poorly thought through set of changes in decades. Is the plan to torpedo the implementation of the NHS plan?"
  Another said:
  "These reforms are a gamble. They may or may not work. Either way, they will inevitably result in more structural changes within the next five years. The government should not implement such risky and costly changes without much clearer analysis and assessment."
  But perhaps the greatest insight came from one who said:
  "This is my sixth reorganisation in a 30-year career in the NHS. I have always responded positively to change previously. However, these proposals are a recipe for disaster, a blend of lack of insight, ineptitude and disregard for staff at all levels."
  That is the story of the Secretary of State, his Bill and this Government.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I hope that my approach to the Bill will be a little more balanced than that shown in the previous contribution. I try to offer constructive criticism, and I hope that what I say today will be taken as constructive criticism. The Bill has many positive aspects, but the fact that I have only 10 minutes in which to speak does not leave me a great deal of time to expand on them, so I shall concentrate on the issues about which I have some concern. I hope that some of those issues will be addressed during the Bill's consideration.
  The Secretary of State has talked about the way in which the Government are finally, as he put it, getting health and social care to work together. I wish I were as optimistic as he is. Frankly, looking at my own backyard, which he knows reasonably well, things are as bad as

  213
  ever. Two weeks ago, I saw the figures on delayed discharges, which are very worrying. Although my right hon. Friend disagrees with my solution, he knows what it is. Perhaps we could engage in a dialogue during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
  One of my concerns about the Bill is that it is too narrowly focused on health. Some of the structures proposed fail to take account of the crucial relationship with social care. I shall come to that in more detail shortly.
  The Bill also accepts uncritically one of the central historical weaknesses of the NHS—its lack of democracy and lack of engagement and involvement with the people whom it serves. The Bill says that it seeks to involve the patients and the public in the NHS, but it will not let them run it. We should consider how we can ensure that we have a democratically elected health service that means that those who use the service are in the driving seat in a way that they have not been since the service was created in 1946. Another key problem relating to that is the lack of personal ownership of the health service by its users. That is why some people do not take care of the service that they use or regularly fail to turn up for appointments.
  We hear much about joined-up government and I believe that the Government are, in some respects, genuinely trying to join up thinking. However, the Bill fails to relate to the growing debate in areas such as mine on the need for regional government. The new strategic health authorities provide an opportunity to draw together important policy strands in radical new ways and I genuinely welcome their introduction. As the Secretary of State is well aware, clear problems have arisen as a result of the lack of a strategic overview at a regional level. Local reconfigurations have suited one area but affected another, and no one has considered the big picture.
  When the Secretary of State attended the Select Committee on Health the other week, I raised my concern about public health strategies. We need to ensure that the new regional bodies have a clear role in addressing health inequalities. I worry that the public health agenda is sliding slightly as a result of the changes that are taking place. I hope that I will be reassured on that point as the Bill goes through Parliament.
  I welcome the new bodies, but they miss an opportunity in that they will not draw together strategic planning on health and social care. They will not be linked to democratic regional structures that could combine regeneration with public health and social care.
  I welcome the proposal for joint working with the Prison Service, because there are two prisons in my area. I also welcome the proposal for the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals but, as I have said before, why does it not regulate health and social care professionals? We have recently legislated on social care and, as we consider joint working and moving people closer together, it might be appropriate to include social care professionals in that umbrella organisation. I broadly support the proposals for strengthening the Commission for Health Improvement because it has made an important contribution to addressing quality issues.
  On patient involvement, the Government have failed completely to produce a coherent argument to convince me and others of the need for the abolition of the community health councils. I am not a great fan of the
  214
  CHCs; they leave a great deal to be desired. However, the Government have not convinced me that the proposals on offer in this or the previous Bill will be any better.
  I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). Over the past few weeks and months, she has worked extremely hard to try to come up with a coherent alternative. I praise the fact that she has been prepared to listen to people and to talk to them, but she has been landed with an impossible brief. I feel sorry because she has had to try to come up with a solution that will lead to the abolition of the CHCs.
  I have considered the proposals in the Bill and I find them baffling. I honestly do not understand them. One of the key points is that the system should be easily understood, but the complexity of the proposals needs to be reconsidered so that the patient—the man or woman in the street—knows where to go and who does what. I have looked at the proposals and, frankly, do not understand who is going to do what. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response because that might explain to me—perhaps I am on the simple side—what the Government are getting at. I have tried desperately hard to understand what they are doing but, so far, they have not come up with any solutions.
  I understand the role of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and that local networks will support and co-ordinate patients forums, commission independent complaints advocacy and help community groups. We will also have outreach teams working from local premises and standing lay reference panels to guide the local work programme. The local networks will be the glue to bind other elements together. Frankly, if the system was not fractured we would not need glue. I am concerned, as I was about the previous proposals, that we should not have dislocated structures; we should, instead, have united structures.
  What is missing is a function similar to that of the patients council to draw local separate elements together in a coherent way. The proposals are too narrowly focused. They fail to enable a collective organisation of members of a patients forum to develop an overall picture of the local health economy. Only last week, the Health Committee took evidence from Central Manchester CHC on the overall impact on its health economy of the local private finance initiative scheme. I do not understand how that bigger picture can be reflected in the new structures because they are not glued together as the CHCs are. I accept that the CHCs do not deal with primary care issues, but they could do, as the Secretary of State is aware. It would be easy for them to deal with those sectors that they have not been allowed to address. We need to modernise the CHC structure. I have no problem with getting rid of the CHCs, but I want a coherent alternative, which does not seem to be available at present.
  I am also worried that the approach to the independent complaints advocacy service will be inconsistent. I am not aware where that important service will be located. I see that it will be related to the new body, but it might be situated in different parts of the local health structure across the country. We need consistency. I recall talking to the Secretary of State about my belief that the advocacy role should be placed within patients councils if we get rid of the CHCs. There should be one common place for advocacy so that people, wherever they are, know which body will offer them that advice, but that is not the case

  215
  at the moment. From my experience of dealing with complaints and difficulties in the health service, I realise that that is a major problem with the Bill.
  Overall, the Bill has many positive aspects and the correct steps have been taken. I hope that some of the points that I have raised will be considered in Committee so that I will understand fully on Report that the Government are offering something that is better than the present system.
  5.48 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: There is an old joke about a man who goes to see his doctor complaining that his brother thinks that he is a chicken. The doctor says, "Why don't you turn him in? He is clearly crazy", and the man says, "I would, but I need the eggs." The Secretary of State is that man and the Bill is his chicken. I suspect that he genuinely believes that he will deliver the NHS plan with a Bill that distracts the attention of people who work in the service while failing to give a sensible allocation of the resources—not just in funding terms, but in staffing and time terms—to deliver the plan. The fact that he has already left the Chamber suggests that he does not want to hear the diagnosis. He is all too willing to make claims about other people's unwillingness to accept reform, but unwilling himself to hear the diagnosis of his own failure.
  The Bill is the emperor's new clothes. It reflects a desire to be seen to be active in making changes to the structure while the NHS continues to fail to deliver what patients deserve. That has been the story of this Labour Administration and the preceding one. There has been a lot of talk about radical reform and the abolition of the internal market. Indeed, the Secretary of State boasted about that in his opening remarks. The internal market separated commissioning from provision. That separation still exists, and it is right that it has not been abolished.
  The market was described as the money following the patient, but as the Secretary of State said, that never happened—the patient simply followed the contract. In their previous reforms, the Government simply renamed contracts as service agreements, and now the patient follows the service agreement. The only instance in which money followed the patient was in extra-contractual referrals, and those were abolished in favour of out-of-area treatments, in which money does follow the patient, but two years late and too late to make life easy for those who plan specialised treatments.
  We have a Government who are proud of claiming to reform when they are failing to reform at all. They talked about ending the two-tier system, claiming that there was a terrible gap between provision for patients of GP non-fundholders and provision for patients of GP fundholders, when in fact the major inequity is now between people who can afford to go private for treatment that is not available on the NHS or is available only after a long wait, and those who cannot. The effects of that two-tier system have got worse under this Government.
  The Government seem to want to inflict on the health service reform for its own sake. Liberal Democrat Members are very keen to see reform when a case is made for it, but reform for its own sake is simply sabotage, and that we will not support. If there were evidence that these
  216
  reforms were based on a master plan, which had widespread support, they would have more credence. We have yet to see the Government's response to the Kennedy report, so we do not know whether the reforms that it suggests, which have the full support of Liberal Democrats, will be implemented in full. That would be a sensible place to start with NHS reform.
  The Government fail to take responsibility for their own mistakes. They have been very keen on blaming the last Government, although they now realise that they themselves were the last Government, so they talk about the Government before last. However, it was a Labour Government who raised expectations by claiming that they would save the NHS in 14 days, or at least within four years.
  Mr. Simon Burns: More like 24 hours.
  Dr. Harris: Indeed, perhaps the stakes are being raised all the time.
  The Government could not meet those expectations, and they should not have claimed to be able to do so. There is significant support among Liberal Democrats for the Government's view that the failures in manpower planning by Conservative Governments between 10 and 15 years ago led to the current shortage of specialists and other medical manpower. The cuts in the number of nursing school places was also a major mistake by the Conservatives from which we are still recovering.
  The Government would have more credibility on that score if, on corning into power, when the problem was obvious, they had acted to increase medical school numbers. Instead, they waited until 1999 to start a seven-year rolling programme of increase. Similarly, they were slow to increase nursing school numbers. That is because, while rejecting Tory policy, they accepted, at least for the first two or three years, Tory spending plans. The two decisions are inconsistent, and the Government are now living with the results of their failure. They have raised expectations without delivering funding. Now the funding is being made available. We believe that it is inadequate, but compared with previous years the amounts are significant. However, that money is being wasted on the funding of agency nurses. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has showed that in London the expenditure on agency nurses has shot up.
  The Government are paying the price of their failure to deliver joined-up health and social services care, as we can see in the effects of delayed discharges, which deny resources to people trying to get health service treatment while putting people who seek to leave acute hospitals at risk of infection and of a failure to get the rehabilitation that they need. We now have a crazy system in which elderly people have to queue up to get into hospital and then are not allowed out when they have been treated. As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, the Bill is notable for the absence of any measure to provide extra joint working between health and social services. There is no recognition that year-on-year increases in social services funding have fallen way behind increases in health funding despite the fact that social services face the same demographic pressures and staffing cost pressures.

  217
  Liberal Democrats have explained, in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot support the Bill on Second Reading. It fails to address the major issues in the health service, and it causes problems in the provision of public health services instead of solving them. As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, it is a centralising measure but it pretends to be otherwise. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, the Bill fails to deliver the patient and public involvement that is desired by stakeholders in the health service, by the country and by Members in this House and the House of Lords.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that Liberal Democrat Members intend to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. What will that do to the partnership agreement in the Welsh Assembly, because the clauses that deal with Wales are promoted by his party in Wales and will fall if the Bill falls?
  Dr. Harris: We hope to be able to amend those parts of the Bill that we do not support. I will go on to explain which parts we support. The prevalent idea among Labour Members that one can hitch a measure that is supported to a measure to slaughter the first born, and expect Opposition Members to support it as blindly as Labour Back Benchers do, shows their lack of a grip on reality. Our opposition is constructive.
  Mr. Jones rose—
  Dr. Harris: It would not be fair to him to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again, but I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) is hoping to catch the Speaker's eye so that he can talk about the proposals that relate to Wales.
  I want to concentrate on the Bill's impact on the delivery of public health. The hon. Member for Wakefield expressed his regret, which I share, that public health has fallen so far down the Government's agenda. The Secretary of State, who sadly is no longer in the Chamber, tantalisingly pointed out that the prescription and provision of statins, cholesterol-lowering drugs, can save even more lives per year than the faster delivery of heart operations in the acute sector. However, he did not say that even more lives would be saved by NHS provision of smoking cessation advice to far more people than now receive it under the Government's scheme. That shows how public health has slipped down the Government's agenda.
  The United Kingdom Public Health Association expressed concerns about how the abolition of health authorities would affect public health practitioners and about the clarity of the proposed structure. The hon. Member for Woodspring read extensively from the excellent House of Commons Library briefing, so I shall do the same. The UKPHA said:
  "Above all, we regret most profoundly the effect of the 'planning blight' now affecting public health specialists and practitioners at all levels, but particularly at senior level. While welcoming the strong presence of public health at all levels in the new structure, we remain concerned that the respective roles and contributions of public health leaders at primary care trust, strategic health authority and regional levels need to be clarified as a matter of urgency. The risk otherwise is that scarce public resources will not be utilised effectively and confusion will arise between the various levels and their core responsibilities."
  218
  The function of public health is critical to effective and cost-effective commissioning. There is a fear that good, experienced people will have had enough of continual change and will leave the front-line services. Sadly, some have left those services in my county of Oxfordshire, and I know that the story is repeated elsewhere.
  The Government must answer the charge of control freakery. The desire to control all commissioning decisions in the health service is a serious problem for a Government who claim that they are decentralising. We have already heard concerns about the provisions of clause 8, especially the proposed new subsection 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977, which will reward certain primary care trusts for what can only be described as political obedience. The last thing that patients need is commissioning based on political obedience rather than their interests, including the better delivery of health care.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for 12 minutes. He said that his party would vote against the Bill; can he tell us what the alternatives are?
  Dr. Harris: I am certainly going to come on to that. It is for the Government to come up with sensible reforms, but I shall certainly explain to the hon. Gentleman which aspects of the Bill I support and what we would like to see in it. As I said, the idea of reform for its own sake is effectively sabotage; the health service does not need something that cannot be supported by those working at the coal face. No constituent, who has sent me a letter expressing concern about the failure of the health service to deliver, has begged me to reform NHS structures still more. We need an amnesty on health service reform. Sometimes undertaking no reform is better than reform for its own sake, which is equivalent to sabotage. It diverts people from trying to deliver outcomes that we all want, including the Government, by asking those individuals to reapply for their jobs in some other structure.
  The Government have talked about their wish for decentralisation, but it is clear that they are not decentralising power which, in the health service, is founded on the ability to take decisions about which services to commission, the shape of service provision and which new treatments to provide. That implies that there is sufficient growth funding to allow local discretion, where the power is allegedly devolved, to make funded changes. Health authorities throughout the country have made it clear that that growth money is already spoken for in must-dos and diktats that have been issued centrally. The Government cannot claim to decentralise power when, in fact, they are centralising it. They are centralising praise by making announcements of new money centrally, but are seeking to decentralise blame, because they know that otherwise they will be held to account for failing to deliver.
  The Secretary of State said that he wants to be judged on tipping the balance from central interference, as he called it, to a more patient-centred approach, and specified three measures to achieve that: improved regulation, measures to change—or, he would argue, improve—public involvement, and the devolution of power locally. We award the Government only one out of three; we support the greater independence of the Commission for Health Improvement and, in principle, the setting up of a council to regulate health professions. However,

  219
  they cannot have our support for two of the three proposals because of their failure to deliver a more patient-centred approach involving the public and patients, and their refusal to decentralise genuine power. That is why we shall oppose the Bill tonight.
  The Government have said that their changes will deliver £100 million-worth of savings in the context of £1 billion-worth of savings from management changes. Will the Minister allow the Audit Commission to check whether those savings have been, or will ever be, delivered? The creation of more commissioning groups, following the abolition of health authorities and the creation of strategic health authorities and more primary care trusts will lead to more bureaucracy and tiers of management in the health service.
  We have some concerns about the new Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. However, it is clear that best practice in each profession ought to be spread to the other professions. There is no reason why the regulation of doctors' practices should be wholly different from the regulation of the practices of nurses and professions allied to medicine. There is no doubt that practices in some areas are better than in others. If the new council has a co-ordinating role in inviting other councils to modernise and update their procedures, as has begun to take place under the order-making powers in the Health Act 1999, we welcome that.
  The Government must be clear about whether there will be extensive powers to direct councils to do the bidding of the new body, given that its make-up does not amount to professional self-regulation to which, in Standing Committee recently, the Minister said the Government were committed. If we do not have professional self-regulation by dint of not having a professional majority on the new council which can issue directions to the uni-professional councils and the Council for Professions Allied to Medicine to do certain things, that may be a retrograde step. The Government must clarify the extent of those powers. It is welcome that a majority of members on the new council are not professionals. However, the Secretary of State finessed the fact that most of that majority will probably be appointed by him, so will not be independently appointed. The Government need to explain why that is not indirect political regulation of the health professions.
  Finally, we have an open mind about which structures will deliver public and patient involvement. We have set tests for that involvement and want to make sure that the structures that the Government are imposing in the Bill will deliver the capabilities that they specify.
  Andy Burnham: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) that he would deal with his party's alternative proposals for the NHS. Will he now enlighten the House on what they are and how he proposes to pay for them?
  Dr. Harris: I should be delighted to do so, but I am keen to stick mainly to the Bill. However, I direct the hon. Gentleman to the manifesto that we produced at the last election, which made it clear that we would provide significant extra money, funded by fair taxation, which is
  220
  the only taxation—the hon. Gentleman is probably proud of this—that the Labour party has committed itself not to raise. There will be stealth taxes, regressive taxes and rises in council tax to try to repair the damage to social services, but there will be no resources, funded through fair taxation, which are required, for example, to abolish charges for personal care and nursing care for elderly people.
  Such proposals have gained widespread support, not only from the electorate, but from people who are interested in a health service that is free at the point of delivery and stands for equity, quality and access. I will send the hon. Gentleman details of our proposals if he is desperate, but I suggest that he takes the time to read our manifesto. I suggest that he takes the time properly to scrutinise his own Government, as their proposals on public and patient involvement are worse than those that they previously introduced in the House.
  We have an open mind about the exact structures needed for such involvement. We have the same questions as the hon. Member for Wakefield about why community health councils cannot be reformed, as the councils themselves wish. They do not have the power to reform themselves, so the Government should not sweep away parts of the CHCs that are working well, but should give them the power to get involved in primary care, to provide the relevant structures so that their members are independently appointed and to enable them to enjoy formal representation on the boards of local bodies. At some point, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) should scrutinise his own Front-Benchers.
  Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to change the position that they set out in their consultation paper. It is wrong for political parties to oppose something, then criticise Governments who appear to listen for making a U-turn. I do not wish to criticise the Minister or the Secretary of State for moving back from the position in their consultation paper, but the Bill's proposals still do not pass the tests of accessibility, accountability, effectiveness, independence and integration. There is no accessibility, as the hon. Member for Wakefield said, because it is not clear to which body members of the public and patients can turn, whether for independent advocacy or for scrutiny of what is going on in the health service.
  That is why we believe that there is a role for a body such as a co-ordinated patients council, whether it is called a patients council or a reformed community health council, in providing the cohesiveness and integration that are required. It is not clear how patients forums will be accountable to those who appoint them. We need a wider body at a local or sub-regional level to provide that accountability to the representative groups, including local government, that have stakes in the delivery of health care. It is not clear that the Government's proposals will be effective, as it is not clear whether they will involve a professional secretariat and the experience that it would bring to bear.
  On all those tests, the current proposals fail. We look forward to the Government making suggestions, preferably in Committee here, but perhaps in later stages of the Bill's passage in this place or the House of Lords, that meet the tests of effectiveness, accountability, accessibility, independence and integration. We will consider such proposals with an open mind.

  221
  In conclusion, it is clear that the Government do not have a coherent plan. They are desperate to avoid getting the blame for their failure to deliver in this Parliament because of their failure to allow the health service space to choose its priorities within the all too limited funds that they have so far allocated. We can see a willingness to decentralise only blame and to centralise praise, and to shift not the balance of power, but the blame.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I rise to praise virtually unreservedly the proposals for improving health in Wales and the structural changes that go with that which are contained in the Bill.
  The proposals have their root in the thinking that was initiated immediately after the Labour party's victory in 1997 and that has been developed consistently since then. Our purpose in Wales was to create an NHS in which all parts and all people worked together to provide quality care and effective services for patients. Apart from co-operation across the NHS in Wales, we also took the decision to develop at NHS trust level an integrated service combining, in the main, acute, community and mental health services. The Velindre trust, specialising in cancer care, and the Wales Ambulance trust were the only two of the 16 trusts not to contain at least two of those sectors, and 11 of the other 14 contained all three.
  In considering the development of a positive agenda for health in Wales that went beyond treatment issues, we established a framework to develop partnerships between the NHS and local government. Hence, 22 local health groups were created to establish the principle of co-terminosity: matching NHS trusts and local councils to facilitate partnership and joint working, especially between the health service and social services.
  Those principles and foundations for action were laid in the first 14 months of the Labour Government and they have been built on consistently since by successive Secretaries of State—my right hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)—and Welsh Office Health Ministers—my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). The mantle in the National Assembly for Wales was taken up by Jane Hutt, Assembly Member for Vale of Glamorgan and Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales.
  Accordingly, I welcome virtually all that has come out of the consultation on structural change in the NHS in Wales. I submitted a contribution to the Assembly and many, although not all, of my concerns have been tackled. The Welsh clauses in the Bill give the Assembly very substantial and wide-ranging powers to abolish health authorities, create local health boards and strengthen strategic guidance and oversight of the NHS in Wales. That will enable the development of a strong and creative partnership between the NHS and local government, which, in addition to tackling treatment problems at local and trust level, will develop a programme for health improvement. I share Jane Hutt's belief that it is essential to maintain the principle of co-terminosity of health and local government structures to deliver a better health service for people in Wales. I differ, however, on the absolute need for that co-terminosity to be determined by the number of county and county borough councils in Wales, an issue to which I shall return in my concluding remarks.
  222
  I welcome the strengthening of the NHS Wales directorate with the creation of a primary care directorate and lead directors for mental health and children's health. The importance of the latter initiative cannot be overemphasised. I look forward to the establishment of new medical committees based on the old district medical committees, but now including secondary as well as primary care staff, to develop policy and tackle health problems in Wales. The creation of a clearly delineated public health service in the Wales centre for health that is accountable to the chief medical officer and operates at local health board level will provide a new focus for high standards in public health services for personal health and well-being, which are of fundamental importance. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) might just have mentioned that in his diatribe on that particular subject.
  I look forward to the strengthening of the role of the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales in commissioning tertiary and highly specialised acute services that could not easily be developed in any one trust or by one local health board acting alone, and in providing guidance and oversight in those sectors. I am pleased that, as a result of the consultation, the proposals to create three so-called health economies containing local health board consortiums and disintegrate compulsorily the recently integrated trusts by removing community health and intermediate care services have been dropped. I am pleased that the latter proposal will proceed only if trusts volunteer for it.
  Before concluding on the linchpin issue of the role and number of local health boards, I want to pay tribute to the way in which the role of nurses has been recognised, albeit belatedly, on the local health boards and at other levels of the NHS in Wales. The Royal College of Nursing in Wales has responded very positively to consultation on structural change, although, like me, it has one remaining significant concern about the appropriate number of local health boards.
  As a general rule, the best way to achieve co-terminosity and maintain the match of national health service trusts and local councils is to base local health boards on trust areas. The boards will be stronger for that, as well as better able to employ high-quality staff and get able board members who are fully capable of working with the trusts to provide improved health care and develop positive health strategies.
  Given that the Bill does not specify the number of local health boards or state that each local health authority must have one, and as the National Assembly for Wales is still developing its plans for the final nature of local health boards with the demise of the five health authorities, I shall not rehearse in detail all my arguments about why I think that the arrangement should, as a general rule, relate to the trusts rather than to the local authorities. However, I look forward to continuing dialogue with the Assembly on the most appropriate number of local health boards to maintain the principle of matching trusts with local councils and develop a health service that will serve the people of Wales well.
  6.19 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Like most community health councils, the four CHCs in Hertfordshire recognised that certain changes were necessary to improve public and

  223
  patient involvement in health care. They have been working closely with local NHS organisations to try to put into practice some of the proposals to put patients at the centre of the national health service. To that end, they are engaged in setting up shadow patients forums in each local NHS trust, bringing together complaints staff from each CHC to create an embryonic independent complaints advocacy service, and working closely with the county council and other local authorities on the overview and scrutiny functions.
  None the less, although the East Herts community health council, which covers my constituency, views the Bill's public and patient involvement proposals as an improvement on previous health measures, it has several serious anxieties, which I shall outline.
  The proposal for a Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, with local offices to support and integrate the work of patients forums, commission the independent complaints advocacy service and encourage the transmission of patient and public views to local authority overview and security committees, goes some way to answering the criticism that the proposed system will fragment the current arrangement whereby the CHCs act as a one-stop shop for all those functions. However, it means that the number of members, accountability and staffing of the commission are of the utmost importance.
  The Bill makes none of those matters clear. The criteria for appointment to the commission, its size and to whom members are accountable are unclear.
  Angela Watkinson: What confidence does my hon. Friend have that anyone who is not a Labour supporter will be appointed to the new bodies?
  Mrs. Roe: That is why such serious anxieties exist in my constituency. Nothing states from where members will be drawn. In view of the composition of other health authorities and bodies, people are worried about the balance of membership.
  I received a copy of the latest document, "Involving Patients and the Public in Healthcare: Response to the Listening Exercise" this morning. Although it gives some idea of the proposed make-up of the commission by suggesting a system of nominations from the lay panels of the commission's local networks—a new proposal that is not in the Bill—and national patients organisations, the criteria for appointment, number of members and accountability remain unstated. The amount and source of the commission's funding is also unknown.
  The composition, appointment and accountability of members of patients forums, which are proposed to take over the CHCs' role of reviewing and monitoring NHS services, arouse similar anxiety. Although the functions and responsibilities of patients forums are given in detail, including an extension of inspection rights to cover primary care—the CHCs have requested such rights for many years—the Bill is largely silent about their accountability, size, make-up and membership criteria.
  It is suggested that the independent NHS Appointments Commission will make the appointments. However, that is a national body, whereas patients forums are essentially local organisations that need to reflect local interests.
  224
  The explanatory notes state that membership will be drawn from patients, carers and organisations in the voluntary sector that represent patients. Although the response to the listening exercise suggests that the criteria for membership
  "will need to be open and clear",
  and clarifies to some extent how the commission will operate locally, specific proposals on accountability, numbers and the required staff do not appear in the Bill. To make forums truly representative, the concerns of ordinary taxpayers, who have a right as citizens to express their views about health services, need a place.
  The way in which the proposed procedure in the response to the listening exercise will ensure fair and balanced representation, including that of disadvantaged members of society, deserves greater clarification. Given that there are likely to be 600 or 700 forums, attracting enough people to serve on them remains a challenge.
  The Bill is silent about staffing, including the level of professional advice as well as administrative provision, its adequacy for the tasks assigned to the forums and funding details.
  A further anxiety is that the public's right to have contentious matters, such as the closure or reconfiguration of NHS facilities and services, referred to the Secretary of State—the CHCs currently exercise that right on behalf of the public—will be obscured by its transfer to overview and scrutiny committees.
  The proposed abolition of the CHCs means that the current position will be superseded. Although the response to the listening exercise states:
  "powers of referral will be no less than the current powers held by CHCs",
  that was not stated clearly in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and is too important not to be enshrined in legislation. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the rights of the public will be expanded rather than simply maintained or even diminished.
  Another anxiety is the form that any transition will take, if the Bill is approved. The CHC members and staff have been in limbo for almost 18 months. Demoralisation and uncertainty has meant that many CHCs throughout the country have lost valuable members and staff. Replacement has become extremely difficult.
  My local CHC has been fortunate in maintaining its momentum by trying to deal with patient and public involvement positively, with the encouragement of the local NHS trust and health authority. That encouragement should be undertaken nationally by the Government, especially the Department of Health, and regionally. The CHCs need formal and practical encouragement, including adequate resourcing, to move to any new system.
  The proposals in the response to the listening exercise try to deal with that and should be welcomed as far as they go, but they are too late for many staff and members. The Government must ensure that the valuable experience, knowledge and expertise of CHC members and staff do not continue to haemorrhage to the detriment of the NHS, but are retained for its benefit and, more important, for that of all those who use its services.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, the Bill does nothing to solve the genuine problems of the NHS. Replacing the CHCs with a plethora of alternative bodies with far less independence does not constitute progress.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I want to make a general point and a specific point, and I shall be as brief as possible. Today, we are debating the last of our nationalised industries, and many hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my time in the House, the abolition of our nationalised industries has often been cheered by Members of at least one party. However, it is noticeable that when we debate the national health service, almost no Member criticises it. It is the one part of our post-war settlement that is held in such regard by the public that politicians reform it at huge personal and political risk. The fine picture painted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the end of his speech will be endorsed by the House and the entire country.
  It is noticeable that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is in his seat for the debate. It is probably fair to say that he was one of the first Members to enter the Lobby when the House denationalised most of the nationalised industries, but there was no stronger champion of the NHS than he during the Tory Governments of the late 1970s and the 1980s and 1990s. In that way, he has accurately reflected the view in the country.
  When the Secretary of State painted that broad canvas depicting his vision of the NHS at the end of a 10-year period, and spoke about how he hoped for the support necessary to turn that nationalised industry from a producers co-op into a consumer industry, it was noticeable how limited his first steps were in that direction. We need only think about how we behave as consumers in every other activity of our lives, and contrast that with how we have to behave as consumers in the NHS, to realise the lengths to which we must go to ensure that our last and only respected nationalised industry is successfully reformed. That is my general point.
  My specific point relates to part 2 of the Bill. The ideas that I put before the House, and to which I may return in Committee and certainly on Report, relate to the regulation of the medical professions. I make a plea to the House to stand back and look at what we have been doing on regulation for the past 20 years. We have been denationalising ourselves and handing our functions to quangos outside the House, which are hardly responsible to the House. They lay an annual report before the House, but we all know that that is not accountability to the House. We have not recognised that the process of regulation should apply to an equally urgent issue on the Government's agenda—the modernisation of the House of Commons.
  One of the problems that we face when we debate modernisation of the House is that some people have a hidden agenda, and view modernisation of the House of Commons as a means of defeating the Government. Of course, the Government must be sensitive to the views in this place, but if we are to hold the Government accountable at election times, Governments must, generally speaking, get their measures through, otherwise they will say, "We would have liked to do all that, but the rebels on the Back Benches prevented us from doing so."
  Our role is not to take back the regulatory powers that we have given—the four huge ones to the public utilities now in the private sector, or to the Financial Services Authority or the Food Standards Agency. However, we should at least make those bodies responsible to the House
  226
  of Commons or to both Houses through a joint Select Committee, which would have the time and some of the expertise not to perform the function of regulation, but to hold the regulators accountable to Parliament and thus to the people.
  The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, which has a co-ordinating function, should have been established by the part of the Bill dealing with quality. If we, as consumers, are concerned about the professional standards of the growing medical profession that will affect us and our constituents, we should see it as part of the regulatory function and also part of our function to support those professions as they try to push up the quality of care and the standards to which they conduct their proceedings in the NHS and, as has been argued, in the private sector.
  Those are not simply my ideas—they have been developed with Sir Donald Irvine who, as is well known, is the radical president of the General Medical Council. I hope that we may return to the idea on another occasion and not only debate more fully the effective reform of the NHS, but take the reform of Parliament out of the cul de sac where it has been for so long and give it a new track down which it could go towards success.
  The first of my two points, then, is that the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his concluding remarks are shared by the entire House. Our job soon will be to improve the Bill so that it will achieve the objectives that he set before us and the country. Secondly, I have made a plea for us to link, in Committee and on Report, the raising of standards of care and professional standards of conduct in the health service to the reform of Parliament.
  Perhaps with this measure we will cease to denationalise ourselves and hand our functions to quangos, and welcome the existence of new quangos but make them accountable to us. In that way, the new Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals will be able to carry out its functions more effectively, and many more Back Benchers will find a useful role in the House of Commons.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The comments that I shall make follow on neatly from the first of the two points made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The question that I put to the House is simple: why is the Bill creating so little interest among those who share the broad vision with which the Secretary of State concluded his speech and which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead endorsed?
  No Member can doubt that health policy is an issue of concern to the great majority of voters. The Secretary of State's claim for his Bill was certainly not understated. He said that it represented the most fundamental reform of the health service since its foundation more than 50 years ago. If we are dealing with a subject of intense political interest, and the Secretary of State claims that his Bill is the most fundamental reform of the service for more than 50 years, why is there a deafening silence outside the House in the public reaction to the proposals he claims are so radical?
  Any dispassionate observer looking at the comments on health politics would recognise that there is the occasional dutiful editorial, usually the second or third editorial in the broadsheets on a quiet news day. Even the

  227
  Health Service Journal has found it impossible to limber itself up to care about the Bill. That is true whether the views expressed are in favour of the Bill or against it. The speeches we have heard so far have not roused passion for or against the Bill. Why is it that a Bill which focuses on an issue of major political import, and which the Secretary of State believes is a major radical reforming Bill, arouses almost no interest in the health service or outside it?
  The answer is simple—the voters understand something which they fear the politicians do not, namely, that the problems of health care delivery in a modern society will not be solved by further administrative reform of the NHS. God knows, we tried it over 30 years. Sir Keith Joseph invented district health authorities, area health authorities and regional health authorities; Patrick Jenkin abolished area health authorities; Norman Fowler introduced general managers; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced trusts and fundholders; my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) reorganised social care; and I played a modest part in the process by abolishing family health services authorities. The Secretary of State is reinventing district and regional health authorities. That is an abridged version of the process of administrative reform to which we have subjected the NHS over the past 30 years.
  None of those reforms, whether sponsored by my right hon. Friends or by Labour Members, was as bad as people feared, but none delivered the results claimed for them when they were advocated. The voters do not care about the Bill because they know that reforms, as they are introduced and sponsored by the politicians, will not deliver what is claimed for them. People already understand that simple bureaucratic change will not deliver the social policy objectives that we all have for health care.
  The Secretary of State identified in his opening remarks the right staring point for genuine reform of the health service, which is not yet another administrative change. He correctly said that, if we are to deliver our social policy objectives on health, we must understand how to deliver a health system that responds to the needs of consumers who have grown used in the rest of society to a different model for the delivery of services that are important to them. They have grown used to a world in which institutions must be customer, client and consumer responsive, and which faces in a way that the NHS has never yet learned.
  The Secretary of State was right to emphasise in his NHS plan the importance of considering service delivery from the patient's perspective, but we cannot really be thinking about health care and social care delivery from the service user's perspective when the anomalous distinction between them still remains at the heart of our delivery system. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), with whom I do not always agree on health service issues.
  I understand the bureaucratic distinctions that people draw, but in over four years as a Health Minister I never met a single 80-year-old who understood the difference between health care and social care, except to the extent that people understood jolly well whether those had to be paid for. That is the only difference for the service
  228
  recipient, and it is the bigger problem of health care delivery caught in microcosm. How to deliver a health care and social care system that responds to patient wishes and grows in response to them, and how to pay for that, lie at the heart of genuine NHS reform. The voters are well aware of that and they think that the political class is in denial.
  The Bill is a good example of the political class being in denial and its central message is that the health service will continue as before, although the bureaucracy will change. That has been the NHS message for 30 years. There is a disconnection because the voters know that, sooner rather than later, the model we have sought to deliver must be addressed more fundamentally. They agree with the Secretary of State, as I do, that the social policy objective must be to deliver health care on the basis of clinical need without regard to the patient's ability to pay, but they know, although the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to acknowledge it, that the service is not responsive enough and that it will not become so through such bureaucratic change.
  The Secretary of State, like me before him and like all previous Secretaries of State, denies that people go private because they think that their capacity to pay will deliver better health care. All Secretaries of State know, as the World Health Organisation pointed out earlier this year, that other countries have found ways to harness the patient's willingness to pay with the social policy objective of equity of access. They also know that the NHS is underfunded and that the Chancellor or the Prime Minister saying that they can solve that problem through the tax system is the equivalent of the tooth fairy.
  We in the House are in danger of being disconnected from our voters because we are in denial about truths that they recognise while we are unwilling to do so. Until we address those issues head on, we shall not earn their trust or respect.
  6.46 pm
  Siobhain McDonagh: I shall make a general contribution to the debate. I welcome the Government's continuing commitment to reforming the national health service to make it more efficient and more responsive to the needs of its users. The NHS remains a proud achievement of the 1945 Labour Government—perhaps the Administration with whom this ambitious Labour Government identify most closely.
  The very existence of the NHS is one reason for my joining the Labour party 25 years ago. I am proud to be here to witness its reform and renewal as an organisation that is equipped for the challenges of modern health care and modern management and striving for equality of health care across our country. I hope that, in 50 years, our successors in the House will be describing the NHS, with equal enthusiasm and an equally protective instinct, as one of the best public services that this country has to offer.
  However, that is not to say that any of us, least of all the Secretary of State, is blind to the problems that the NHS has faced for much of its existence. My constituents in Mitcham and Morden have recently had to bear the worry and stigma of their local hospital trust, Epsom and St. Helier, being criticised by the Commission for Health Improvement over the quality of services it provides.
  Those failings are being addressed, but for a long time they were not news to people in St. Helier, Ravensbury or lower Morden, who tried endlessly to explain the

  229
  problems but who were endlessly ignored. I know that my constituents will welcome the Government's reforms, provided that they have a tangible and visible effect on their hospital and give them a stake in the way it is run.
  Members on both sides of the House know NHS hospitals at first hand or through the experience of elderly parents, children or friends. We all know that hospitals need to be improved and that a variety of causes hold that back. I remember when the unions were blamed for the ills of the NHS, but these days the public-private partnership has begun to be used as a catch-all scapegoat for whatever problems it faces.
  Both those points of view have more to do with dogma than reality. Dogma never delivered a baby, found a cure for cancer, provided a modern hearing aid or helped people to rebuild their lives after the devastation of a stroke. We must stop considering the NHS through the prism of the past and, as modernisers and pragmatists, must work to a better NHS for everyone—all the people who have a right to decent public health care and who are not concerned about who builds the hospital, as long as someone gets on and builds it.
  The people of this country expect us to crack on with building hospitals, operate existing ones to the highest standards possible and, where appropriate, reopen defunct cottage hospitals across the country as intermediate care facilities to provide step-down beds and ease the colossal pressure on larger acute hospitals.
  for example, I would like the Wilson, which was once a very fine cottage hospital serving the community in Mitcham, to reopen. For some years, it has been used as offices by Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, so where there were once beds there are now desks and filing cabinets. Equidistant between St. Helier and St. George's hospitals, the Wilson could ease the pressure on the acute beds in both. People would strongly support opening a large number of such dormant facilities to ease the pressure on acute hospitals and care for the elderly.
  In recent decades, the NHS has been hamstrung by a lack of resources and a lack of vision for its future, particularly in the bleak, bleak Tory years when it seemed to many that people were being forced to accept a poor, chaotic health service although, as patients and as taxpayers, they had every right to expect much better. We faced a mountainous task in May 1997, and four and a half years later we are still on the lower slopes.
  A right hon. Friend of mine once said that we had 24 hours in which to save the NHS. Sometimes, when I receive letters from constituents who have had an appalling time in hospital, who have waited upwards of 12 months to see a consultant, or who must put up with ill-fitting temporary analogue hearing aids when their lives could be transformed by digital aids, I feel that 25 years might be nearer the mark.
  The long struggle that we all face, in government or not, is the struggle to restore the diminished confidence in the health service, modernise its delivery to our people, and reform its structure so that it can offer a much more patient-focused service. We must invest heavily in hospitals throughout the country, so that everyone has access to health care they can trust at the time when they need it.
  I was pleased to read the ambitious proposals in the document "Shifting the Balance of Power within the NHS—Securing Delivery". I am glad to note that they
  230
  have been translated into effective legislation in the Bill. I welcome the creation of a national patients organisation and an overarching professional regulatory body, both of which will ensure greater protection of the rights and dignity of patients. It is entirely right for the people, whether they are patients or not, to have a voice—I hope it will be a loud voice—in decision making in the NHS.
  Provided that they are adequately resourced and listened to, I also welcome the proposals for patients forums. I am glad to learn of the role they will play in gathering and reporting on the views of patients and carers about the services of trusts, giving patients and carers advice and information about those services and monitoring their operation. I am also pleased that there has been a far greater acknowledgement than ever before of the selfless role played by carers in delivering health care. That role has been ignored for too long.
  In the context of regulation, I welcome the creation of more independence for the Commission for Health Improvement. Strong and effective links with other key bodies, including the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and the national patient safety agency, will be essential to ensuring a thorough and co-ordinated approach to monitoring and regulation. The case for inspection and regulation is strong. In the 20 months of its existence the CHI has published reviews of more than 50 trusts, and a further 50 reports will come before April. That will mean that more than 70 per cent. of acute hospitals have been reviewed.
  The CHI has shown that it will be brutally honest when it identifies unacceptable patient care, as it has at St Helier hospital which serves people in my constituency. It has, however, been full of praise for hospitals that are succeeding—for instance, the North Tees and the Royal Devon and Exeter hospitals.
  Patients know that such extremes exist in the health service. Sadly, they are to be found in every public service. It is important that the CHI reflects the reality experienced by patients; it is also important that it can say when an ailing hospital has turned the corner. I very much hope that that will be possible in my constituency. We are talking about a fundamental first stage in the rebuilding of public confidence in the services on offer there.
  In the NHS, there are signs of improvement as a result of the CHI's work. The better trusts are putting their houses in order before its visits, and patient care is better as a consequence. But what of trusts that are dragging their heels, or simply have not the capacity to improve? At present, a CHI report is followed by an action plan written by the trust and overseen by the NHS regional office. That is all very well, but the CHI has no role in revisiting the trust for four years. When it finds quality to be unacceptable or there is a failure in management, it must be able to visit again much sooner, and must be able to require the trust concerned to take remedial action before its next visit. Those are the special measures of which the Bill speaks, and I think they are entirely justified if we want a more accountable, patient-focused NHS.
  The CHI has shown itself to be equal to the task it has been given. The wider remit conferred by the Bill constitutes a recognition of that, but the Bill also gives the CHI the teeth it needs to deal with the difficult minority of hospitals that are failing patients to such an extent that they need further action and support in order to improve their care.

  231
  Moves towards a patient-focused NHS and the tackling of health inequalities are entirely laudable, and many of my constituents would say it was about time such things happened. It is clear to me, however, that further reform will be needed in terms of patients' dealings with their GPs. I believe we have a duty to provide measures ensuring that patients cannot be removed from their GPs' lists without reasonable cause, and that they have the right to a fair and open explanation of a GP's reasons for taking any such action. I also feel that the current system of health charges should be revised to ensure that no patients are prevented from obtaining essential health care. That must be a fundamental plank in the eradication of health inequality.
  I support the Bill's aims, and hope it will enable the Government to make significant progress in their mission of NHS investment and reform. I know that significant progress is what the people of Mitcham and Morden want, whether they are visiting their GPs or their local hospitals.
  6.55 pm
  Sir George Young: I wish I shared the optimism of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
  The Bill's origin lies in last year's White Paper, "The NHS Plan: A plan for investment, A plan for reform". At the time, the Secretary of State said:
  "The NHS can address the need to reform itself—from top to toe—to meet the challenges of rising patient expectations."
  Reform from top to toe has been happening ever since, and the Bill is part of that.
  I want to follow the line of argument developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). I want to ask whether the current wave of reform is genuinely meeting those challenges of rising patient expectations, to ask whether the reform is based on a cool analysis of the problems on the ground, and—if I find it is not—to suggest that it may be an unwelcome distraction.
  Out there in the real world, the NHS's back is against the wall. Last month, the Basingstoke Gazette said:
  "Hospital faces drastic cuts. Worried health chiefs are to write to MPs about a cash crisis which is forcing them to plan closures of 40 hospital beds and make cuts in services amounting to millions of pounds."
  As for the new resources that Ministers keep telling us about, the paper commented:
  "The Directors said the new money coming into the health service has been 'badged' for specific services and swallowed up in pay awards and targets"
  and went on to say that the trust involved planned to deal with bed blocking and then close the beds.
  Much as we all love our local newspaper, we do not necessarily believe every word that it prints. Looking behind it and consulting the NHS's own publications, however, will show us that the paper is right. A week or two ago, my health authority published "Improving Performance in North and Mid-Hampshire", which sits uneasily with what we have heard from the Minister this afternoon. The first page tells us:
  "This means that there is currently an underlying deficit of £7.5 million in the NHS in North and Mid-Hampshire. Consequently, we face a major challenge if we are to secure health services fit for the 21st century within the resources available locally."
  232
  We are told that the deficit is unsustainable and that
  "some changes will affect how services are delivered to patients."
  I think we can all crack the code, and deduce that that means a reduction in services.
  If we dig a little deeper and look at individual trusts, we see the problems that confront them. According to the recently published annual report of Winchester and Eastleigh trust,
  "despite the size of these savings"—
  savings already made—
  "the economy is likely to remain in deficit and further savings will be required if the Government's ambitious targets embodied in the NHS plan and the full cost of pay and price rises are to be met."
  According to the minutes of the last meeting of North Hampshire Hospitals NHS trust:
  "By August 31st, the Trust was overspent by £1.2 million…The Trust would still be unable to break-even at the year-end and was looking at a considerable deficit. Further proposals would be brought back to the Board next month on measures to help decrease the deficit, following discussion with the PCT and the Regional Office".
  Against that background, my constituents find it impossible to reconcile the rhetoric of Ministers with what is actually happening in Hampshire. Of course, that is having an impact on the quality of the service they receive. The Secretary of State mentioned cancer services. I have a letter dated 4 September from Mrs. H, who wrote:
  "I have just been told that the lymph node that was removed three weeks ago was malignant."
  She needed immediate radiotherapy to deal with that. On 11 October, five weeks later, she received a letter from Southampton general hospital:
  "Your specialist has made arrangements for you to have a course of radiotherapy. At the moment, we have a long wait list…please accept our apologies for any anxiety…as a result of this situation."
  Of course there is anxiety and, after further correspondence, treatment will start this Thursday, 10 weeks after she was told that she needed it. She wrote to me a few days ago:
  "I am still not happy about having to wait so long for treatment on my cancer".
  I have asked for the radiotherapy waiting times at Southampton general hospital to see if that was unusual. The maximum acceptable waiting time according to the guidelines for radiotherapy after a mastectomy is 28 days. Not one case at Southampton was dealt with in that time: the average wait is 78 days—three times the maximum.
  Like other colleagues, I pursue such matters with the health authority to ensure that it knows what is going on. I am told by the chief executive:
  "I am satisfied that the Trust are making all endeavours to provide a service that attempts to treat patients within good practice guidelines, having regard to the constraints of available equipment and specialist staff."
  I want to come back to those constraints because they are at the root of the problems in Hampshire.
  Our hospitals have the stars, the beacons and all the trophies that validate competence in today's NHS. What we do not have is the cash, so I ask whether the problems that I have outlined are likely to be put right by a further round of administrative reform, or do the causes of the problem lie elsewhere? Will further reform make life more difficult?
  The problems in my constituency—it is not unique—can be simply stated: pay awards and other costs are in excess of the inflation uplift given by the Government;

  233
  the formula for allocating resources is wrong, which is why nearly all the authorities around London are in deficit; NHS staff cannot afford to live in Hampshire and other parts of the south-east, so there are recruitment and retention problems and excessive use of agency staff, which leads to budgetary problems; and there are severe problems of "delayed transfers of care", or bed blocking, which means that hospitals have to treat more people than they should.
  Against that background, one must ask whether the Bill will help. Clause 1 sets up the new strategic health authorities—major turbulence. I was sent the document relevant to my constituency. It was entitled "Modernising the NHS: Shifting the Balance of Power in the South East", a grandiose title with geopolitical overtones, but it really means that four health authorities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are knocked into one. The first paragraph tells us that NHS reform will
  "address the issues that really affect the patients"
  but once we have read it, we realise that it does not. It is a thin document with 12 lines on the financial implications on page 21. There are no details of any costs or savings, simply an aspiration that any savings would be earmarked for reinvestment in front-line services. Presumably, the obverse is true: any costs will have to come out of front-line services.
  Clauses 2 and 3 propose major reform for PCTs. I am not against that, but it is worth pointing out that those are fragile and untested bodies. On their slender shoulders will pass responsibility for managing large services, employing staff and negotiating with the trusts, and then they will have to do all the stuff in the NHS plan: modernise the service, involve patients and the public, lead on partnership with local authorities and liaise with the independent sector. I am not convinced that they are adequately resourced to take on all those roles. I want an assurance from the Minister that they will not inherit all the deficits from their predecessors.
  Clauses 8 and 9 are about money. Every year, there is a huge redistribution of resources in the NHS—it is a larger sum of money than the revenue support grant—but with minimum debate and minimum accountability. On that allocation formula rests the quality of service that our constituents get. It is the so-called York formula.
  The local government finance settlement is £36 billion year. There is an open and transparent system of distribution, and a debate about it each year. The spend on the NHS in the UK is £59.1 billion—a far larger sum—but the distribution system is not open, accountable or debated. On those obscure foundations rests the quality of service that our constituents get.
  As has been said, under the new regime the money will go direct from the Department to primary care trusts. There will be less room for error. At the moment, it goes to the area and there is viring between the various trusts in order to ensure that there is no problem. There will be no room for manoeuvre under the new regime and a premium on right information.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: I am afraid that I am against the clock. My hon. Friend will know that with the rate support grant there is all sorts of controversy, but if the
  234
  Government do not get that right, the council tax can act as a buffer. There is no such buffer when it comes to that particular formula.
  The independent panel set up by the Minister last year made it absolutely clear that the formula was wrong for Hampshire:
  "We heard no evidence to support such a large reduction on the national needs 'norm' … Denying the area full funding will not make the population any less … health conscious."
  I end with a helpful suggestion. How do we take the pressure off the NHS, while adhering to its principles? If we hold the view that money is part of the problem, how can we get the percentage of GDP up without upsetting the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I think that one should introduce what I would call NHS at work—an employment-based health insurance scheme complementary to the NHS—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Time is up.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Paul Truswell: I wish to concentrate on the patient representation elements of the Bill. I hate to say it but, unlike my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I more or less understand them.
  I have both a dream and a nightmare about the Bill's proposals. In the dream, everything falls into place and it represents a radical extension of patients' voices in the NHS. In the nightmare there is fragmentation and confusion. I sincerely hope that the reality much more closely resembles the dream than the nightmare.
  In various guises, I have worked with and in CHCs for almost 24 years; I think that they were established in 1974, so I have been involved with them for most of their lifetime. I personally have a positive view of the role that their members and officers have played over the years. I am not, however, a fully paid up member of the CHC preservation society, although I am keen to conserve the very good things that the CHCs have achieved and the lessons that they have taught us. I believe that a model based on the CHC would have been valid for the Bill, but the Government have taken a different tack, which I hope is ultimately vindicated.
  The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales has said in a briefing:
  "The Bill replaces a system of proven efficacy that is easily understood and accessed by the public with a highly complex and fragmented structure."
  Despite that assertion, in my experience, the CHCs have to some extent remained one of the NHS's best kept secrets. It is a secret that I regularly find myself having to divulge to constituents who contact me for advice about complaints. I believe that ACHCEW is right, however, to voice concerns about a complex and fragmented structure. Without careful introduction and proper resourcing, its fears are plausible.
  On Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, I expressed concerns about the overall lack of co-ordination between PALS—the patient advice and liaison service—the independent advocacy service, patients forums and the overview and scrutiny committees. The need for that role has been recognised in

  235
  the Bill. It will be fulfilled, it is hoped, by the local networks of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—quite a mouthful. Those local networks have been described elsewhere by the Under—Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), as the glue that will unite the various disparate strands of the new structure.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, whether glue and bureaucracy really go together only time will tell, but what we really need at this juncture is a clearer exposition of how the commission's local networks will be resourced and how they will operate. They should, ideally, provide a servicing role to patients forums not unlike that currently performed by CHC staff in support of CHC members. They should provide independent policy, legal, research and administrative support. It is worrying that the explanatory notes relating to subsection (2)(d) refer only to the local commission providing "administrative support". I hope that that is a shorthand way of describing all the support that I have listed above, but if it is not, that will be a real deficiency in the system. That support will have to come at a cost, and I believe that that cost will be much greater than the current cost of CHCs. If that cost is not met, however, the system will be much the worse off.
  In Leeds, the local commission will have to service seven patient forums. Additionally, it will have to discharge its outreach function of increasing public participation and its co-ordination and monitoring role between the various pillars of the new system. If we add to local costs the cost of setting up PALS and the independent advocacy service, we are talking about a significant sum. It would be helpful if Ministers could at some stage quantify and cost the proposals and provide a commitment that the Government will provide the resources to make them work effectively. I believe that, to discharge its function effectively, the commission should be much more localised than it is intended the strategic health authorities will be. I should think that it must have a base within a city the size of Leeds.
  I also wonder whether the commission's local network will provide support to patient forum members who are elected to a trust board. Those individuals will have to carry a substantial burden. It is therefore crucial that nominees to trust boards have effective independent support and advice. If they do not, I fear that they will simply be co-opted into the collective corral of the NHS board on which they serve. It is also unclear whether the nominees will perform the function of delegates from the patient forum with all that that might imply. I certainly seek clarification from the Minister on that point.
  As has been said, some welcome action is being taken to increase the forums' powers beyond those of the CHC. However, I re-iterate the comment that those powers could quite easily have been added to those of CHCs. The CHCs have, for example, asked for many years for their remit to be extended to primary care, a request on which the Bill obviously delivers. We should also extend visiting rights to private sector facilities, and there should be provision—which has been called for for many years—for unannounced visits so that forum members, on behalf of patients, can see facilities, warts and all.
  236
  The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) mentioned the power currently vested in CHCs to refer unacceptable proposals to the Secretary of State. I hope that that power will continue regardless of the body in which it is vested; otherwise health bodies will continue to treat consultation as a cynical exercise and the patient's voice with some contempt.
  In order to promote wider membership, we should introduce measures for patient forum members that are similar to those enjoyed by local authority members, including a statutory right to time off. An alternative to that would be some form of remuneration, particularly as some forum members will be paid non-executive directors of trusts. We should also consider proposals such as a loss of earnings provision.
  Forum members must be appointed for a sufficient period to allow them to learn the ropes and make an effective contribution. Currently, CHC members are appointed for four years and, as I understand it, can serve two terms. Such an arrangement has much to recommend it to ensure continuity.
  I certainly welcome the commission's overarching local and national remit, which seems to be an effective way of killing two birds with one stone. I am less enamoured, however, with suggestions that the Secretary of State should appoint the commission chairman and chief executive. Surely, for the sake of independence being seen to be done, other arrangements can be found.
  I welcome the recognition in the NHS plan and in the Bill of the importance of advocacy services, which will complement existing services in places such as Leeds where they are provided very effectively by the voluntary sector. It would be interesting to have the Minister's views on how the services envisaged in the Bill will fit in with the advocacy services that are already being provided in places such as Leeds. I am also pleased that the distinction between advocacy and advice has been recognised in the renaming of PALS by use of the word "advice" rather than "advocacy".
  A focus on advocacy is long overdue. In the mid-1980s, Leeds city council established an advocacy service. The health service viewed it with great suspicion and found the term advocacy to be adversarial, threatening and intrusive. I believe, however, that if such services had been more widely available, some of the scandals that have occupied the time of this place over the years might have been averted and that the necessary corrective action might have been taken much earlier.
  I have grave reservations about the transitional arrangements between abolition of CHCs and the new structure coming into place. As has been said, the transition needs to be achieved in a manner that does not entail patient representation and the patient voice being left in limbo. It is also essential that the many good and effective CHC staff—most of whom we know and respect in this place—are not lost to the system. They have the experience and expertise to make the new structure work.
  I genuinely believe that the Bill could represent one of the most ambitious, exciting and radical steps taken by the NHS in its history. Conversely, it could fulfil the fears of ACHCEW. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will succeed in making it the first possibility. However, they will do that only if they combine a genuine commitment to extending patient involvement with the funding that is necessary to make the structure work properly.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall concentrate on part 2 of the Bill, which has received almost no attention at all in this debate and I believe is a time-bomb that is ticking away and could explode and blow the health professions to pieces.
  On 13 November, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), wrote a letter to hon. Members headed, "Modernising Regulation in the National Health Service". He started by saying:
  "We shall shortly be laying before Parliament two Orders under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. These will provide for the setting up of new modern regulatory bodies to deal with professional standards and discipline for three quarters of a million key healthcare professionals covering nurses, midwives and allied health professionals."
  These bundles of fun that I am holding are the two statutory instruments—on the health professions and on nurses and midwives—that were mentioned in the letter. They will not be debated on the Floor of the House, but will creep through as statutory instruments. They are also the documents referred to in paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 23(3). In an explanatory note to the documents, the Minister of State said:
  "There has been very strong support, across the board, for this once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise the current systems that are widely acknowledged to be outdated and inflexible."
  I do not know where the widespread support comes from, but I do know that the health visitors in my constituency, who serve my constituents, are desperately worried. Despite assurances from the Minister of State and others in the Department, health visitors simply do not trust the undertakings being given by the Government that standards will be maintained, that their professional prestige will be maintained, and that the demand for high standards and qualifications will be maintained. They cannot for the life of them understand—and neither can I, on their behalf—why the proposed nursing and midwifery council does not include in its title the health visitors whom Ministers say that they so much admire.
  This morning, one health visitor told me that she believes that the proposals will sound the death-knell of a part of the health care professions that is already finding it desperately difficult to recruit. I know from my own experience in my own constituency just how short-staffed they are. I should have thought that the Minister of State would want at the very least to promote their cause and help them to recruit to that vital part of the health service, rather than effectively to snub them, remove them from the title of that council which the Government are determined to create, and leave them wondering whether they have a future at all.
  The other proposed council is for the health professions, to cover among others chiropodists and podiatrists. Jill Yeo, one of my constituents and a health professional, wrote to me that
  "having read the draft copy of the legislation, I and fellow non-state-registered Chiropodists … have … concerns for our professions, livelihoods, and for patient choice and standards of care."
  She continues:
  "We welcome the proposals for the state sector and public sector Chiropodists/Podiatrists to work more closely together. There is a great demand for qualified Chiropodists to work within the NHS. Any discrimination of either sector will put added pressure on the
  238
  already overstretched NHS Chiropodists, with detriment to patient care … The non-state-registered sector represents more than half of our profession, yet we seem to have been overlooked in the proposed draft legislation. There are more than eight thousand of us currently practising in Great Britain … The new legislation if implemented could prevent us from using the title of Chiropodist/Podiatrist meaning the loss of our livelihoods, the majority of us being experienced professionals who are thought very highly of by our patients."
  She also points out:
  "It has taken me two years to become a Chiropodist. I funded the course myself and the training included an eight-hour written examination as well as practical hands on experience to enable me to qualify. I am working hard to establish my business, and already have very satisfied patients of all ages who are grateful for the quality care I give them. My colleagues … have extensive private practices with at least 20 years combined Chiropody expertise and knowledge behind them. It would be such a waste if all of this were to change, and at a cost to the patient and possibly the NHS."
  It is not so long ago—well, it is, but time passes quickly when one is having fun—since the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), introduced in Westminster Hall a debate on the failings of the General Osteopathic Council and the weaknesses in the Osteopaths Act 1993. In fact, it was 13 months ago. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has changed her tune since her move to the Front Bench, but at that time she was desperately concerned that the 1993 Act was not working, despite its fine intentions. It had, far from uniting the osteopaths' profession, divided it to the point where we now have a General Osteopathic Council, which is recognised by some, and a pirate democratic osteopaths council alongside it. Almost 50 per cent. of osteopaths were not satisfied with the way in which the GOC was set up.
  We have had the debate on osteopaths and another Minister of State has held an inquiry—it was a whitewash—into the workings of the GOC, but we are about to make all the same mistakes again, having learned nothing from that experience. I find that desperately sad. Ministers should consider the two orders properly, recognise the value of those true professionals to the health service and change their minds.
  It was said earlier that the Government have succeeded in making the elderly wait to get into hospital beds and wait to get out of those beds. In Kent, that is absolutely true. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), when he was Secretary of State for Health, took a wildly unpopular but courageous decision on the reorganisation of health care in east Kent. I was, and still am, not very popular for backing it either. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that it is necessary, in a modern health service, to determine when and how services will be delivered, and that may mean some unpopular changes. However, that plan is being completely undermined by the Government's attitude to the health service.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) opened the debate for the Opposition, he said that we had lost tens of thousands of residential and nursing home beds. That is true, and it is especially true in Kent. Thousands of those beds have gone and, as a result, hundreds of patients are blocking the beds in our acute hospitals. The Bill will do nothing to enhance cottage hospital care, to create minor injuries units, to get patients out of the beds that they are blocking or to solve the problems that many of our constituents face in desperation day after day. It has been said that the Bill is

  239
  the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is more like moving the chairs on the deck of a submarine, with the Secretary of State being hellbent on making it dive.
  7.24 pm
  Helen Jones: Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I believe that the Bill marks a major step forward for the NHS. It will move us away from an NHS that has been directed from the top down and in which decision making was often remote and bureaucratic, and allow us to create a health service that empowers its front-line staff, responds to patients' needs and enables us to create real partnerships with communities to tackle some of the health problems that face us. While the NHS has transformed the lives of many people, has an excellent staff and delivers miracles every day, it is still largely a service that was designed for the 1940s. If it is to deliver what we need in this century, it has to be a service that uses the expertise of staff who are now much more highly trained than before, and that can deal with patients who know much more about the health choices available to them and who demand, rightly, much more flexible care.
  The key provisions in the Bill, which give the lead in providing health services to primary care trusts, will give us a real opportunity to achieve those aims, but Members of Parliament can only set out the framework. Delivery will be achieved only if those people involved in primary care trusts are really keen on listening to staff who are at the sharp end of the health service. I do not mean merely fulfilling the statutory obligations about who serves on trust boards, but really listening not only to GPs, but to district nurses, midwives and health visitors who know far more about the health needs of their communities, and the social needs underlying them, than many of the staff further removed.
  I have spent time in my constituency with health visitors and with GPs delivering personal medical services pilots. I have sat in their clinics and gone out with them on their rounds. I know that they have the vision and energy to change the NHS for the good of the people they serve and they have to be allowed to do it, but so too do the communities that our primary care trusts will serve. We need to involve them if we are deliver the key objective of ending inequalities in health. I make no apology for returning to that theme, because it is a key issue in my constituency and in many others like it.
  The areas that I represent in the north of Warrington have much greater health care needs than the more affluent areas in the south of the town. They have higher rates of coronary heart disease and long-term illness and much higher mortality rates. But not only do they get fewer resources than their health needs would suggest, they are under-represented at all levels of decision making—sometimes they are not represented at all—in the NHS. The primary care trusts must ensure that that changes, and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which the Bill will set up, will play a key role in bringing that about. It will need to ensure that such communities are represented not only on advisory bodies but in the real decision-making process of the NHS. It will need actively to seek out people to
  240
  become involved, because the problem is not that those communities do not have people capable of making the decisions.
  I know many people in my constituency who run local organisations, manage budgets and know a great deal about the area. It is patronising nonsense to suggest that they are not capable of becoming involved in the NHS. They know far more about strategic partnerships and joined-up working than many people who pronounce on such issues. Those involved in the community can tell us whether there is no point sending patients to a clinic because there is no bus to get them there, or if there is no point treating them for stress because that stress is caused by poor housing or crime and vandalism in the area. They do not need lectures about social exclusion, because they understand that. They need to be included, and the bodies that the Bill will set up must ensure that that happens.
  The Bill is about putting patients at the heart of the NHS and two of its features will be important in achieving that. One is the setting up of the independent advocacy service, because most people—in my experience as a constituency MP and as a solicitor who dealt with clinical negligence cases—want their cases dealt with on the spot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, it will be crucial to ensure that the service is easily accessible, and that it is seen to be independent. I hope that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will comment on how the service is to be managed outside the trusts in which it works, so that we can see that independence in fact.
  I welcome too those parts of the Bill that allow the Commission for Health Improvement to refer cases in which it considers that patients' safety or welfare is at risk and which have not been tackled. Many of the tragedies that have occurred in the NHS would not have occurred if that provision had existed. The truth about many of those cases is not that people did not know what was happening, but that too many did know and did nothing.
  In respect of the protection of patients, I turn now to the matter of regulation. The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, which the Bill will set up, together with the provisions of the Health Act 1999, will allow us to regulate other health professions much more easily than hitherto. When the Bill is enacted, I hope that the civil service will have run out of excuses for not regulating some of the people currently working in the health service who have not been regulated so far. I refer specifically to operating department practitioners and health care assistants. It is a nonsense that people who deal with controlled drugs and perform intimate services for patients do not come under any form of regulation. That nonsense must be ended.
  Finally, I welcome the provisions on the prison health service. They have not been mentioned so far in the debate, and we know that there are no votes in providing good health care for prisoners. However, the prison medical services have long been a disgrace to a civilised society. The arrangements established by the Bill for joint working and pooled funding will go a long way to solving that problem.
  Prisons have many serious health care problems. They involve the mental health of prisoners, their greater propensity for suicide and the spread of addiction in prisons. However, we have not been able to attract as

  241
  many good staff as are needed to work in prisons. There are serious shortages of nurses and psychiatrists, and especially of registered mental nurses.
  In part, that has happened because there has been no adequate career path for staff working in the prison medical service. The Bill will allow staff to share best practice and update their skills. It will also provide great support for prison medical service staff in the ethical dilemmas and difficult decisions that they have to face every day. In addition, the arrangements in the Bill will facilitate the transfer of patients when that becomes necessary.
  In the prison medical service and many other sectors, the Bill offers a real opportunity to transform the health service. It is not about bureaucratic measures: it is about creating a health service fit for the 21st century. I hope that those working in the health service will take the opportunity to build on the foundations that we are laying down tonight. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.33 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I agree with the Secretary of State that NHS practices must change, but I have a problem with the nature and timing of the proposed changes. Some of them are right, but I do not think that now is the right time for such extensive changes.
  That is largely because of the crises that exist in the NHS at the moment. The Secretary of State was wise to admit that delays for coronary artery bypass surgery amounted to one specific crisis. Despite the changes that have been made, 216 patients in the west midlands have been waiting more than 12 months for an operation. When one of my constituents was told that he was on the critical list and that he would have to wait six to nine months for his operation, he decided to mortgage his house and get private treatment.
  All hon. Members will know from their postbags of the trolley waits that patients still endure. I received a letter only today from the relatives of an 80-year-old woman who waited 11 hours. She was not an unexpected emergency, because the hospital had been warned beforehand about her case.
  I quote from a letter written by an orthopaedic surgeon to one of the major national dailies, in which he expressed his concern. He wrote about
  "the widespread despair and disillusionment amongst NHS consultants",
  who, he said, were very aware of
  "the increasing pressures and financial constraints"
  under which they found themselves
  "trying to provide some sort of civilised service to our patients."
  The surgeon added:
  "Sadly, the truth is that the situation at the front line continues to deteriorate."
  A time of crisis is not the right time to thrust ahead with major changes that risk disruption. I therefore plead for delay. Of the three primary care groups in my county of Worcestershire, one is already a primary care trust. It is probably about ready to take on the new responsibilities. The other two are still primary care groups, and are not ready.
  242
  In south Birmingham, 60 per cent. of GPs have voted against the change because they are not ready for it. A report in the local newspaper states that they
  "fear the shake-up is being pushed through too quickly and will cause administrative chaos".
  They believe:
  "the money spent on the reforms would be better spent on health care."
  If primary care trusts are not ready, there is no reason to rush through with the strategic health authorities. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) that community health councils have performed a very useful task. I should much prefer to see them strengthened than removed.
  The CHCs enjoyed relatively democratic input. A number of their members were elected councillors, and although some were appointed by the Department of Health, others represented local charities. They were therefore true representatives of local people.
  What is the real reason for the abolition of the CHCs? The Secretary of State did not answer that question from the hon. Member for Wakefield. I wonder whether the reason is that CHCs had one tooth: they could refer controversial decisions to the Secretary of State.
  If, by chance, my plea for some delay were heard, the question of how to resolve the current crisis would remain, and my approach would probably be considered revolutionary. I believe that now is the time, not for devolution, but for instruction about where the extra money is to be spent.
  There have been examples of managers and consultants falling out, with consultants saying that the service is badly managed, and managers trying to blame the consultants. I believe that in many parts of country, health service managers do not perform their duty to the best possible degree, as they should. Given that money is so scarce, is not this the time for direction in the way that it is spent?
  Money should be targeted. I fully support the £300 million that has been given to social services. It will be a great help, but will we be given a breakdown of how it will be spent? Although £300 million sounds a vast amount, analysis shows that my county's social services will receive £713,000. That will provide less than one extra place in a care home per week.
  I have another suggestion for the way in which money should be targeted. NHS surgeons in my constituency are idle at times because there are not enough staff or beds to enable the operations on their lists to be carried out. That is one occasion when the private sector can be used as an expedient where there is spare capacity. More money should be made available for that.
  If the reforms were delayed, more money would be available. No one has yet said how much this will cost and how much it will save. A week or two ago, an advertisement for a chief executive post for one of the new bodies in the Health Service Journal proclaimed that the salary would be £70,000. Considering how many new bodies with chief executives there will be, I cannot believe that if these measures were delayed for a short time, there would not be some extra money.

  243
  I conclude with a quote from an article by the president of the Royal College of Physicians in Hospital Doctor a few weeks ago, in which he wrote:
  "We all want to practise medicine for the greatest benefit of the sick and we must indeed be accountable. But let us be sensible about the rate of change and the balance between political correctness and what is actually attainable."
  Modernisation needs time.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Given my role as chair of the all-party group on community health councils, I will confine my remarks to those parts of the Bill dealing with patient and public involvement in the national health service and the abolition of community health councils in England.
  Much has already been said about this process. It began in July 2000 with the publication of the national health service plan, which was followed by an Adjournment debate on the future of the CHCs one year ago and the incomplete progress, before the election, of the measure that became the Health and Social Care Act 2001. It is widely accepted that the process was burdened from the start by the lack of prior consultation on the future of the CHCs and the emerging picture of a replacement system that was complex and unclear. I believe that we have moved on from that painful experience.
  The new proposals, especially as described in the recently published Government response to the listening exercise last September—which I have looked at—reveal that progress has been made. That welcome situation is due, at least in part, to the excellent work done, following the election, on re-engaging with community health councils. It is right to acknowledge the constructive role played by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who has understood that the new and better system we all want will not even begin to function without the involvement and good will of CHC members and staff.
  There is evidence in the Government's response that they have been listening to people. For example, there is the sensible acceptance that patient advocacy and liaison services should be called patient advisory and liaison services. Also important is the Government's recognition of concerns about independence, accountability, integration and support, especially at local level. That said, the picture painted by the Bill does not enlighten us enough. The full picture will emerge as a result of some of the provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, yet to be implemented, along with the provisions of this Bill and, in the main part, regulation and guidance that has not yet been prepared.
  Legitimate concerns about the detail will not be addressed by the Bill. The Government's response is reassuring because it contains a lot of detail and paints a credible and coherent picture. However, the Bill does no more than provide a framework. I suggest that during the Bill's Committee stage, draft regulations be prepared so that the detail necessary to understand and support the Bill's framework can be considered. Such an approach was successfully adopted during the consideration of the Local Government Act 2000.
  I have a few further points to make in the time remaining to me. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is, as has been said, a bit of a
  244
  mouthful. I note from the Government's response document that the title is described as shorter than the one originally proposed. However, I welcome the creation of the commission nationally to co-ordinate, monitor, promote best practice and support local networks. The Government describe it as a statutory and independent body, accountable to a national lay group.
  I understand that the Secretary of State wishes to appoint the chair of the commission and approve the appointment of a chief executive. That does not, in my view, sit comfortably with the intention that the commission be fully independent. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about that.
  On the commission's local operation, the Government propose local commission networks working in every primary care trust area through local outreach teams based in local premises. Having looked at the Government's response document, I believe that the essential functions of integration, co-ordination, informing and supporting patients forums, PALS and local authority overview and scrutiny committees—which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) proposed the patients council should undertake—are retained. In addition, there is the interesting and radical suggestion that the networks will also promote and support local people in engaging in proposals affecting their health. That is radical, because such activity might not always be welcomed by the NHS management and boards. It is essential to have such a provision if we are to develop a national health service that is patient-centred.
  I commend actions that are likely to generate informed and measured responses by the public and their elected representatives to health care proposals and changes in their area. However, to carry out those tasks, the local commission networks will need to be properly resourced. That will not come cheap.
  The shop front—the one-stop shop—has not been mentioned in the debate so far. Community health councils in many parts of the country already provide them. Although I am ready to admit that not too many citizens have made use of them, the presence of a shop front is important, especially if we are looking ahead to an improved system. They should be retained. I am not convinced that that will necessarily be part of the future system. I think that the Government will argue that PALS should provide the point of contact, where and when needed, to patients and their families and that it will link to the independent advisory services for those who wish to pursue a formal complaint. However, the public are not supposed to be served by PALS except in so far as they become patients. The way in which PALS operates at primary care and community health level will clearly not be as obvious as a reception facility in an acute hospital.
  The patients forum monitoring each trust will not be a shop front. The commission network could operate from a base that does not need to be visible. I wonder where and how the public are to be made aware of the new system so that they can become involved. That is important if it is to work. I acknowledge that the shop front is not a necessary condition for the whole thing to operate, but it seems a sensible ingredient.
  One of the concerns that was much aired earlier this year related to the role of the patients forum member on the trust board—not as an observer, but as a full, remunerated non-executive director. The scope for

  245
  conflicts of interest and loyalty is obvious, and at least that possibility is acknowledged by the Government. It seems that the election of such a person by a patients forum is not now compulsory—it can happen as and when a vacancy on the trust board naturally arises. That will, of course, lead to patchy coverage across the country. That situation needs to be thought through a little more.
  More thought is also needed about the acknowledgement in the Government's response document that more work is required on how to support non-executive directors who find themselves in a conflict between their forum and the board. What does such support mean and who will provide it? That is a serious question about which we do not have any detail, because the regulations or guidance have not yet been produced.
  Finally, the Government rightly emphasise the importance of the strategic partnerships, drawing together the experience of local networks, joint overview and scrutiny committees, the strategic health authority and joint bodies of patients forums attached to primary care trusts. However, where will the acute trust patients forums figure in that arrangement? Surely they have key information and an important role to perform. Exclusion from the strategic health authority level of integration seems potentially counter-productive. I look forward to those matters being addressed.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams: Liberal Democrat Members have no problems with distinctiveness and devolutions, so although we have grave reservations about some of the Bill's content, we have no difficulty in supporting the clauses that will give the Welsh Assembly powers to enhance, improve and modernise the NHS in Wales. Of course, the Assembly has not yet finalised those structures; much debate and discussion will take place before it does so.
  The formation of local health boards will take the delivery of health out of the hands of distant bureaucrats and will let local doctors, medical professionals, lay people and democratically elected councillors take the lead in delivering appropriate services for the area in which they live and work. Accountability will be re-established.
  The local health groups have delivered well and will form the basis for the local health boards. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) was uncertain about the number of health boards that should be established. We were grateful to him for his work on the last reorganisation of the NHS for the people of Powys. Coterminosity for local health boards and local authorities will help to ensure that the NHS and social services work together better in Wales and that delayed discharge from hospital will be eliminated as far as is possible. Elected councillors on health boards will also make a contribution to that process.
  I especially welcome the proposals to set up a unique health board for Powys through the amalgamation of the primary health care trust and the local health group, given the particular requirements of the rural area. All in all, emphasis on primary health care will bode well for the health of the people of the nation of Wales, which has come out in a bad light in almost every survey.
  Above all, I welcome the powers to abolish the five health authorities—they have been a dead hand on the NHS and have formed an unwanted layer of bureaucracy
  246
  in Wales. They will be replaced by a much slimmer body that can take on a full national role in commissioning specialist tertiary care, and can guide and facilitate the commissioning of secondary care from the most appropriate provider. That is why I welcome the provisions granting the Assembly power to create a special health authority that will be able to commission tertiary care, as well as care for the mentally ill and for children.
  I am pleased that community health councils will remain in Wales. I am sure that the Assembly will use its powers to ensure that they operate more effectively. It is sometimes said that they have only one tooth—to refer proposed changes back to the Secretary of State or to the Assembly for reconsideration. However, that is an important power and the CHCs exercise it with a degree of discretion.
  I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will give the Assembly powers to make the NHS in Wales more effective and more accountable.
  7.55 pm
  Joan Ryan: I am pleased to speak on Second Reading of a Bill that I strongly support. The Bill is not an isolated instrument, but a key component of the 10-year programme of reform specified in the NHS plan. It cements the much needed and overdue foundations of reform that have been carefully laid during the past four years.
  The Bill is essential if we are to have a modern and responsive national health service. Its underlying principle is to make the needs of the patient and the concerns of the public absolutely central to both policy and practice.
  The crux of the reform is the reorientation of the functions and resources of statutory bodies—most crucially, providing primary care trusts with the main revenue allocation. That revenue will anchor PCTs as the cornerstone of the NHS, through their ability to commission health care as well as to provide it. For many, many years—going back to the Black report—it has been received wisdom that unless we do something about shifting resources to primary care, we shall never tackle the fundamental inequalities that exist in health, especially in relation to social deprivation issues that are key drivers of those inequalities.
  It is important that we are extending the limited range of health care services that primary care trusts secure at present to include responsibility for all family health services that are currently provided by health authorities. The patient's first point of contact is thereby significantly enhanced, indirectly empowering the patient.
  Allocating revenue directly to PCTs enables resources to be more accurately matched to the needs of local people and their communities, and thus facilitates more effective delivery. The purchasing power of PCTs shifts greater decision making to front-line staff—the best rehearsed in patients' needs and the best equipped to deliver health care. They are thus being given the mechanisms to deliver that care. I have direct evidence of that in my constituency and health authority area. Enfield, North is now part of the Enfield primary care trust; it is up and running and has a devolved budget. It is an absolute joy to read some of the documents issued by the trust and to see some of its practice.

  247
  The primary care investment plan and health improvement action plan say many things. One document notes that the proportion of the resident population from black and ethnic minority groups ranges from 4 per cent. in Town ward to 23 per cent. in Ponders End. It gives a range of deprivation scores.
  Those documents really take account of the picture in my local area. They are produced by people who not only know the wards, but work in them. They know the people who live in the wards and they know their needs. That is so important when we are considering the allocation of resources to tackle the health inequalities and the health care needs in our local areas.
  Furthermore, the documents refer to partnership—working together and not reinventing the wheel. Partnership working is the absolute cornerstone of such reforms, and it will make the reforms work locally.
  The one thing that GPs, other health care practitioners, the PCT and local people tell me is that they welcome these reforms. They do think that they will work; they are excited about them. There is local passion for the reforms, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, but the cry is, "Please give us the chance to make them work. We need 10 years for them to deliver in the way that they can." Yes, we shall see gains before 10 years are up, but we want to evaluate, monitor and refine them. There is a belief that the reforms are necessary and that they will deliver.
  I should like to say a word about my health authority. In the past 18 months, it has already undergone a merger—it was Enfield and Haringey, and it has become Barnet, Enfield and Haringey. In many ways, it is a trailblazer for what is about to happen under the reform of health authorities into strategic health authorities. I pay tribute to all those in my health authority who have seen through one merger and are now embarking on another. They have worked very hard to make that merger work, and some of them have been devolved to the PCTs. They know that the system will work—it is working for them now. However, they very much welcome the document "Shifting the Balance of Power—Human Resources Framework". That has not been mentioned in this debate.
  I met those involved in the local Unison branch, which originally represented three health authorities, then two and now one. A lot of people are involved, and they call the document "St. Bop", so they have some fondness for it. They say that it is important because it is all about partnership working and about empowering and valuing staff. There is a recognition that the NHS cannot be changed without having the staff on board. That document has given them a sense of security, and two of the biggest dangers in any merger are the loss of security experienced by staff and, therefore, the loss of morale, which prevents reform from being driven forward and being effective.
  The view of those in my Unison branch is that the human resource framework has given them great encouragement, and they very much welcome it, as well as partnership working. Health unions at national level worked on that document, and it has now come down to our local level. Exactly that kind of partnership, in all aspects of the reform, underpins the Bill and the reforms. That partnership will make the reforms work locally.
  248
  I want to say a word about the plans for patient and public involvement and to give an example from my own casework. In 1998, Mrs. Eileen Webster—one of my constituents—tragically died of cancer. She would have died whatever had happened in hospital. However, she was the victim of a catalogue of serious errors that made her death more difficult than it might have been, especially for her daughter and her husband to deal with. They launched a campaign, Action for Eileen, but they are still involved in the complaints procedure three years on.
  Whatever the outcome of that procedure, it can never change the fact that the closest relative of Lisa MacMurdie and her father, Mr. Webster, whom they loved and cared about, died in what they feel were more painful circumstances than necessary, with a lack of dignity and a lack of information. PALS in the hospital could make a vital difference, when that difference is needed. I am glad that they have carried on with their complaint for three years, because people get the health service that they demand, but it is for us to create the framework in which to ensure that people can make those demands in a meaningful and effective way, so that they get the treatment they need when they need it, not three years on when it is far too late.
  It is very important that we give power to people on the inside of the NHS, not on the outside, so that they do not have to go to their Member of Parliament or CHC long after the event. That is no use; it does not help people, and I want to stop such things happening to others. I welcome the reforms; they will make a significant difference to health care delivery, to eradicating health inequalities and to ensuring that the people who use our health service feel that it is their health service, so I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.5 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: This Bill is all about shifting the balance of power. It will be successful—it will, without doubt, shift the balance of power from patients and people towards the Secretary of State for Health. It will do so by the direct accrual of powers to the Secretary of State and by injecting confusion and cross-accountability at working level throughout the service. Confusion and complexity are the hallmarks of this Bill.
  An indication of the lack of thought that the Government have given to the Bill in their haste to get it through Parliament was given earlier in the Secretary of State's inability to respond to a simple question on the custody of CHC records.
  In a similar vein, I was alarmed to find in response to my recent parliamentary question that the Secretary of State did not know where he intends to put the public health function after the abolition of health authorities. No one seems to know whether it would rest with SHAs or PCTs. Even more startling in these troubled times was the revelation that no one seemed to know where consultants in communicable disease control would sit in the new order. Those are the building blocks of health care delivery, and the fact that they are not yet in place supports the assertions of many independent observers that the Bill is woefully immature.
  We learn that the CHI will be given statutory powers to enter all premises that are remotely involved with health, including GPs' surgeries and voluntary organisations.

  249
  Several organisations in my constituency will view that as unwarranted centralist busybody interference in their serious business of doing the best for people. They will undoubtedly view it as yet another strand of interference that will prevent them from getting the job done and, frankly, as another reason to throw in the towel.
  The British Medical Association has expressed its concerns about the opportunity costs introduced by the burgeoning cult of inspections and audits. There is now a real risk that they will start to detract from patient care, as we spend all our time inspecting one another and disappear in an enormous regulatory paper chase. That concern also featured in the Kennedy report on the deaths following the tragedies at the Bristol royal infirmary.
  The NHS is crying out for a period of stability. Perpetual change involves cost not just in monetary terms but in human terms and in the ability of professional and lay people to understand, get to grips with and learn how to use NHS institutions and structures. The CHCs are a classic example. Just as the general public were getting used to them, the Government of the day closed them down and replaced them with a bewildering array of patients forums, the charmingly acronymed PALS and the tongue-twisting Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. There will thus be no building on the undoubted successes of CHCs as independent watchdogs.
  Instead of watchdogs, we will have lots of poodles—a fragmented and highly confusing network of poodles. In fact, there will be very many more than at present, and we are having some difficulty in encouraging people to volunteer for the ones that already exist. There will be no independent support from officials, except those described as outreach workers, belonging to the aforementioned tongue-twisting commission. The future does not look bright for patients forums.
  Furthermore, we understand that patients forums will be constructed by the NHS Appointments Commission—more cronies, more members of the chattering classes. This worrying cult of complicity will be fuelled by the inclusion of a patients forum member on trust boards. The move is sinister, given the prevailing doctrine of collective responsibility, because it is surely not wise to allow patient advocates to be tarred with the decision making of the trust under scrutiny. Observer status would surely be more appropriate.
  The very sensible suggestion of the NHS Alliance that patients forums—if we must have them—should be confined to PCTs surely makes eminent sense. That would be commensurate with the central position of the commissioning bodies and would dispel any confusion that patients might have as they grapple with the multi-tiers of the national health service.
  The Bill suggests that community health councils in England will be abolished immediately. In effect, that means that patients will be deprived of an effective watchdog for an indeterminate period unless patients forums emerge from this process fully booted and spurred. However, experience from the early days of the CHCs suggests that that is rather unlikely.
  The Government consider that something must be done about health in prisons—too right. However, what we have in the Bill is a soft-focus entreaty for the NHS and the prison medical services to cosy up to one another. It stops well short of the proposals made by Conservative
  250
  Members before the election that the two services should merge. There is nothing here that is likely to deliver improved health outcomes, and particularly improved mental health outcomes, for the population in this country that arguably has one of the greatest needs—those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.
  However, the Bill is not all bad. I welcome the Government's proposal for an Office for Information on Health Care Performance within the Commission for Health Improvement. Several right hon. and hon. Members attended a presentation yesterday at which the imaginative DrFoster software for identifying health status by constituency was unveiled. Although the potential for manipulation will be clear to party politicians, the transparency that is possible from the responsible presentation of data is to be warmly welcomed.
  Like many members of my profession who pay increasingly large sums for the privilege of being regulated, I have no great fondness for the General Medical Council. However, tragedies such as those at Alder Hey and Bristol should not encourage the Government to ride roughshod over a system of regulation that has in general worked well over many years. I am afraid that they appear to be doing just that.
  My over-riding concern is the Government's abject failure to understand that the improvements in patient outcomes that we so desperately need derive from networks of health professionals doing the very best that they can day in, day out, unfettered by the dead hand of oppressive over-regulation and overweening bureaucracy.
  8.13 pm
  Denzil Davies: I will address my brief remarks to the specific parts of the Bill that deal with Wales. Health is a devolved responsibility and the National Assembly for Wales does not have the power to introduce primary legislation, so we have to legislate in the Bill to enable the Assembly to fill in the details by subordinate legislation.
  I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) or my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for the proposals in the Bill. There have been consultation papers and there has been considerable controversy about the proposals in newspapers and on the television in Wales. I recently received a paper from the National Assembly and the NHS directorate headed "Improving Health in Wales—Structural Change in the NHS in Wales" and it sets out the proposals for which authorisation is being asked.
  We learn from that paper that the bureaucratic and administrative changes in Wales will start from 1 April 2003. Unfortunately, when I read the paper, it became quite clear that, if the proposals are put into effect, Wales will have from that date the most bureaucratic health service in western Europe.
  The Bill provides for the establishment of 22 local health boards. They are to be statutory bodies, with all the bureaucratic paraphernalia and expense that that implies. We have 15 hospital trusts and three regional assemblies—a kind of sub-assembly of the National Assembly—will be established. If my mathematics are correct, that takes us to 40 bodies. Because there will be so many bodies, there must be some co-ordination between them and partnerships will have to do that.

  251
  Therefore, some people believe that there will be a further 12 partnerships engaged in co-ordination. That means that 52 bodies will be involved.
  I am describing devolution and not the central system in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the devolution of power, but those 52 bodies will be at the lower level. On top of them, we will have the Assembly with its Committees and the administration and bureaucracy that it inherited from the old Welsh Office. All that in a small country of 3 million people where most of the people do not use the health service more than once or twice in their lifetimes.
  I am glad to assure the House that the health boards will be inclusive. Inclusiveness will mean that the membership of the boards at the county level will read like a who's who of the health bureaucracy in an area. Skilled and scarce professionals, such as doctors, nurses, midwives and physiotherapists, will have to give up their valuable time to sit on meeting after meeting and committee after committee.
  The committees' working day will end at 4 o'clock and the working week on Friday. None of them will meet in the evening and they will certainly not meet on Saturday morning, because that in the jargon of the new political bureaucracy is known as "quality time". Because so many people will be represented on the committees, decisions will take a long time to reach and, very often, they will be based on the lowest common denominator. In all these structural changes, there will be winners and losers. I have no doubt that, in this case, the winners will be the local health bureaucracies.
  For the provisions to come into force by 1 April 2003, there must be implementation. I have a splendid paper that sets out the structure and the steps necessary for implementation. If the House will bear with me, I shall briefly refer to a few of the steps that are mentioned. However, the language of the paper and the structure that it sets up for implementation tell us much about the bureaucratic cast of mind of the new political bureaucratic class that oversees and puts through these bureaucratic changes.
  The paper describes the implementation plan, and 12 bodies will be created to carry it out. We start with something called a "national steering group" which
  "oversees the process of implementation".
  That is fair enough, but we then have an implementation group that
  "oversees the management of the implementation".
  I am not sure what the difference between management and "the process of implementation" entails; I do not understand the bureaucracy and the jargon well enough.
  In addition to the implementation group, there will be nine task and finish groups. Apparently, they will "scope" the implementation. These days, I understand reasonably well the jargon of the new political bureaucratic class. I understand the terms "dynamism", "renewal", "partnership" and even "stakeholders" and "inclusiveness", but the verb "to scope" is not one that I have heard before. Perhaps because I learned English as a second language, it is not part of my vocabulary. However, the nine task and finish groups will scope the implementation.
  So we start with a process that is followed by the management and then the scoping of the implementation. At the end of the day, when the 12 groups have sat down
  252
  and done their work, we have 52 bodies plus the Committees of the National Assembly and its bureaucracy to control and administer the health service for a small nation of 3 million people.
  I came into the House a long time ago in 1970. In those days, we had the Welsh Board of Health, which sat in Cardiff, and a few local management committees looked after a collection of local hospitals. The bureaucracy was light, but those were happy days. My constituents did not have to wait up to two weeks to see a general practitioner or a year or more to see a consultant. They certainly did not have operations cancelled five or six times, which has sometimes happened after they have been pushed into the operating theatre. Since then, however, the bureaucracy has increased.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) talked about the changes. Indeed, the internal market caused a massive increase in the bureaucracy of the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tried to tell us again that my party has abolished the internal market. I am not convinced of that, but there is no point in arguing about it now because we are changing some of that bureaucracy, although in Wales it might be made considerably worse. The winners will be the bureaucrats and I am afraid that the losers may well be the patients or the customers, or whatever we call them these days.
  The House knows that Wales has a democratically elected National Assembly. Its Committees and the Administration, working together with local hospital trusts, should find it fairly easy to administer and control the health service in Wales. Those who drew up the proposals in the paper should tear them up and start again. Frankly, there is little support for them in Wales. I am surprised that two hon. Members from Welsh constituencies spoke so enthusiastically about the proposals. Perhaps they, like the political bureaucratic class, are in denial. My constituents understand the situation well and they do not like it. They do not want the bureaucracy. They see it as creating problems for them.
  The proposals will not be changed, though. We will get the 22 statutory local health boards, adding up to a total of 52 bodies. Despite the warm words—I know these, too—of accountability, democracy and consultation, the new political bureaucracy is extremely inflexible, extremely insensitive and often extremely arrogant. The proposals for Wales will do little to improve the delivery—the word that we have to use today—of health and medical services in my constituency. That is why I will not support them.
  8.23 pm
  Sandra Gidley: Tempting though it is to indulge in political football, I will concentrate on aspects of the Bill that deserve the greatest attention in Committee. I should declare an interest: I am a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Bill will have an impact on my profession, although I might not have time to get to that.
  It has been highlighted that one problem that the NHS has had to face in recent years is the culture of continued reorganisation. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) put it well. He listed the reorganisations under the previous Government, and it is surprising that the Conservatives have the nerve to criticise another change. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a patient who is better off as a result of the reorganisations.

  253
  I find the proposed changes baffling. For example, in recent years we have moved towards regional structures, which Liberal Democrats support, but the Bill moves us sharply into reverse gear. There is no clear justification for the number—28, 30 or whatever—of strategic health authorities. I am puzzled why the Government were not radical by simply basing the strategic health authorities wholly on the regions, thus making it far easier to co-ordinate policy and liaise with other Departments.
  I have some queries on primary care trusts. Many of my local GPs are excited about what PCTs might offer. They see them as a chance to think creatively and purchase care imaginatively and believe that they will be able to fine-tune decisions so that their patients benefit on a locality basis. However, that is providing they are left free to act. Initiative after initiative, although well meaning, has meant that there is a huge amount of central direction. I am not convinced that that will go away when we have PCTs. The Government will still set targets. Some local doctors have a shock coming because their hands will be tied in a way that they have not anticipated. They will have the money, but they will not be as free to spend it as they would like.
  Hon. Members have commented on the fact that many PCTs are concerned that they will start with a deficit because those deficits currently owed by health authorities will be reallocated rather than written off. I seek some reassurance that PCTs will start with a clean balance sheet.
  The British Medical Association also believes that PCTs hold great promise but, like the Secretary of State, I can also quote Ian Bogle, who said that
  "they will require sufficient resources to allow all the local budgets to operate properly".
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) mentioned the York formula. If 100 per cent. is the standard allocation, he did not say why it is that Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS trust, which our constituents share, has an allocation of money equivalent to 83 per cent. I cannot remember what the highest allocation is, but it is around 120 per cent. There is a huge difference between the best and the worst funded health authorities. I want to be reassured that primary care trusts will not be penalised in the same way. Just because an area looks affluent on paper, it does not mean that there are not real health problems. The health problems may be different, and we need to reduce the inequalities.
  Primary care trusts will also have to fund a variety of services. They will have to contribute towards child protection services and some did not realise that they will have to contribute towards emergency ambulance and patient transport services. The latter has come as news to some PCTs locally and, I suspect, elsewhere. Concerns have been raised that they will all be locked into an unseemly haggling process at a time when everybody's energy should be directed at delivering a top quality ambulance service. That is a particular concern for Hampshire.
  Another problem is the lack of pharmaceutical input in primary care trusts. There is no direct requirement for that, which is short-sighted because problems with ineffective prescribing will not readily be tackled.
  Hon. Members have raised public health concerns, and the Minister gave a welcome response to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)
  254
  that health should be monitored. Public health doctors would have a vital role to play in that. It is good that every primary care trust will have a director of public health at board level, but that person does not have to be medically qualified, and it would be useful if that important provision were tightened up.
  On community health councils, I had to smile when I was sorting through my post because I found a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), which, in reference to a consultation process, says:
  "I am pleased to say that many CHCs were among those who responded."
  Perhaps she is so delighted that she will want to keep them—I live in hope. The CHCs have three roles: supporting individual patients and complainants, monitoring local hospital and community services and providing a citizens' perspective on service changes. The Secretary of State gave the House a litany of things that they cannot do and things that will be possible within the new structures. He forgot to mention that much of that is in his power, and it would have been very easy to change the existing structure instead of creating a lot of confusion.
  Much attention has been paid, rightly, to making sure that patients have an independent voice. On the face of it, there is a strong patient focus in the Bill. I understand the fears that patient advocacy and liaison services and patients forums seem very in-house, but the NHS culture is changing very slowly, and there is a growing recognition that it is in the interests of both hospital and patient to learn lessons from complaints and treat them constructively. Some trusts have taken that on board.
  Less attention has been paid to the CHC function of overseeing service reconfigurations, such as the proposed closure of a small maternity unit. Currently the CHC has a statutory right of referral over such decisions; it can take them away from the local health authority and refer them to the Secretary of State. It is not clear in the Bill whether that responsibility will be fully taken over by the local authority overview and scrutiny committees.
  To muddy the waters a little further, the Government are in the process of setting up an "independent review panel". The chair has just been appointed, without interview, by the Secretary of State. That action alone calls into question the panel's independence, and other questions about it remain unanswered. No one seems to know what its remit is, to whom it is ultimately responsible or even how it affects the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament. More importantly, what power does the average person in the street have to hold anyone to account on matters of local reconfiguration?
  As there appears to be so much fudge and fog, would it not be prudent to delay the abolition of the CHCs until the new structures are fully functioning? Several aspects require clarification. For example, how will the people on patients forums be chosen? Many people have wide-ranging experience of primary care, and it would be relatively easy to provide a balanced overview. With secondary care, things become more problematic, as different departments of a hospital suffer from different problems. How will a balanced representative body be structured? There seems to be little guidance on that, and we run the risk of people coming in with a lot of baggage, for want of a better word.
  Patients forums could be compared to the citizens panels operated by many local authorities, which have found it useful to change the membership every few years

  255
  because the citizens involved generally become very close to the council and perhaps understand it too well. If patients forums are to be at all effective, we need to consider training their members, in much the same way that school governors have been trained in the past. The health service is extremely complex and bureaucratic, and patient representatives need to be helped to be effective.
  If effectiveness is the aim, which is not clear, where is the funding for that training? Who will pay for it all? The whole issue of funding has, to a certain extent, been glossed over. There appears to be little acknowledgement that local authority overview and scrutiny committees will require training and funding, and that work is difficult on an already constrained budget—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.
  8.33 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: One of the things that I most enjoy about such debates is the fact that Opposition Members are often candid enough and, in some cases, ill-advised enough to tell us what they really think. We have had a great deal of information from them about all that is wrong with the health service, but we have heard extremely little about how it could be put right and how the Government could be helped to improve matters.
  We heard from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who seemed to be calling for a workplace stealth tax to fund the NHS. After many years of being a Minister, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) seemed to be saying that the NHS was no longer sustainable as a wholly tax-based system. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) seemed to be calling for a Stalinist approach to spending, as he did not think that managers could make such decisions for themselves and needed to be told how to spend their money.
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) seemed to be against the idea of increased inspection and accountability in the health service. All I can say is that he should tell that to the relatives of the patients at Alder Hey and Bristol and the patients of Shipman and Ledward. Without more accountability, we cannot expect the public to have sufficient faith in the health service, let alone expect improvements.
  I have the privilege of being the only practising doctor in the House, so it is a great honour to speak tonight. As part of my duties, I meet many health professionals from all parts of the health service.
  Dr. Murrison rose—
  Dr. Stoate: I have little time, but shall try to give way later if I can.
  I try to meet as many health professionals as possible. Although many people whom I meet are not necessarily Government supporters, they all seem to concede that the Government are committed to improving the NHS, putting more money into the system and want greater accountability and better outcomes. GP lists are getting smaller and practices are better resourced than ever before. There are more practice nurses and support staff.
  256
  There is even evidence of falling GP consultation rates; certainly they are doing much less out-of-hours work than ever before. Yet the point is made time and again that GPs feel incredibly pressurised. Morale in some parts of the NHS is quite low. People tell me that the money is going in, but it is not improving things as they would wish. Clearly, there are concerns about morale, improving standards and where the money is going.
  What is the problem and how has it come about? How can the Government address it and how can the Bill begin to deal with it? Many important issues have been raised tonight. There are deep structural problems in the NHS, and shortages of doctors, nurses and hospital beds. The Secretary of State laid out in great detail the reasons for that and explained what we are trying to do about it. Certainly, obvious factors need to be taken into consideration.
  Society is changing and people are demanding more than they did before. We live in a culture in which people expect much quicker access to services. They are much more likely to call services to account if they do not get what they want, and demand greater access to them. Doctors are losing their position in society. They are slightly more popular than politicians but, nevertheless, they seem to be losing some of their status, which causes them stress and difficulty. Patients who were previously grateful to receive almost any service from doctors are now far more critical and likely to call them to account. One problem is that, while doctors are not necessarily working longer hours than they used to or seeing more patients, their decisions are being called into question far more, which obviously puts a great deal of pressure on them. They now have to account for almost everything that they do and sometimes they have to face the consequences of their actions.
  Complaints are certainly rising a great deal. That does not have anything to do with poor practice; it is much more to do with the fact that patients are more likely to complain and call services to account, which causes great difficulties. The Government are therefore in a dilemma because they are responsible for spending vast sums of the public's money. A lot of money is going into the NHS; previously, not so much was going in. But the Government, of course, expect to get something out. If they are putting all that money in on behalf of the public, they have the right, on behalf of the public, to expect better outcomes; that is only reasonable.
  Doctors, on the other hand, take the view that they are in the driver's seat and have to produce the extra services. Doctors are onside. Naturally, they want to see patients more efficiently and quickly, improvements in health care, access to the best drugs, treatments and referrals, and the shortest waiting times possible. Nevertheless, they are under great pressure to deliver. They must fulfil the Government's aspirations by delivering. We have already heard that they are under pressure and that there is a shortage of them. They are justifiably upset that they are expected to produce yet more.
  Patients are always in a hurry; they want changes to happen quickly. They know that the Government have been in office for more than four years and rightly ask, "Where are the big changes you promised?" It is difficult to explain to someone suffering from a painful hip that it is impossible to train nurses and doctors and build

  257
  hospitals in the time scale that they want. It is natural that people are frustrated and want things to happen more quickly.
  There is obviously a conflict and tension between the Government, who want to improve the NHS as quickly as possible and put the resources in; doctors, who would like to deliver more, but are finding it difficult; and patients, who are impatient because they pay taxes and want improved treatments. How are we to make progress? There are three ways forward: to increase supply, to limit demand and to change the way in which the service is provided.
  The Government are committed to increasing supply. That will happen, but it will take time. Limiting demand is more interesting; many health systems around the world have found ways of doing that by making patients pay for services through co-payment, part-payments or insurance-based schemes—patients put their hand in their pocket and pay out. Many in the medical profession and outside have said that if they charge patients for services, they will use them more appropriately. I disagree with that view. If we were to make patients pay for services, they would use them less, but that does not necessarily mean that they would use them more appropriately. My big worry is that introducing charges into the health service as a way of limiting demand would have a very negative and detrimental effect. I would be very resistant to such proposals. I know that the idea has been discussed and called for, but I am very much against it. If we were to introduce an insurance-based system—
  Mr. Burns: This is not in the Bill.
  Dr. Stoate: We are discussing ways of reforming the health service. I am simply exploring ways in which we might provide a health service that is suitable for the 21st century. In a Second Reading debate, it is perfectly reasonable to range around the subject. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not stop me, I feel happy to continue with my line of reasoning.
  I do not think that the type of system to which I have just referred is the answer. However, my third solution—changing the way in which we use the health service—is a much more fruitful way forward. The thrust of my argument is that we should make much more efficient use of other health professionals, especially pharmacists, who have enormous expertise and knowledge and could be used far more effectively than in the past. They can provide shop-front services without an appointment and supply a wide range of other services to patients. They are very good at health promotion and they can liaise with GPs and manage patients' medicines and repeat prescribing. Indeed, they can manage in an extremely effective and efficient manner many of the functions that are currently undertaken by GPs. I would like to see much more use of pharmacists. They are available in every high street and are used very widely by the public. With a bit more co-ordination and careful interchange in the exchange of information, we could make good progress in that area.
  We can also do much more in primary care and general practice itself. We are not making the most efficient use of primary care resources. As I said, the number of practice nurses has increased, but there is room for another class of health care assistants. One can call them
  258
  assistants, workers or whatever else, but there is room for somebody who has a lower level of training, but can nevertheless undertake many of the basic functions carried out in practices, such as taking blood pressures, ensuring that patients are up to date with immunisation, giving general health advice, leaflets, advice on smoking and diet, and so on. A very large number of functions could be carried out by a lower grade of health care professional in practices. That would take much of the pressure away from general practice.
  There have been one or two instances around the country in which health care collaboratives have been used in that way. The national primary care development team has led the way in pilot studies throughout the country in which a significant improvement has been shown. A 20 per cent. reduction in face-to-face consultation was achieved by getting GPs to do follow-ups on the phone, and a 50 per cent. reduction by introducing telephone triage for same-day appointments. A number of things can be done in primary care to make the most efficient and effective use of resources.
  I want a much more wide-ranging debate about the use of resources in the health service to arise from the Government's proposals. Resources can be used much more efficiently, which would benefit everybody.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am very pleased indeed to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), not only because he is a practising general practitioner, but because he speaks a great deal of sense, as he is practically involved at the grass roots of the delivery of health care in this country. I congratulate him on his contribution to the debate.
  We have heard some splendid speeches. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) spoke with great authority and principle. He is well regarded in this House as a man of independent views and opinions and the House should heed some of what he said. He highlighted the bureaucracy that he believed would result from the Bill. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) likewise spoke with considerable authority as a pharmacist and I respect very much of what she said. I think that the Secretary of State presented forcefully and transparently the case for the Bill from the Government's viewpoint, and I congratulate him on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), speaking from the viewpoint of the Conservative and Unionist party, put down markers on what we would seek to do and explained where we believe that faults and problems will result from the Bill.
  I fervently believe that all Governments try to do their best for the health service and the health care of the people of this country. There are differences over methods of provision, but I believe that all political parties treat the health service and the health care of our people as a priority.
  The contribution of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was impressive not only because his remarks were succinct and brief, but because he speaks from the head as well as the heart. I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Select Committee on Social Services in the 1980s.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made a stimulating contribution. He apologised for the actions of successive Governments in

  259
  reforming the health service. He mentioned the number of times that reform had been introduced, as if it could produce the health service that the people of this country expected and provide the health care that they wanted.
  The Secretary of State suggested that the Bill was ground breaking. I believe that the health service needs reform like it needs a hole in the head. It needs a period of stability and a Government who are dedicated to improving health care. As the Minister knows, when the health service was set up after the last war, with cross-party support, expectations of it were dramatically different from those of today. The cost of what people want and expect from the health service today has dramatically increased.
  I am totally committed to the principle of the health service, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead mentioned, but I have gradually come to believe that the provision and funding of health care must be tackled differently. For example, the right hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned the huge bureaucracy that would result from the Bill. It is a pity that we are putting more resources into those who administer the health service than into providing health care.
  When I first became a Member of Parliament, there was a Macclesfield health board under an administrator. He had the minimum number of staff, but I got quicker responses to any matter that I raised on behalf of a constituent then than I have received since. We went from Macclesfield health board to Cheshire health authority. Different configurations of the health authority followed until we reached today's version, which is the South Cheshire health authority.
  I am deeply worried about the Bill's effect on the provision of health care. It could lead to conflict between primary care trusts and acute hospital trusts. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. The primary care trust will try to do a great deal, much of which is already undertaken by the acute hospital trusts—the East Cheshire NHS trust in my constituency. Conflict will ensue.
  The Minister knows of my interest in mental health. I have had the privilege and honour of coming to see him about such matters on a number of occasions over the past four-plus years. I am deeply concerned that mental health services will be taken away from East Cheshire NHS trust—which is an all-purpose trust and highly successful, with the minimum of bureaucracy—and put into a separate trust, the Cheshire and Wirral specialist trust. That could be extremely damaging. At present, there is a partnership between community, mental health and acute services in Macclesfield, which provides a high quality of health care for the people whom I represent.
  I am also concerned about bed blocking in my area. Co-ordination is needed between social services and the health services. In my constituency, we are losing huge numbers of beds in residential and nursing homes and creating bed blocking in the health service, which causes difficulties for the through-put of patients in my hospital. How can we solve that? I am not sure that the Bill directs any particular proposals at the problem, but it is an important issue.
  I am all for partnerships between trusts and centres of excellence. My own hospital trust, the East Cheshire NHS trust, excellent in every way, has splendid partnerships
  260
  with hospitals in central and southern Manchester. They are centres of excellence and deal with matters that my acute district general hospital cannot deal with. How will that be affected by the Bill?
  We live in difficult times. The health service must change. The funding of the health service must change, or people's expectations will not be met. As the Minister knows, I have strongly opposed my own party in the past. I believe that the people of this country are ready for dramatic changes in the way in which the health service is funded. Putting aside party politics, I hope that the Minister and the Labour Government will take the opportunity to explore ways in which the health service can meet the growing expectations so that it will provide medical operations and treatments that were never envisaged when the health service was founded in the years after the war.
  I put down a marker. I am concerned that the strategic health authority for my area will not do as good a job as the health authority, which was impartial and allocated funds in accordance with need. I am deeply concerned that mental health services, which have been dealt with so effectively in Macclesfield will be undermined—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I should have liked to follow on from the interesting comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but if he will forgive me, time is short and I must make my own points.
  We are, in effect, debating two Bills. There are a number of Welsh clauses in the Bill, and this will be the first occasion on which the House will debate matters arising from the Welsh Assembly which are truly matters of some controversy. In the debate so far we have heard just two and a half speeches about the Welsh issues, and no comment on them from the Front Bench.
  The debate is an opportunity to test whether the present constitutional settlement for Wales provides a means for adequate scrutiny of new Bills. The Welsh Assembly does not have primary legislation powers, but if Parliament simply acts as a rubber stamp for Welsh matters brought to the House, we should dispense with the charade and move towards giving the Welsh Assembly primary legislation powers.
  An example of the problems that arise was provided by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats today. The Liberal Democrats do not seem to understand the settlement or the relevant parliamentary procedures. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson was criticised by my hon. Friends for not discussing his own policies and merely finding fault with those before the House, but, in effect, some of those are Liberal Democrat policies. At least the Liberal Democrats share ownership, because they are in coalition in the Welsh Assembly, yet their spokesperson said that they intend to vote against Second Reading. He argued that that does not mean that they are against the Welsh clauses, but I have news for him: voting down Second Reading means that the Welsh clauses fall. Perhaps he thinks that it does not matter how Liberal Democrats vote.
  Dr. Stoate: That is right.
  Mr. Jones: The Liberal Democrats have probably got used to the idea, but theirs is a typically irresponsible

  261
  attitude. If Members believe clauses to be important, they must vote for Second Reading. They cannot get away from that.
  Interestingly, Plaid Cymru Members have made no contribution to the debate today, but they have contributed in the Welsh Assembly. Their leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, said today that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and I would tear the Welsh clauses to shreds. I do not know whether he anticipated what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) had to say, but I have no intention of tearing the proposals to shreds. That is not to say that I have no reservations.
  The Welsh clauses aim to set up a primary care-led health care structure that will enable local commissioning of health care, enhance co-operation between local government and the health services and, in particular, help to ensure joined-up strategies between social care and health care. They aim to foster a local environment that is responsive to local needs and responsible in its commissioning of cost-effective care to meet those needs.
  Although I have no difficulty with signing up to all those objectives, I have reservations that seem to be shared by many people in health care in Wales. The consultation process achieved results that are mixed to say the least and a research paper in the Library refers to a survey carried out by the NHS Confederation in Wales which found that 69 per cent. of managers believe that 22 new boards will be difficult to sustain, that 87 per cent. think that accountability will be less clear and that 81 per cent. think that the NHS will find it difficult to manage or understand the structure put before it.
  No Member of the House has seen details of the consultation document, and the document itself and those details arrived in the Library only this morning—a single copy 500 pages long. There is no summary and no analysis, and I would be interested to hear whether Ministers have read it.
  My researcher spent hours undertaking analysis and hon. Members will benefit from hearing some of it, although I apologise for the fact that we were able to take only a 10 per cent. random sample to try to find out what the consultation said. Of the random sample, 21 per cent. expressed concern about how the restructuring will affect recruitment and retention, 42 per cent. expressed concern about how partnerships and consortiums between local health boards will work, 56 per cent. said that local health boards are too small to work effectively and 61 per cent. said that specialist medical practitioners and managers will splinter because of the smallness of local health boards.
  My views largely reflect those responses. The boards may well be too small. How will we restrict the bureaucracy that will probably increase as we move from five to 22 commission authorities? However, my main worry—I hope that Front Benchers are listening—is that the list of 353 respondents to the consultation exercise did not include the name of a single Member of Parliament. I thought that odd, as I had been assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that he had responded and I knew damn well that I had done so. Somehow, MPs' responses had been airbrushed from the consultation document. I do not know the reason for that. Perhaps we shall hear it in one of the winding-up speeches. Let me say honestly to the Government, however, that if they believe that the present constitutional arrangements
  262
  involving primary legislation powers resting here should remain, they have a duty to make that system work and to ensure that MPs are consulted about such powers.
  My final point is the most important. How do we ensure that, during this period of upheaval, we do not deflect resources and concentration from the important task of improving service delivery? I shall put it simply—my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will not care too much about the structure; what they will care about is whether the changes will make any difference to the time for which the Mrs. Davieses, the Mrs. Joneses and the Mrs. Williamses—and the Mr. Williamses—must wait for operations. If they will make a difference, will they increase or reduce the waiting time? That is what we need to be told.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) suggested that piggy-backing Welsh clauses in a predominantly English Bill made it possible to suborn those on these Benches into supporting a measure that we have rejected in every other respect. I do not accept, and I do not believe my colleagues accept, that devolution means that colleagues in Wales can fetter us any more than we fetter them in terms of the exercise of their discretion and responsibilities in the Welsh Assembly. We will vote against Second Reading because we feel that our disagreement with the principle of the Bill justifies our doing so.
  The Secretary of State's speech featured an exceedingly long preamble, followed by a relatively short discussion of the Bill. That, I think, underlined the lack of real substance. This is not a major, ground-breaking piece of legislation that will change the NHS fundamentally. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) conjured up a picture of a merry-go-round of reorganisation in the service from which he had finally dismounted, admitting that it was not doing any good in terms of delivery to our communities. Unfortunately, the current Secretary of State has climbed on to the merry-go-round, and is taking us on a few more circuits. That, more than anything else, is cause for concern.
  I have spoken to health care professionals, and they have been struck by a sense of deja vu. The elements within organisations now being created in England can be given various labels—regional health authority, district health authority and so on. Perhaps they will re-emerge in due course, when there is yet another reorganisation.
  I want to say something about the CHI and CHC proposals. I am glad that the CHI proposals will involve greater independence for the organisation: that will do much to build confidence in the good work that it is already doing. There is, however, the issue of its reach being extended into the private and voluntary sectors, and a consequent overlap with the work of the National Care Standards Commission. I hope that that will be discussed in detail in Committee, if the Bill reaches that stage, because Ministers should think about how such an overlap can be avoided and, indeed, consider the possibility of establishing a single agency to regulate and inspect care in all settings, not just the health service.
  The House debated community health councils at great length during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill earlier this year. The Secretary of State says that the

  263
  CHCs lack teeth, but as we know it is up to the Secretary of State to exercise his responsibilities to give them teeth. He says that they do not have a responsibility in terms of primary care. Why not? It is because he has not given them that responsibility. He says that they do not have a role in inspecting GPs—that is because the Government have chosen not to give them such a role. It has no formal representation in NHS organisations. Again, the Secretary of State has it within his means—he has the legislation before the House—to deal with those issues.
  Therefore, why not go down the reform path? It is a path that Liberal Democrats would have liked the Government to explore. We urged them to do so in the previous Parliament; sadly, they did not. As a consequence, they served up in the previous Parliament a dog's breakfast of legislation. There was no consultation and a lack of clarity. There was not even an organisation chart spelling out how the proposals would work.
  What we have before us tonight perhaps goes a little further. We have had some consultation. We even have an organisation chart that gives some idea of how the different elements will hang together. In a way, we now have a dog's breakfast where we are told how to go about eating it. I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister can at least give us some information on how much it will cost, and how many staff will be put into place to facilitate the work of the new bodies. Work to analyse the costs of the plethora of new bodies that will replace community health councils suggests that significant sums of money will be needed. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) have alluded to that.
  Community health councils currently spend about £22 million per annum. Next year, that is likely to rise to about £23 million. The pathfinders for PALS have been given £10 million this year. One analysis suggests that implementation of the proposals in the Health and Social Care Act 2001—PALS, the overview and scrutiny committees, and the independent complaints and advisory services—will put the costs up to about £84 million in 2002–03 and that that will rise to £109 million. This Bill will add still further to the costs: it will result in a bill in 2002–03 of £136 million rising to £227 million.
  The explanatory notes to the Bill say that there will be no significant increases in costs, and that there will in fact be a £100 million saving as a result of all the musical chairs that the NHS is to go through. Where will the extra money come from to deliver the extra value that the Government tell us will result from the patient involvement initiatives?
  The Liberal Democrats believe that those proposals are not well thought through and that they are incoherent, particularly in respect of patient and community involvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and, indeed, some Labour Members have identified the lack of independence of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. It sits ill that, at the same time that the Government are about to give greater independence to the Commission for Health Improvement, they have not gone as far when it comes to patient involvement. Perhaps during the passage of the Bill the Government will consider that matter further and establish equality between the commissions, so that there
  264
  is greater confidence that the whole system will deliver greater and genuine patient involvement, with patients having a real say in how taxpayers' money is spent on delivering better health care in their area.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the crisis in our health care system. The Bill goes nowhere near to dealing with that crisis. We have lost capacity in terms of long-term care, we have inadequate investment in prevention and there is inadequate capacity in relation to health care employees and staff. All those issues have been missed completely by the legislation, yet they are absolutely central to our constituents' daily experience and to the health service's problems. Hon. Members have described bed blocking as an issue, but I call it a symptom of the wider problems that I have just described.
  I hope that the Government will think further on the comments not only of Opposition Members but of Labour Members, who have been particularly concerned about the patient and public involvement proposals, and that Ministers will come to the Committee with amendments that address those concerns and ensure that we have legislation that truly does empower the patient.
  9.10 pm
  Andy Burnham: If NHS staff had the time to read debates in the House of Commons, as I am sure that they do not, I feel sure that they would share my disbelief at the sheer cheek of the Opposition parties reasoned amendments to the Bill. Anyone who had to work in the NHS when the ridiculous internal market was operating will find talk of "unnecessary structural change" and "increased bureaucracy" a bit rich to say the least. I was a researcher for Labour's Front-Bench health team between 1994 and 1997, and I then worked for the NHS Confederation. When I went to work in the health service, I was surprised to discover that the issues on which we campaigned while in opposition were entirely true.
  The Conservative's reasoned amendment describes a "worsening health care crisis". I wonder whether any Opposition Member took the time to read the briefing that was prepared for this debate by the NHS Confederation, which states:
  "The NHS is improving. The new money for the NHS is being spent on increased quality of services, more services, new services…redesigning services around patients and making staff's lives more tolerable…Years of under-investment in the NHS"—
  by which I think they mean the years of the previous, Conservative Government—
  "has meant that the NHS is cheap but it is not the NHS the public want."
  The Opposition are entirely wrong to refer to unnecessary structural change. If the Bill were really unnecessary, I feel sure that the British Medical Association would have said so. In fact, the BMA says:
  "The Bill allows doctors in both primary and secondary care to mould services so they are relevant to local patient need."
  I shall focus my remarks on the structural changes which, far from being irrelevant, open up historic opportunities to tackle three deep-seated problems that have bedevilled the NHS since its creation. The first and I believe most important of those is the chance to put renewed energy into the drive to tackle the health inequalities that still scar this country and that, for all its virtues, the NHS has hitherto been unable to end.

  265
  Although those inequalities are created by factors that are of course outside the health service's control, it is the NHS that has to pick up the pieces.
  Primary care trusts offer a more finely tuned mechanism than health authorities to target areas and pockets of health inequality. By changing the flow of funding in the system so that it is from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, there is a real opportunity to reach and tackle the root causes of poor health.
  I represent an area with historically high levels of illness and disease which are partly caused by its industrial past. Life expectancy in Leigh and Wigan is 16 per cent. lower than the national average and significantly lower than similarly sized towns such as Woking, Guildford and Winchester. In 2000, twice the proportion of people in Leigh died of trachea, bronchus or lung cancer than died of those diseases in Guildford or Winchester. The proportion of the local population dying from heart attacks was more than double that in Woking.
  I know that the Department is reviewing the formula to allocate funding to PCTs, and that it does not need me to say that it is crucial that the formula is got right; I simply plead that the guiding principle for allocating resources is to target it on areas where health need is greatest.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman and I both represent north-west constituencies, and he will undoubtedly be very interested to know what the CHCs in that area have to say on the issues that he has raised. Has he consulted with anyone in the CHCs in his own area who believe that CHCs should be abolished?
  Andy Burnham: I am not talking about abolition of CHCs; at the moment, I am talking about resources for primary care trusts. I have spoken widely to people working in the NHS—
  Mr. Evans: Come on, answer the question.
  Andy Burnham: I am not talking about the CHCs, and I shall crack on with my speech, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  Mr. Evans: Have you spoken to the CHCs?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position. He intervened and he has received a response. He must not continue intervening from a sedentary position.
  Andy Burnham: If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is less well refreshed the next time he comes in the Chamber, perhaps he will allow hon. Members to get on with their speeches.
  I hope that Ministers will also take the opportunity to deal with the NHS's long-standing weakness in taking public opinion seriously. There has been a tendency to disregard public opinion, especially in areas that have had a fierce debate about the reconfiguration of local services. It is when people's concerns are borne out by their experience of the service after the reconfiguration that their trust in the NHS is really undermined. We had a classic example in Leigh. The accident and emergency department was closed in the early 1990s. The claim was that it was being closed to improve the delivery of
  266
  services to local people, but that was fiercely contested by the Leigh community, and today 99 per cent. would say that they have been proved right. While we cannot turn the clock back on that decision, the proposals in the Bill may help the NHS to be better at listening to and understanding public opinion.
  The third opportunity is the chance to break the historical hold that acute hospital services have over the health service and the preoccupation with their needs and services. Primary care trusts should focus on the renewal of the physical fabric of the NHS at primary care level at an early opportunity. That, after all, is where most people have their week-to-week contact with the service. For too long, primary care facilities have been organised and developed in a piecemeal fashion, partly because of the status of primary care professionals as independent contractors. That system has not led to the development of high-quality facilities—in Leigh, we know that more than anyone.
  Primary care trusts are well placed to tackle that historical problem and provide the catalyst for better primary care facilities. In Leigh, we have the proposals for the Leigh health park. It is envisaged that it will be a PFI scheme, and I know that the Government are still piloting the LIFT scheme—the local improvement finance trust—for primary care. The provision of primary care facilities is a far less complicated exercise than the commissioning of acute hospitals, but the danger is that time and resources are expended on secondary and tertiary PFI schemes, because of their demands, instead of making quick progress in the primary care sector.
  I urge the Government to roll out the LIFT scheme to all areas as quickly as possible, so that from the very beginning primary care trusts will have that option in their efforts to improve local facilities. It could also help to solve the problems of GP recruitment by providing attractive surroundings to work in, without individuals having to take a financial stake.
  Some critics have attacked the PFI as a waste of taxpayers' money, but they miss a crucial point. However healthy the economy and public finances, there will always have to be a limit placed on the NHS capital budget. Throughout the history of the NHS, building projects and refurbishments have been prioritised and queues formed. Every town could not have a new hospital or clinic at the same time. People had to be patient—in some cases, heroically so. The old capital funding system may have pleased public sector purists, but it did not give the public modern, well maintained NHS facilities and it has bequeathed an NHS estate to this generation that is simply not up to the job. By contrast, the PFI lifts the limit from NHS capital spending and means that more towns and people can have their new hospitals and clinics now. While the cost to the NHS of PFI projects over their lifetime is disputed, there has to be a value in giving the local population access to a modern health care facility that they might not otherwise have had for 10, 15 or 20 years.
  The Government are giving local communities a better NHS and the Bill will take forward that process. It will put power where it belongs, at the bottom of the system, and will throw open historic opportunities to create the modern service that we on this side of the House desperately want to see.
  9.18 pm
  Laura Moffatt: On Friday, together with staff from Crawley hospital, I abseiled down the side of the hospital building. We did that to raise cash for Children in Need. However, we had another reason. We wanted to communicate to the people of Crawley that we are not so totally consumed by the health service that we cannot think about anything else. We are able to go and do exciting things, raise cash and enjoy ourselves at the same time. The view that the NHS is on its knees and cannot raise its head above the parapet because it is so bogged down with work is completely untrue, and I want the House to know that.
  I shall be brief to ensure that all our colleagues who wish to speak in the debate can do so, and I shall concentrate on the Commission for Health Improvement and its work on quality. That work is crucial, and the Government have ensured that it runs as a thread through all their new legislation. It is essential in the partnership between our communities and the health service, because—let us be under no illusions—the NHS has not been good at talking with people. It has been good at talking at people and telling them what it thinks they need, but the relationship has been lacking. The quality of the relationship should lie in the way the NHS communicates with people as well as in the way it does its job.
  I have little doubt that we have a first-class service, but one of my constituents attended an accident and emergency department in my area with an injury that was not major yet he found that he had to wait for four hours. He had been seen by the triage nurse, but no one thought to explain that the people waiting would have to hang on because the department was looking after others who were seriously ill.
  We can improve our performance in circumstances such as that. Relationships can be improved by involving local people more, and I have no doubt that the new patient advocacy and liaison service will contribute to that. Its staff will be on site, with the result that matters such as I described can be dealt with in a way that will be of great value.
  I turn now to the role of local authorities. My local authority has been invigorated by its new role. It now has a say in what is going on my area, and its role in oversight and scrutiny has made it feel part of the community. The authority believes that it has a mandate that allows it to contribute.
  The concern that I share with my local authority is how to ensure that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will not usurp local authorities' role. The tremendous health service review that we have just undergone has been a fantastic experience. I could not have said that in the House two years ago. I have no idea what the outcome of the review will be, but the process of getting our community involved is not one that I shall forget. People who marched in the streets and demanded that I be taken from the House and hanged in Whitehall are now saying that the review was good. They felt that they had been asked about what they wanted in their services. I hope that a similar process will be undertaken with the proposals under consideration today.
  When we look at our health services, we must talk to our local communities and find the people who are able to contribute and who want to do so. We must go beyond the usual suspects in such matters, who come to the fore
  268
  and say that they are good at articulating problems. We need to find the people in our communities who want to contribute to the process. They are there, they want to take part and they can have confidence in what we are doing. The review of our hospital services is one of the very good things that the Government have undertaken. They have trusted local people to contribute to the service.
  I shall say a brief word about strategic and specialist commissioning, especially in respect of issues that can be difficult. We rightly allow those in the front line in the health service to decide what is to happen, but we must ensure that matters such as HIV remain to the fore. Although they are difficult matters to get to grips with, they must be included in the commissioning strategy. I want to ensure that the Herpes Viruses Association can batter down the door of our PCT just as the Alzheimer's Association can.
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is not in his place now, but he talked earlier about the poodles in the community who will say anything to suit the Secretary of State. I have to tell him that in Crawley we do not have poodles; we have Jack Russells.
  9.23 pm
  Linda Perham: I want to speak first about the clauses in the Bill that deal with patient and public involvement. I declare an interest as a former member of Redbridge CHC, and as the new secretary of the all-party group on community health councils. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), was my predecessor in that post.
  I am aware of the continuing interest shown by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the effective involvement of the public in the health service. In the short period of consultation on the Government's proposals, she attended regional events and received many representations. I appreciate her response to the views expressed to her, and believe that the Government have made a genuine attempt to accept changes and modifications to the Bill.
  I still have concerns about the Bill. I am struck by the lack of detail in it, compared to what was contained in the consultation proposals. Much will be left to regulation, or will be "fleshed out in guidance", as the response to the listening exercise puts it.
  My CHC has problems about the complexity and fragmentation of the arrangements of the new bodies. My area, which covers one London borough, will have five patients forums. My CHC also has concerns about imbalances in the system, with most of the CHCs' powers passing to the overview and scrutiny committees and their duties to the patients forums.
  I welcome the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, particularly its responsibility for the setting and monitoring of standards to ensure consistency across the country. That is an issue of concern for many of us who attended meetings with Ministers during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001.
  I wonder about the commission's independence and the powers of the Secretary of State, which other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. I also share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall)

  269
  about how the commission will operate locally. All in all, there are a lot of good intentions but much is left to regulation and guidance.
  I welcome the devolution of health service planning and commissioning from health authorities to primary care trusts. That will bring service delivery closer to the local community. It is entirely appropriate that family health provision should be administered at as local a level as practicable instead of at a more remote level, as at present. In my area, the health authority covers two very different London boroughs, with diverse populations and needs.
  I am encouraged by my early contact with the chair and chief executive of Redbridge primary care trust. One example of an appropriate and timely response to local need is the calling of a meeting with parents and carers of children with special educational needs to discuss problems relating to the provision of speech and language therapy.
  I also welcome the joint working with the Prison Service mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). Last year, as part of my secondment on the National Council for Voluntary Organisations scheme, I visited the prison health policy unit and Pentonville prison, and discussed social exclusion, drug abuse and the mental health problems of inmates. I am therefore very pleased with those joint working provisions.
  Finally, I welcome the extension of the powers and constitution of the Commission for Health Improvement, and am pleased that it will produce an annual report on the quality of NHS services. The commission's recent report on clinical governance at my local hospital, King George, identified a number of areas for praise and concern and has enabled the trust to come up with an action plan to address its shortcomings.
  This is a wide-ranging Bill with a raft of important changes which, taken as a whole, should put in place real improvements for the public in the delivery of a truly modern health service for the 21st century. I hope, however, that Ministers will listen and respond positively to the areas of concern raised in the debate.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: Those who have been here throughout the debate will have been struck by two exceptional but very different speeches. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke with clarity and thoughtfulness about the problems facing the House with regard to quangos and regulators, and the need for greater control and accountability to Parliament. I think that many Members will have agreed with his comments.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) got it absolutely right when he said that the Bill epitomised the political class in denial. I agree with that sentiment; indeed, having listened to his speech, I think that the Secretary of State seems to be in perpetual denial. Frankly, he seemed to be living in a fantasy world, totally divorced from the reality of what everyone else in the House experiences in their dealings with constituents.
  Sadly, in typical new Labour spin, the Secretary of State seeks to assure us that everything is rosy in the national health service. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In the past week alone, we have seen the latest figures for the treatment of patients fall by 0.1 per cent. That
  270
  seriously undermines the Government's target that, by next April, no one should be waiting more than 15 months. As Anthony Harrison of the King's Fund said:
  "The Government is in big trouble and they are just not getting activity up."
  In addition, the latest figures for the number of people waiting for treatment have risen by 3.5 per cent. It was especially poignant to listen to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who drew to the attention of the House the particular problems with regard to those patients waiting for radiotherapy at Southampton hospital.
  To add to those problems, the number of people waiting more than 18 months has risen from two in September of last year to 208 this year. For a Government who have constantly argued that patients should never be on a waiting list for more than 18 months, that massive increase is a disgrace.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many times under the previous Administration that 18-month target was actually met?
  Mr. Burns: May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Prime Minister, John Major, concentrated from 1992 on targeting specific money on bringing down waiting lists to ensure that patients waited for shorter periods? The Minister really must grasp the point that his party has been in power for four and a half years; it is no longer good enough for Labour Members to get up, like parrots, and constantly repeat the refrain about what happened previously. Under the last Conservative Government, waiting lists were targeted for action to bring down waiting times. We brought down the times from more than 30 months to 24 months, towards the 18-month target.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
  The waiting list to get on a waiting list has continued to rise, as the latest figures show. However, even the Secretary of State could not manage that news properly. We have The Mirror to thank for news of the great e-mail debacle.
  When the hospital waiting list figures were being issued, the Department of Health sent out an e-mail that would have tested the nerve of Jo Moore. It trumpeted the apparent fact that waiting lists had fallen by 3,500. Within three hours, embarrassed Department of Health officials had to send out another e-mail, entitled "Statistical Press Release—Corrected Version", to correct the fact that the waiting lists had not fallen at all: they had in fact risen by 3,500.
  The Secretary of State is in danger of mistaking activity for action. The nation is crying out for action—action on the problems in health care facing our constituents up and down the country.

  271
  Flying out to Spain to recruit nurses for our NHS is no panacea for real action. As the Daily Express stated on 17 November—in view of the intervention made by the Minister of State, he should pay special attention to this point:
  "Labour cannot simply blame Tory Governments…It has had four years to address the problems but has only recently woken up to the scale of the crisis…If Mr. Milburn really wants to solve the NHS crisis he must understand exactly why working for it has become such a no go area and start doing something about it."
  Perhaps more worrying for the Secretary of State is the fact that he is no longer a favourite—if he ever was—of the Chancellor: that brooding colossus at No. 11 who casts his shadow over the Government. We discover that apparently "Gordon thinks that Alan is 'useless' at running the health service", reflecting the Chancellor's view that the extra money that he has given the Secretary of State has not led to better services or results.
  Ironically, we do not need the Chancellor to point out what everyone else has known for months; we have only to ask our constituents, who have had to endure endless waiting lists to see a consultant or to be treated, who wait to be seen at accident and emergency departments, who wait on trollies before being admitted to beds, or who have to wait to leave hospital to stop bed blocking. The situation is totally unacceptable. This Government's achievement—no Opposition Member would be proud of achieving it—is that new Labour is putting people on a waiting list to leave hospital, as well as putting them on a waiting list to go into hospital.
  The Secretary of State has described the Bill as a great, decentralising initiative. Frankly, only this Secretary of State could reach such a conclusion. There are nine schedules and 40 clauses, 23 of which give the Secretary of State order-making powers—22 of them by the negative procedure. In toto, there are 58 opportunities for the Secretary of State to issue orders—58 ways in which the Secretary of State's powers can be gained, retained or enhanced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said.
  Sadly, most of the Ministers were not here to listen to the excellent speech made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). I am sorry to do this to the right hon. Gentleman, but his speech was very good, and even this Secretary of State might actually learn something if he reads the report of it tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman explained in great detail just what a bureaucratic nightmare the Bill will produce in Wales and the shambles that it will cause to health care in the Principality.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said, the Bill will concentrate powers on the Secretary of State, and the less rubbish we hear from Ministers about its being a great decentralising measure the better.
  A quarter of the Bill deals with probably the most far-reaching reforms to the NHS since 1974, if not before, with the replacement of the health authorities with strategic health authorities and the enhancement of the role of PCTs in the delivery of health care. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) certainly does know what he is talking about, given his experience as a previous Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and he said that the health service needs reform like it needs a hole in the head.
  272
  I am afraid that my hon. Friend is absolutely right, as is the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) who, with his great experience of working in the health service all his life, said that changes are not needed because there is a crisis in the NHS and that the changes that have been made in past years need to bed down and to be made to work.
  I cannot understand why the Government are in such a rush to engineer these reforms, and I question whether the structures that will be put in place are ready to work, without the whole edifice collapsing in confusion and disaster. The rush to change that the Government are pursuing reminds me of the old adage, "Reform in haste, repent at leisure". For example, the BMA has cautioned that the PCTs, where they exist, are relatively new organisations and that the demands that will rest on them may well be beyond their existing capabilities.
  The BMA highlights the fact that existing PCTs already have difficulties in recruiting clinical staff and that those problems will be exacerbated. It is also concerned that the timetable for PCTs to be up and running is far too ambitious, especially as there are still approximately 100 PCGs, many of which have not even started to prepare for PCT status. Similarly, other contributors to the debate have quoted academics who said that the Bill would be rushed through given the Government's current timetable. Conservative Members share those concerns, because the Government are rushing headlong into the reforms.
  In the Committee that considered the Bill that created the PCTs, the former Minister of State at the Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said that
  "it is important to emphasise that we"—
  that is the Government—
  "do not intend a headlong rush to be made into PCTs and that it is not part of our agenda to impose PCTs on the national health service."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1999; c. 252–3.]
  The Government have performed a complete U-turn and there are severe concerns in the health profession that the Bill is being rushed through. A recent survey in the Health Service Journal shows that 46 per cent of chief executives in NHS organisations thought that PCTs would be unable to cope with enlarged responsibilities and that 33 per cent. thought that the time scale and the scale of the changes were unrealistic and dangerous. One chief executive has called the reforms "a recipe for disaster" and another has described them as
  "the most ill conceived, poorly thought out set of changes in decades."
  Sadly, at this stage, the Government will not listen to or tolerate any criticism regardless of the potential damage that they inflict on the NHS. I assure the Minister that we shall consider that proposal carefully in Committee.
  The Bill reintroduces the measures to abolish the community health councils that the Government were unable to get through in the last Parliament. A host of Members on both sides of the House have spoken out against the measure. The knowledge of health of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, is so great that one does not ignore his advice without being stupid. He is still root and branch against the Government's proposal.

  273
  My hon. Friend the Members for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and my hon. the Members for Macclesfield are both former Chairmen of the Health Select Committee. They are totally opposed to the Government's plans as is the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), a member of the governing party.
  Ms Claire Ward: No, he is not.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Member for Pudsey expressed concerns about the abolition of the CHCs, as did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest.
  What I and the people who contribute so much hard work to the success of the CHCs cannot understand is the decision to abolish a tried-and-tested system that people understand. They know that the CHCs are independent bodies that represent them in their complaints against the health service and about the provision of health care. It is foolish to abolish them for the sake of it and to come up with a system that no one understands and that no one believes will be independent.
  People think that the Government are simply acting out of spite because CHCs have had the audacity to have had considerable success in highlighting the failures of the Government's delivery of health care. If the Government really thought that there needed to be improvements in patient representation, why did they not reform those aspects of CHCs with which they are not happy to make them even more effective?
  The Bill is a fig-leaf of a policy for the problems facing the NHS. It is irrelevant to the problems facing all our constituents, with waiting list delays, postcode lottery provision of health care and a policy run more by spin and by reaction to adverse media coverage than according to a rational and realistic approach to facing up to the challenges caused by the inexorable rise in the need for more patient care.
  while the Chancellor expresses anger and exasperation at the Health Secretary's failures, morale among staff plummets and our constituents become more and more disillusioned with the Government's performance. The Health Secretary fiddles around as a lackey to No. 10, tampering at the edges rather than addressing the real problems facing real patients in the real world. It is for that failure that I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the No Lobby to vote against a Bill that is irrelevant to the task of improving the health care of this nation.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We have had a good debate. Some 26 Members contributed to it and we heard some excellent speeches. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). We had the benefit of hearing from a former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). We also heard from hon. Members who have worked in, and dedicated their lives to, the NHS, including the hon. Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). We are all the better for hearing what they had to say.
  The debate started with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) speaking for 20 minutes, and none of us was any the wiser about the Tory remedy for the
  274
  NHS. I will return to that theme when I have had a chance to reflect and comment on what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has said about the NHS. I am sure that my hon. Friends would like to hear his views on it. The hon. Member for Woodspring, whom I hold in high regard, said that he looked forward to hearing my response to the debate. Unfortunately, he is not here to hear it, so I shall have to send him a copy of the video, which he can enjoy at his leisure.
  As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made a good speech on this subject. There are issues on which we disagree, and I am sure that he is aware of them. He was wrong to say that we have ignored social care issues. He will be aware, as will other hon. Members, of the provisions that we introduced in the Health Act 1999 and the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) served on the Committee that considered the latter Act and addressed many of the concerns about the need for health and social care services to work closely together. The emphasis in the Bill on primary care trusts will strengthen the NHS's links to social care. My hon. Friend will know that the Government's arrangements for PCTs make a point of ensuring that there are close connections between them and local authorities, which provide social services.
  Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Westbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, expressed concern about how the public health function will end up as a result of the reforms. The Bill will strengthen it by pushing it closer to the front line in primary care trusts. Each PCT will have a director of public health. There will be a strong overview of that and close links to the chief medical officer.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield, for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) were worried about patient and public involvement. We look forward to considering sensible proposals that they might have on how we can strengthen that aspect of the Bill. We look forward to dealing with the detail in Committee.
  I tried hard to take a note of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but it was difficult. He said much about the need for more doctors in the NHS, so I made an effort to check what he said in the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the 2001 general election. I was surprised to find that his party promised 4,600 extra doctors. That is not enough. It is not what the Government are committed to securing. He chided us about a number of things and made a lot of noise, but none of it made much sense, and much was simply inaccurate. I remain in the dark about whether he favours abolition or maintenance of community health councils. Perhaps we will hear from him on that in Committee.
  I am glad that we have support for the clauses that relate to Wales. I am happy to acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) played an important part in developing those important reforms.
  The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke well about the work being done by her community health councils and the positive way in which they are looking to the future. We look forward to working with her and

  275
  others to see how we can strengthen the role of patients forums and the new Commission for Public and Patient Involvement in Health.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) expressed his concerns about the proposal to establish the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals. We shall consider any sensible proposals to improve those clauses and, in particular, the accountability arrangements to which he drew attention.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood made a very good speech and, as always, I enjoyed listening to him. He said that he felt that there was no outside interest in the Bill. Obviously, he has not spoken to the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the NHS Alliance or the NHS Confederation, which have expressed close interest in the Bill and strong support for many of its important aspects. Like most Labour Members, I am fascinated to hear former Tory Health Secretaries pose a series of questions about how we could successfully reform the NHS. The questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked today were obviously those that he failed to answer during his period of office, and I am sure that he would have the good grace to acknowledge that, but a bit of soul searching never did anyone any harm.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about her personal support for the NHS, which I know will be echoed in most parts of the House. She accurately described the Bill as effective, and I made a note of that expression because I am sure that it will amply qualify her to serve on the Standing Committee.
  Most of the remarks of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who takes a close interest in these issues, were directed not at the Bill but at the financial problems experienced by his local NHS organisation. He talked particularly about the problem of deficits in his local health service, and I simply say that the accumulated deficit in the NHS is now substantially lower than it was when we came to office in 1997, although I acknowledge that there are local problems that we need to tackle.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke about issues related to the regulation of health care professionals rather than those that are directly relevant to the Bill. He made several points about health visitors and chiropodists. The Standing Committee that is to discuss those orders will meet next week, and I am sure that we can thrash out some of the issues then.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) spoke about the important need to identify the interests of front-line staff and to consult them. PCTs will be able to do that, which is why their role in the Bill is so important.
  I am sorry that I did not catch the contribution of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). I understand that he is against decentralisation and very much in favour of central direction, which is a peculiar position for him, of all people, to take on these issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford identified concerns about patient and public involvement. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and I look forward to working with him to discuss those issues.
  276
  I was disappointed by the tone of the hon. Member for Westbury and his comments on reform. He seemed to be against effective regulation and inspection, particularly in primary care, and he was largely against any wider role for patients in the NHS. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to explain that to his constituents in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked much common sense, as he always does on these issues.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a typically gracious speech to which I listened with close interest. He expressed his nostalgia for the Macclesfield health board. I am sure that its passing is still mourned in Macclesfield and that the subject comes up regularly in his surgeries, although I am glad that I am not present for any of those conversations. He also talked about the NHS being set up with cross-party support. It is my recollection that the Conservatives voted against the establishment of the NHS, but perhaps he and I can reflect on that in the weeks ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman made one important point, saying that he thought that there could be conflict between PCTs, acute trusts and other NHS trusts. I do not believe that such conflict will arise, and the role of the strategic health authorities will be very important in ensuring that it does not. There is a huge commonality of interest in ensuring that local health services are improved and, as the commissioning body, the PCT will play a central role in that.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) made one of his typical NHS speeches; to my knowledge, he has made the same one at least half a dozen times. He made the case for no change in the NHS and preserving the status quo; that is the Liberals for you. He expressed a novel constitutional principle in that he hoped that the Bill would reach Committee, but wanted it to be rejected on Second Reading. I do not think that there is any way of doing that, but one never knows.
  I have spent a long time trying to respond to points that hon. Members made in our debate, and in the few minutes remaining to me I wish to make some comments about the Bill and its importance. First, it will make the NHS less bureaucratic and more flexible. Under our proposals in clauses 1 to 10, the centre of gravity, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, will shift from Whitehall to local doctors and nurses. Local communities will have more involvement in, and say over, their local services. Most importantly, more resources will go directly to the front line, giving local staff the freedom to innovate and to develop and improve local services. I believe, as I hope that all my hon. Friends do, that those are essential reforms if the service is to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
  Secondly, under the proposals that we are asking the House to endorse tonight, the balance of power in the NHS will shift decisively in favour of the patient. If public services are to command public confidence, they have to give greater control and more choice to the people who use them—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber. The Minister is addressing the House.
  Mr. Hutton: I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker.
  Those important reforms will take the NHS substantially further forward. We are not only devolving power to the front line, but devolving the assessment of how that power is exercised to an independent body—the Commission for Health Improvement. Those sensible reforms involve trusting doctors and nurses, keeping the public better informed and strengthening quality standards.
  A lot of time today has been spent on the Government's record on the NHS. I simply point out to many Opposition Members who have called for more resources for the NHS that we are making unprecedented investment in it. That expenditure has been called into question by the Opposition, but it was never matched by them in their 18 years of power between 1979 and 1997. We are making good the chronic underinvestment of the Tory years, securing twice the rate of growth that the Tories managed during 18 years in office.
  I want to return to what the right hon. Member for Charnwood said. He has obviously studied what the Leader of the Opposition has said about the NHS. The Leader of the Opposition recently described his plans to introduce vouchers for operations that can be topped up by wealthy patients who want to use private hospitals.
  Mr. Burns: He did not.
  Mr. Hutton: He did. I will send the hon. Gentleman quotes from the Leader of the Opposition in The Sunday Telegraph to look at.
  The Leader of the Opposition said:
  "In the private sector operations will cost more, so the patient will have to top up with their own money or use some insurance scheme."
  In September, the right hon. Member for Charnwood was right to describe those proposals as "absurd." He said that they would create a two—tier NHS; he should know, as he presided over one for many years as a Tory Health Secretary. The Tories have learned nothing from their recent encounters with the electorate.
  Mr. Dowell: Does the Minister think that we should have a race to see whether my hon. Friends on the Front Bench can get a health policy more quickly than him?
  Mr. Hutton: I would be happy to take part in that race because it would be some time before the Opposition produced any coherent programmes.
  So we have the same old Tories, not a new political force in Britain with new ideas for the new century, but the same old collection of Tory prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I urge my hon. Friends to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 320.

  Division No. 67]

  9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allan, Richard

  Barker, Gregory

  Amess, David

  Barrett, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beith, Rt: Hon A J

  Bacon, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  278

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brake, Tom

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brazier, Julian

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Breed, Colin

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

  Brooke, Annette

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burstow, Paul

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burt, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Laws, David

  Carton, Mrs Patsy

  Leigh, Edward

  Cameron, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cash, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Luff, Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chidgey, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Collins, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Conway, Derek

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

  Cran, James

  Moore, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Norman, Archie

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Oaten, Mark

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Prisk, Mark

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pugh, Dr John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Randall, John

  Francois, Mark

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gray, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hammond, Philip

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Simmonds, Mark

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heath, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spink, Bob

  Hendry, Charles

  Spring, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hoban, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  Holmes, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  279

  Swayne, Desmond

  Watkinson, Angela

  Swire, Hugo

  Webb, Steve

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willis, Phil

  Thurso, John

  Wilshire, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walter, Robert

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Cranston, Ross

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Crausby, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Baird, Vera

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Battle, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tam

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bell, Stuart

  David, Wayne

  Benn, Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Best, Harold

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Betts, Clive

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bryant, Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burgon, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Foulkes, George

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Galloway, George

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clelland, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gilroy, Linda

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Goggins, Paul

  Colman, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  280

  Grogan, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mann, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Marris, Rob

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Havard, Dai

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heyes, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Margaret

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Miliband, David

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Networt E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Lynne (Salk Oak)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Perham, Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Picking, Anne

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pickthall, Colin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pike, Peter

  Kidney, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pollard, Kerry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pond, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pope, Greg

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Price, Adam

  Levitt, Tom

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Lloyd, Tony

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian

  Rapson, Syd

  Luke, Iain

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lyons, John

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie

  MacDonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salmond, Alex

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  281

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simon, Siôn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watson, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  Weir, Michael

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  White, Brian

  Squire, Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tami, Mark

  Wishart, Pete

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wray, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 200.

  Division No. 68

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brennan, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bryant, Chris

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burnham, Andy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Baird, Vera

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Best, Harold

  Clwyd, Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blackman, Liz

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Colman, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Borrow, David

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Crausby, David

  282

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jamieson, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  David, Wayne

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lucas, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Lyons, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McCabe, Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  McCafferty, Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foulkes, George

  McDonnell, John

  Galloway, George

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Annne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mann, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marris, Rob

  Havard, Dai

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Heyes, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hodge, Margaret

  Miliband, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  283

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Hara, Edward

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Olner, Bill

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Neill, Martin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Organ, Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stevenson, George

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Perham, Linda

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Picking, Anne

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pond, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pope, Greg

  Timms, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Touhig, Don

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Truswell, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rapson, Syd

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roy, Frank

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ryan, Joan

  Wilson, Brian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wood, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wray, James

  Simon, Siôn

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brooke, Annette

  Allan, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burstow, Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Barrett, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Beggs, Roy

  Cameron, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bercow, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Chidgey, David

  Brady, Graham

  Chope, Christopher

  Brake, Tom

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Brazier, Julian

  Breed, Colin

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  284

  Collins, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Gran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moore, Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Doughty, Sue

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Evans, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Price, Adam

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Pugh, Dr John

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hammond, Philip

  Salmond, Alex

  Hancock, Mike

  Sanders, Adrian

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heath, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

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

  Hendry, Charles

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hermon, Lady

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hoban, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spink, Bob

  Holmes, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

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

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Thurso, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lamb, Norman

  Tredinnick, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Laws, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyler, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Walter, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Watkinson, Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Webb, Steve

  Loughton, Tim

  Weir, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  285

  Willetts, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REFORM AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill:

  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Programming of proceedings
  2. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 18th December 2001.
  4. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  5. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock that day.
  6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 148.

  Division No. 69]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew

  Allan, Richard

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Baird, Vera

  Borrow, David

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Barrett, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brake, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Breed, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brennan, Kevin

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bell, Stuart

  Brooke, Annette

  286

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Flynn, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gerrard, Neil

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chidgey, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Havard, Dai

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Heyes, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Jean

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Holmes, Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Hood, Jimmy

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  David, Wayne

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jamieson, David

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doughty, Sue

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brantford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

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

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lamb, Norman

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Flint, Caroline

  Laws, David

  287

  Laxton, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pugh, Dr John

  Levitt, Tom

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purnell, James

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Linton, Martin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lloyd, Tony

  Rapson, Syd

  Lucas, Ian

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Luke, Iain

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lyons, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rendel, David

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie

  MacDonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mann, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marris, Rob

  Simon, Siôn

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Speller, Rt Hon John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Squire, Rachel

  Miliband, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stevenson, George

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moore, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moran, Margaret

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morley, Elliot

  Stringer, Graham

  Mullin, Chris

  Stunell, Andrew

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Tami, Mark

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thurso, John

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Diana

  Todd, Mark

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Owen, Albert

  Touhig, Don

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Truswell, Paul

  Perham, Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Picking, Anne

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pike, Peter

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Plaskitt, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pond, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Watson, Tom

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  288

  Webb, Steve

  Woodward, Shaun

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wray, James

  Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Amess, David

  Horam, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bacon, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Beggs, Roy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Bercow, John

  Key, Robert

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Boswell, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Leigh, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Butterfill, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Cameron, David

  Luff, Peter

  Cash, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cran, James

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Norman, Archie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Price, Adam

  Fallon, Michael

  Prisk, Mark

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Goodman, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gray, James

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Salmond, Alex

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hammond, Philip

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hayes, John

  Spink, Bob

  Hendry, Charles

  Spring, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Stanley, Rt Hon

  Hoban, Mark

  Sir John Steen, Anthony

  289

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whittingdale, John

  Swire, Hugo

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Syms, Robert

  Wiggin, Bill

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wilshire, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Wishart, Pete

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Weir, Michael

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE REFORM AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of —
  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and
  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  DRAFT GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 2002
  That this House takes note of the draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2002 (Volumes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9); and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Pearson.]
PETITION

  Canvey Island Telephone Mast
  10.43 pm
  Bob Spink: Serious research shows that young children absorb up to 50 per cent. more radiation in their brains than adults from mobile telephones. International safety tests used to measure the absorption of radiation may therefore be inadequate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly. An hon. Member is presenting a petition.
  Bob Spink: At best, the evidence that radiation poses a health risk is inconclusive. My constituents, led by Maria Farrell, are therefore right to compile this petition calling for a precautionary approach, especially with regard to children living on Canvey island.
  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 the concerned residents of Canvey Island sheweth
  That the proposed erection of a mobile phone antenna and cabin in Crescent Road, Canvey Island, should be abolished, as residents have considerable fear of the microwave radiation which is still subject to investigation, and the proposed site is central to an area where children are frequently playing, particularly during school holidays, and children currently live, and will in the future live, in close proximity to this proposed antenna, and the long term effects of exposure to microwave radiation are unknown and our children's health should not be jeopardised.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Castle Point Borough Council to rescind their decision to allow the erection of a mobile telephone antenna and cabin.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Bus Services (Outer London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  10.45 pm
  Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Minister for returning to the Chamber so soon after our last encounter in Westminster Hall. I know that he had a long stint today in Westminster Hall on a different transport matter.
  The Minister will remember that when we discussed transport congestion, I mentioned the problems faced by bus operators and passengers in Surrey and, indeed, in other parts of the south-east, because of the wide discrepancies in public funding made available for buses inside and outside London. That is the issue to which I shall return tonight.
  At the heart of the problem faced by those in my constituency and so many others in the area is an issue that affects the south-east on a far broader basis than simply in relation to transport. The allocation of financial support to local authorities and the structuring of financial support to a whole range of public services mean that when one reaches the boundaries of London, the money seems to fall off a cliff. That fact manifests itself in a variety of ways. For example, extra London weighting for teaching, the police and the health service means that people in those professions can earn thousands of pounds a year more by travelling three miles up the road.
  The problem is particularly acute for our bus services. The decision by London's Mayor to deploy the huge resources available to him in supporting the development of London's bus network and cutting bus fares to a fixed level of £1 or 70p is undoubtedly good news for bus travellers in London. It is also good news for those who have access to routes covered by London-based bus operators. For them, the price of travel will also fall. However, the consequences for bus services in the counties surrounding London are much bleaker. Let me give the Minister an example.
  Arriva Southern Counties operates a route from Guildford to Epsom and Kingston, running through my constituency. The stops between Epsom and Kingston are the most popular part of the route and provide the only direct transport link between the two towns. On the route, Arriva competes with one of the London operators. So far, the playing field has been level, but now that is changing. The introduction of the flat rate fares in London has transformed the economics of bus operations for those operating across the London boundaries with routes that head out into counties such as Surrey. Arriva has to match the £1 flat fare on that leg of the route but has no public subsidy enabling it to do so. As a result, the major leg of a long and important bus route through Surrey is potentially no longer viable.
  I do not yet know what Arriva will do in response to the change, but I have every reason to fear that the entire route will disappear. The company said to me this morning that it was gravely concerned about the future of the route. Over the busy part of the route, from Epsom to Kingston, other operators can take Arriva's place, benefiting from the London subsidy. However, other options for the rest of the route through Surrey will be much harder to find. The likelihood is that new public
  292
  money will have to be found to keep those parts of the route open, if only because, among other points on the route, that bus is the only major link that serves Epsom general hospital.
  Elsewhere in the south-east, similar problems are being experienced. In Kent, according to the county council, buses operated by London firms benefiting from the subsidy provided by Transport for London are coming out of London, stopping in Dartford and heading on to the Bluewater shopping centre. On that route, the local operator used to charge £1.60—now, in line with the London subsidies, it charges £1, but, of course, without the benefit of any subsidy. That cannot be right. The matter has been compounded still further by the fact that Transport for London operates a weekly travelcard which effectively reduces the fare still further to about 65p. Kent county council has written to Transport for London about the problem, but has yet to receive a proper reply.
  There are similar problems in other places in the south-east. Anywhere around London, county councils make similar complaints. For example, Buckinghamshire county council says that the current system is a "barrier and deterrent" to operators who might otherwise set up services.
  From the perspective of authorities such as Surrey and Kent, Transport for London appears to have access to almost unlimited funds and, in consequence, is rapidly increasing both the frequency and the quality of its bus services. I had a look at the websites of TFL and of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to check on spending on buses in London. This year, TFL is able to increase its funding for bus services by £115 million—from less than £100 million to well over £200 million. According to the Department's figures, that represents about 30 per cent. of the entire amount spent throughout the country on supporting bus services.
  Meanwhile, outside the areas covered by TFL—where it can deliver service subsidies—unregulated, free market bus services simply cannot afford to compete. They cannot meet TFL's standards unless they receive serious subsidies from county councils, but those councils do not receive the amount of funding that would allow them to compete with the London operators on anything like a level playing field.
  The consequence is that London operators continue to cream off the best routes in the area—those that cross the boundaries and those that, as they are closer to the metropolis, will tend to carry a larger number of passengers—supported, as they are, by large amounts of public funding. At the same time, more marginal routes, which are probably kept open by the operators because they know that the more profitable areas will sustain their business, risk being dropped by the operators, who are no longer able to make a return on their services in the area.
  I fully expect that the Minister will be tempted to hark back to past events—as he and his colleagues often do. I suspect that he might refer to bus deregulation, so I shall tackle it head on. There is no doubt that the history of bus transportation has been a difficult one for a generation. In many places, people do not use buses as much as we might want them to. As a result, it can be difficult to keep marginal routes open. One of the often forgotten facts about bus deregulation is that after it took place there were more buses on Britain's roads. However, in many places passengers still did not use buses.

  293
  In Surrey, we are not talking only about losing fringe routes, we also face the loss of main routes that link major towns in the county. That is happening not due to the pressures of a free market, nor to the consequences of deregulation, but because of a clash between free market economics and a distinctly regulated and subsidised market.
  Surrey county council and others like it are trying to stem the tide of closures, but it is not easy. Surrey's investment in socially necessary bus routes—those deemed not commercially viable by the operators, but assessed as socially necessary for the people of the area—has increased during the past 18 months by £2 million a year to about £5 million.
  Inevitably, that funding increase has had to be found from the existing county council budget. In Surrey, that has meant taking funding away from the creation of concessionary bus schemes that could provide cheaper travel for pensioners. That money should be available to support those who need it, but it is having to be used to shore up services that we cannot afford to lose.
  Worthwhile initiatives, such as the introduction of a 50p flat rate fare for pensioners throughout the country, had to be delayed as the county intervened to defend routes that would otherwise have disappeared. Officers estimate that they would need a fourfold increase in funding support for socially necessary bus services in order to bring local services up to a level similar to that provided by TFL.
  The biggest losers are those people who can least afford it. If the Minister can spare a moment to look at the geography of my constituency, and that of many similar constituencies on the boundaries of London, he will see that the dividing line between a London and a Surrey community can be extremely narrow. One town, Worcester Park, is split down the middle between Surrey and the London boroughs of Sutton and Kingston. Of course, that dividing line can lead to huge perceived iniquities in the eyes of many local people. No issue enrages the pensioners of Worcester Park, Stoneleigh and Ewell more than the fact that they have to pay for their public transport, while neighbours a couple of streets away are given free access to public transport through the popular freedom pass.
  Surrey only has the finance to offer half-price fares; London boroughs receive the funds to do much more. Ironically, some people with local postal addresses manage to get away with getting freedom passes any way. They have Worcester Park addresses and the systems are not good enough to check up on them, but that is not an acceptable way to deliver free bus travel to the people of the northern part of my constituency.
  Let me refer the Minister to an excerpt from a letter that I received on this subject. One of my constituents told me that, for years now, people
  "have been disappointed about the bus pass system",
  and that they
  "don't have to travel very far to see public transport full of senior citizens enjoying"
  the free bus pass facility. That is true; it happens a few hundred yards up the road at the next stop. I sympathise with their frustration. It seems odd that two people on the same bus, who live in the same community, find themselves paying vastly different amounts for the
  294
  privilege. Of course, there are administrative reasons why that is the case, but the Minister will recognise that our pensioners do not see it that way; they see it as another injustice.
  The problem has attracted broader concern. Help the Aged recently said:
  "There is a real postcode lottery in terms of where pensioners live and what they are offered by way of concessionary travel."
  Of course, none of that would happen in that part of the world if public funding did not seem to fall off a cliff the moment that it reaches the border of London. Despite the fact that the south-east is already overcrowded and congested, as we discussed in a recent debate in Westminster Hall, discrepancies exist in the allocation of funding. TFL and those who operate buses and other forms of transport in London receive much more in public money and support for concessionary fare schemes than the counties that surround them. As a consequence, we shall have less, not more, public transport in the areas immediately surrounding London, and that cannot be good for the south-east or the whole country.
  The Minister will be aware that TFL is currently carrying out a review of cross-boundary bus services. I have made the points that I have made in my speech tonight to TFL as part of its review, and I urge him to do the same and to consider fully the matters that I have outlined tonight in his submission to that review.
  I cannot help but conclude that part of the problem lies in the way that the Government have handled devolution in this country. The creation of the Mayor of London and the devolution of powers to him and to the Assembly have created something of a unnecessary divide between London and the rest of the south-east. In reality, the two are integrally linked, and the decisions taken by central Government about the funding support that London should receive cannot be considered in total isolation from the real interests of the wider region. The idea that we might end up with two rival regional governments—one in London, the other in Guildford—taking decisions with diametrically opposite consequences fills me with horror.
  while I have the Minister's attention, I should like to turn briefly to security on buses and other forms of transport. One of the threats to bus routes in and around London comes from antisocial behaviour. In one part of my constituency, a bus route was recently withdrawn temporarily because of the constant threats to drivers. Similar problems are now being experienced on trains in the area. Will the Minister please work with his colleagues in the Home Office to strengthen the ability of transport operators and local police to take action against those whose behaviour disrupts our local transport system and makes the life of other passengers a misery?
  Let me finish by making some specific requests to the Minister. When this year's allocation of support grants to local authorities are made, will he press his colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to provide councils in the south-east with adequate funding for local public transport to remove some of the differentials that, as I have said, exist between them? Will he make it illegal for a local authority to offer a subsidy to one operator on a route without offering a similar subsidy to all the other operators on that route? Will he and his Department recognise the integral links between London and the rest of the south-east and work with the London Mayor to establish clear protocols for ensuring that London decisions do not destabilise services in the surrounding areas?

  295
  Many bus users in my constituency and their counterparts further south face a bleak few months. I fear that more services will disappear in Surrey and in other parts of the south-east. Although those who can take advantage of the cross-boundary London services will enjoy cheaper fares, the remainder will have their options greatly narrowed.
  Not all the factors causing the trend are within the Minister's gift but—rather more than I do—he has the power to do something about the problems. I very much hope that he will do so.
  11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this important debate for his constituents. He is becoming a regular contributor to debates on transport matters. We have been seen so often in the same room discussing the subject that I fear that people may begin to talk. He also thanked me for coming here to answer the debate, but there was no need for him to do that. There is no place that I would rather be at 11 o'clock at night than here answering a debate on the matters that he raised.
  I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's points. He has raised concerns about the disparities that exist on the fringes of London in the charging structures for bus services. One concern relates to concessionary travel passes for pensioners and the other relates to the effects of Transport for London's fare policies. I should like to start by saying how important the Government regard bus services in providing essential public transport. We probably agree on that.
  It will be helpful to the House if I put the matters raised in the debate in the context of our overall approach to improving bus services. Last year, we produced our 10-year transport plan, which identified the major investment that we need to make to achieve the kind of improvements that we all want. The 10-year transport plan and associated investment will modernise public transport and improve the road network. It will deliver improvements for passengers, motorists and business—to make journeys quicker, easier and safer for everyone. The bus has an absolutely vital role to play in delivering the plan.
  In London, responsibility for bus services rests with the Mayor for London and his transport executive, Transport for London. The Mayor's policies on buses are set out in his statutory transport strategy published in July under section 142 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Copies of the strategy are available in the Library. It highlights the vital role that buses already play in the capital's transport system and outlines the Mayor's plans to achieve a significant improvement in both the quantity and quality of services.
  The transport strategy explains that bus fare initiatives, in parallel with service improvements, have the potential to alleviate rail overcrowding and offer a real alternative to the car because capacity on the bus system can be increased more rapidly.
  Buses are the most commonly used form of public transport in this country. So, when formulating our transport policies for outside London, we took a
  296
  particularly close look at what changes were necessary in the existing arrangements for buses in order to raise the standard of service provision. In doing so, we took on board a very wide range of views from all parts of the bus industry in both the private and public sectors, as well as from a broad range of other interest groups.
  Broadly speaking, our proposals for buses are aimed at strengthening the existing arrangements and improving the stability of services while seeking to encourage the investment and good practice that commercial operators have shown they are capable of providing.
  We have recently put in place, under the Transport Act 2000, powers to improve the quality and delivery of bus services. These powers—for the introduction of statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts—are designed to address the weaknesses of the deregulated regime that we inherited from our predecessors. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time but, if he had been, 26 October 1986 would have been clear in his mind as the date on which deregulation was introduced by the then Government. The policy did much damage to bus services, particularly in areas such as his.
  On concessionary fares, the Transport Act 2000 places a duty on all local authorities to offer their elderly and disabled residents at least half fares or better on local buses, with a free bus pass. It is up to individual authorities to decide whether to offer further concessions over and above the statutory minimum requirement in the light of their judgment of local needs and circumstances and their overall financial priorities.
  The basic principle of the concessionary travel passes provided by local authorities is that they are local passes for local people. They are there to enable elderly or disabled residents to go about their essential daily business and enhance their mobility. Parliament has placed a duty on local authorities to provide half-fare concessions, but it is up to individual authorities to decide whether to go beyond the statutory minimum.
  Residents of all London boroughs who are entitled to concessionary travel get freedom passes that allow free travel on most transport services within Greater London. Outside London, it is the responsibility of district councils to provide the standard minimum requirement or better. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from working with neighbouring authorities to provide a countywide or an area-wide scheme, or to make special arrangements with transport operators in respect of particular journeys, for example to a hospital or superstore. Indeed, Surrey residents have concessions granted by local authorities acting jointly under the auspices of Surrey county council.
  The countywide scheme provides half-fare bus travel within Surrey and on bus services making specified cross-boundary journeys. The hon. Gentleman may well say that that is a less generous scheme than the London scheme. However, it would be wrong for us in Westminster to dictate to local authorities their policies on concessionary fares. We are clear that those matters are best decided locally.
  The hon. Gentleman complained about the disparities between concessionary travel in London and some outer London areas. It may help him to know that it was mainly Labour boroughs that came together in London to introduce free bus travel for elderly and disabled people in the first instance. In those parts of the country where, unlike his area, concessionary half fares were not

  297
  available—some people were receiving no concessions at all—the Government have made them available in our latest transport legislation.
  I am intrigued to know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that London pensioners should not have the full concessionary fare. Is he suggesting—perhaps he will include this in his manifesto for the Conservatives in London—that they would remove that concessionary fare? If that were his policy, it would not receive universal approval from those people who benefit from it. I listened carefully to him. Perhaps he should go to his county council and make his points on behalf of the disabled and elderly people within his area. It is in the power of the local authority to grant further concessions to pensioners if he and the local electorate think that that is what is required.
  Chris Grayling: The core of the argument is not that we want to remove concessionary schemes from pensioners in London. My point relates to a broad range of services, not simply transport. When one reaches the boundaries of London, the level of support for local authorities falls dramatically. Councils such as Surrey do not have the resources to meet the vast range of demands on its needs. They do not have the cash to do that. Transport is one such demand.
  Mr. Jamieson: Virtually every authority outside London may well make the same point. Many other authorities, probably far less well off than his own in Surrey, make concessionary fares available—they are totally free—to all elderly people in the area. They make that decision as politicians. People decide on such things when they go to the ballot box. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman engages in the issue locally and asks the people what they think about the choices that face the local authority. These matters are determined locally, rather than by the Government. However, we have ensured that there is a base below which concessions for pensioners do not go, and that should be at least half fare.
  Local authorities outside London, of course, have powers under the Transport Act 1985 to subsidise bus services where a necessary service would not otherwise be provided. They can provide such a service by contracting it from an operator on a competitively tendered basis, but it is for each authority to decide whether to subsidise a service, taking account of its overall priorities and financial resources.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the review of cross-boundary bus services. That was announced in the Mayor's transport strategy, and on 12 October Transport for London issued a press notice inviting contributions. The review is investigating the appropriate level of provision for local bus services across the GLA area boundary. It will take account of passenger requirements, existing service provision and the statutory responsibilities of Transport for London and neighbouring local authorities. It will aim to ensure that there is provision for the needs of bus passengers using cross-boundary services.
  The review will also consider the London Transport Users Committee publication "Crossing the Border". I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen it, but if he has not I commend it to him as light bedtime reading. It was published in January and concerns the provision of
  298
  cross-boundary services. The first stage of the study is to obtain the views of interested parties, including adjoining county and unitary councils, London boroughs, bus operators, democratic representatives, the London Transport Users Committee and other users. The aim is to ensure that bus passengers using services that cross the GLA area boundary are treated with equity, taking into account the statutory responsibilities of Transport for London and the neighbouring authorities. I strongly recommend that the hon. Gentleman and other Members with an interest contribute to the review.
  I understand that Transport for London has absolutely no policy of providing cross-boundary services to seize business from commercial operators by unfair competition. Indeed, by agreement with Transport for London, under section 156 of the GLA Act, commercial operators can, and do, run services across the London boundary. Those services, such as the Surrey to Kingston service, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, are considered to be, and are operated, within the London bus network. They are licensed under London local service agreements. They stop at all bus stops and must, therefore. accept Transport for London travel passes and charge the same fares as bus services under contract to Transport for London.
  Commercial operators outside the London bus network, such as National Express and Greenline, and those providing a limited-stop commuter service to the Medway towns, can also apply to Transport for London to operate services within Greater London through the grant of a London service permit. That would permit the operation of the London section of a cross-boundary service. As Transport for London is specifically prohibited from determining fare levels on such services, under section 187(3) of the GLA Act, operators are not restricted in what fares they can charge. However, Transport for London does not reimburse operators for the acceptance of its season tickets on those services.
  I can see that the present arrangements may lead to certain anomalies of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Anomalies tend to occur, and not just in the sphere of transport, wherever people living on either side of an administrative boundary use the same facilities. That is the downside of locally responsive services, and it is often accepted as a price worth paying for decentralisation. Transport for London has boundaries not only with Surrey but with Essex, Kent, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.
  I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who see pensioners and disabled people living nearby getting what they consider to be a better service. However, these matters are determined not in Westminster or Whitehall but by councillors responding to the needs and wishes of their local electorate. If the hon. Gentleman feels so disposed, he could start a campaign with the old folk and disabled groups in his area to see whether he can get the council to provide better concessionary fares. I thank him for raising the issue, and I look forward to hearing from him on another occasion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o' clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Flood Defence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Stringer.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about flood defences, a subject that is of great importance to my constituents. I thank the Minister for being here; I know that shortly after the events that gave rise to so much unhappiness in my constituency on 21 and 22 October, he responded to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in an Adjournment debate about the consequences of that storm.
The House will recall that the weekend of 21–22 October was one of exceptional rainfall in Cambridgeshire. I see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in her place; her constituents and mine, and those of other hon. Members in the area, suffered greatly as a consequence. It was a one in 220 chance that 96 mm of rain should have fallen in Bourn, to the west of Cambridge in my constituency. The consequence of that in my constituency and in the surrounding area was extensive flooding. The current estimate is that 12 villages in my constituency experienced flooding of property, as did several in the hon. Lady's constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).
In many instances, such flooding had not been experienced within living memory. As one would expect, it gave rise to many questions about our preparedness, its exceptional nature notwithstanding—whether the circumstances led to worse flooding than should have happened, whether the response was adequate and what lessons should be learned. I know that the Minister and other hon. Members have debated flood defences extensively since the floods of Easter 1998, and again after last winter's exceptional flooding. I wish to draw on those debates and to make a modest contribution to the Government's thinking on the matter.
I raise this issue not only because of my constituents' unhappy experience of three or four weeks ago but because we in Cambridgeshire know that as a result of last winter's exceptional rainfall, ground water levels are very high, aquifers are full and springs are appearing in places where water has not flowed for years. We are now exceptionally vulnerable to flooding. That and the more volatile and extreme wet weather conditions that we are experiencing mean that flooding on such a scale may occur again if we do not take measures to deal with it.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which is timely. I wonder whether his constituents were in the same position as mine during that flood. My constituents, especially those in the Birdwood road area of Cambridge, phoned Cambridge city council to ask for
2WH
sandbags when they realised that their homes were about to be flooded, but were told that they were not available. I wonder whether that happened in other districts.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It will be helpful to deal with some of the questions that emerged from that flooding before moving on to the generality of what needs to be done. The hon. Lady is right that sandbags were not available in some places, although they were in others. I do not detract for a moment from the work that South Cambridgeshire district council did in my constituency: it responded quickly, and most residents were grateful for its efforts. None the less, there were problems, and villages such as Bourn have resolved to pre-position sandbags against future flooding. As the hon. Lady knows, there were difficulties because of the speed of the flooding, which would have tested any response mechanism.
A constituent in Great Shelford, just south of Cambridge, contacted the Environment Agency's flood line. The agency's report entitled "Learning the Lessons" looked to the flood line as a mechanism for conducting responses among a range of agencies. My constituent rang a recorded call-back system to learn when the River Cam would peak, but he was given information about the River Lea. He asked the agencies three times to call him back, but no call came until the following day. To be fair, the Environment Agency acknowledged in subsequent correspondence with my constituent that on
"that particular day the primary call centre in Bristol was unable to function for most of the time due to a major problem with its telephone infrastructure."
It added with admirable candour:
"As ever, failures such as these always seem to occur at the worst possible time."
As regards the area code quickdial number that was to provide my constituent with information, the agency acknowledged that
"with your postcode we allocated the wrong quickdial number on our database. As yours is the first request we had from CB2 5EN, the erroneous entry had not been identified previously."
Understandably, my constituent feels that the system should—for the benefit of himself and others—work correctly the first time that it is put into operation because that is likely to be when flooding is experienced. As the hon. Lady rightly said, some constituents have inevitably encountered serious practical difficulties with the system that has been put in place.
Other hon. Members will relate their experiences, and I shall move on to the more general concerns that have become clear to me in my discussions with constituents and others. My constituents' experiences of flooding have raised considerable concerns, one of which is flood plain development, which the Government have sought to tackle in planning policy guidance 25.
The doctor's surgery in Bourn was flooded. When I visited three or four days later, patients' records were still drying off on tables, and one can imagine the distress that villagers felt about that. However, that was not the first time that the surgery had been flooded, although the flood was more serious than previous ones. The surgery and other properties had been built on what was recognised in the village as a flood plain.

3WH
The consequence has been repeated flooding, which will continue unless we deal with flood plain development. We could talk about a specific response. PPG 25 points in the right direction, but the question is whether we need to go further. Developments that took place in the village more than a decade ago went ahead despite the fact that the parish and the Environment Agency recommended against them.
The second question is to what standard flood defences should be constructed. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his constituents will know that one major issue is whether flood defences will be reinstated at a standard likely to deal with high flood levels in future. In a little more than a quarter of cases last winter, floods topped flood defences.
What indicative standards will there be for the future? The Government are being offered various pieces of advice. On the basis of what my constituents experience, some of the assumptions about standards for flood defence—for example, the 1 per cent. probability for urban areas and a lesser one for rural areas—will not be considered acceptable in future. Given the frequency with which extremes of weather occur and if we persist, contrary to recent experience, with high levels of ground water and aquifer levels, we shall have more substantial floods. They look statistically improbable, but will none the less happen.
As the Association of British Insurers stated in its recent report, we should consider a 0.5 per cent. or a one in 200 standard for flood defence to reassure the public, and to ensure that they can secure flood defence cover from insurers at a reasonable price. The Government have rightly sought advice from the Institution of Civil Engineers, which saw one in 100 as the common standard. Many of my constituents, who live in rural areas, would benefit from a higher level of protection than at present under a higher standard.
A need for investment would arise from a new standard. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is right to continue to acquire research and reports, on the basis of which decisions must be made. It commissioned a report on the national appraisal of assets at risk from flooding and coastal erosion in July, which pointed out an increase in Government investment in flood defence of between 35 and 85 per cent. The ABI calculated that, on the basis of the Department's current expenditure, about an additional £145 million a year should be invested in flood defences.
It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us more about the Department's review of the organisation of and funding mechanisms for flood defence. I hope that he will say that the Government will respond positively to the appraisal of the required levels of increased investment, and that they will strengthen the indicative standards. He could also follow up on a short exchange that we had during departmental questions on the revision of the basis on which individual projects are assessed. There is merit in the argument advanced by the Institution of Civil Engineers about the point-scoring system. The overriding priority, in terms of the human consequences of flooding, is the avoidance of threat to life. However, as many of our constituents know, flooding has many distressing features, including social and health costs.
4WH
It is clear that the subsequent distress of flooding means that, when we calculate the benefit to be derived from undertaking more flood defence investment, we should take fully into account the human cost as well as the strict economic cost, with the distortions that can occur in relative property values in any case. Perhaps we should go beyond that and consider a further, high-level Government target to reduce flooding of properties. We should identify the extent to which minimising the problems that flooding causes residential properties can be a target in itself.
Everyone will be aware of the confusion that surrounds the question of who is responsible for what in terms of flood defence. That is not a new question in my constituency; it was asked even before the events of 21 and 22 October. In a number of villages we had to take stock after the events of last winter. We met in a room not much smaller than this. Parish and district councils, the county council and the Environment Agency all came together to discuss the matter. The first conclusion was that, in many villages, the parish or district council knew who was responsible for the ownership and drainage of ditches, for clearing them out and for ensuring that flooding problems were not merely passed on to neighbouring properties.
I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that earlier in the year we began the process of saying that each parish must have a survey to establish riparian ownership and responsibilities, and that the district council must consider where it can undertake drainage clearance.
It was interesting in that context that the body that many expected to be able to participate in the process was the Environment Agency. However, the agency said that it could give advice but not funds, with the exception of a small grant to the village of Fowlmere to help with a study to ascertain how flooding could be alleviated there. Presumably, that was because we were not dealing with the main rivers for which the agency is responsible. Those who work for the agency and who were formerly with the National Rivers Authority seemed to feel that in the past they might have been able to do a little more than to offer sympathy and advice to those dealing with ordinary water courses.
I believe that the Environment Agency feels that it can take a wider role. It might not be the front-line authority in each instance—perhaps that should be the role of the district council. However, it should be the strategic body to view the entire catchment area for a river such as the Cam, which extends into many ordinary water courses that, having flooded, have caused a great deal of water to run into the Cam very rapidly, as the hon. Member for Cambridge knows only too well.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time. He has highlighted the important issue of who is responsible for cleaning out ditches, waste pipes and drains. In the past, my constituents were aware of people who regularly cleared out such courses, but those people have not been seen for some time. Would their experience accord with that of his constituents?
Mr. Lansley: Yes it would, in various places. In some parishes, residents take it upon themselves to do the

5WH
work, in co-operation with farmers. In other areas, the drains and ditches on farms themselves are not kept sufficiently clear. That is one of the reasons why the runoff was so extreme as a consequence of the flash flooding a few weeks ago. In many places, for example in the Shelfords, some of the culverts and drains were blocked—that can happen very quickly. The debris was already there; it was not brought there in the course of the flood. Thus the flooding occurred very quickly and some of the response mechanisms that might otherwise have helped were overtaken by the speed of events.
I should like to leave time for other hon. Members to contribute their thoughts and experiences. However, it might be helpful if I summarise the matters that I should like to put to the Minister. I realise that it might not be appropriate for him to respond now, because any comment will depend on the Government's further response to the review of organisation and funding mechanisms. Nevertheless, Members will want to give their input to that. On the basis of discussions that I have had with my constituents about their recent experiences, and of some of the material that I have seen, I would summarise in 10 points.
First, investment needs to increase. It is reasonable to look to the ABI. Its estimate of £145 million is in line with the figure that independent advisers have quoted to the Department. That is a reasonable starting point for reflecting the priority that has to be attached to increased flood defence investment. The benefits associated with that more than justify the direction of resources.
Secondly, the Institution of Civil Engineers suggested a new high-level target as a way of acting directly to reduce the number of properties that are flooded, especially residential properties. That may be a good way forward.
Thirdly, the criteria for projects should not merely be economic cost-benefit analyses, and should not necessarily be based on a benefit-to-cost ratio of five to one. A human dimension should be built in. It is difficult to express quantitatively something with a qualitative value, but it has been done in the health context, for example, to express quality-adjusted life years. That kind of methodology can be used to express the reduction of distress that would be the result of building a human dimension into the criteria for choice of projects. My constituents feel that projects that might benefit them in rural areas are not undertaken because of the property values associated with urban projects. I would like to see more evidence to support that argument. There should, at least, be a more transparent system for considering projects one by one and comparing them.
Fourthly, we are working to an indicative standard of 1 per cent. probability for all projects. Perhaps over time, however, as the ABI recommends, as new defence projects come on stream we might move to a probability of one in 200, which would ensure that insurers felt confident about giving affordable insurance cover to those who might be affected by flooding.
Fifthly, the Environment Agency has sought a role in co-ordinating catchment strategies. I understand that the Government are considering that idea positively, and I hope that it may be put into practice, especially as regards the River Cam, for which no suclh strategy
6WH
exists. Clearly, the agency will not undertake projects alone, but will be joined by county councils and district and city councils, which need to have mechanisms in place to support their activities. In-year flood defence mechanisms are needed. The Local Government Association feels that no adequate mechanism exists, although it must undertake responsibilities as flood defence levies increase, and it does not anticipate that mechanism being put in place in relation to the standard spending assessment.
My sixth point relates to the SSA, although I hesitate to mention it, as it always makes hon. Members glaze over. Ministers are expecting further changes to be made to the structure of SSA, which I might wish to happen sooner. If they occur by April 2003, one hopes that local government in some places may find in the new structure an immediate response to an increase in flood defence levies. In Yorkshire, for example, levies are expected to rise substantially.
My seventh point relates, again, to the Environment Agency. Although it may be the right body to establish long-term strategy and take responsibility for examining the viability of projects, the front-line response should come from a front-line authority such as a district council. The Environment Agency should dovetail with such an authority. A district council would be the right body to act as the immediate co-ordinating mechanism, as it would understand the geography in the area where the flood had occurred and how villages were affected. I hope that the co-ordination of emergency responses through the front-line authority might be better achieved in that way. On 21 and 22 October in my constituency, many agencies were doing their best, but in isolation from other authorities because an emergency plan had not been put into place. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to sandbags; that is an instance of how co-ordinating different bodies' responses can, with a pro-active approach, increase effectiveness.
My eighth point concerns the fact that some constituents experienced not just a flash flood but sewage flooding, as a result of living in relatively low-lying places. I know that the Minister will have received reports of that problem many times, but that sort of flooding is distressing to constituents. Anglian Water calculates that at present such flooding could affect 1,173 properties. The technical jargon calls them DG5 properties. The funding level until 2005, in the settlement with Ofwat, would permit 20 such properties a year to be dealt with. My constituents would consider it very important for the regulator to allow, in the price mechanisms for Anglian Water and other water and sewerage authorities, for a service of a standard that would enable sewage flooding to be reduced. I hope that the Minister will press the regulator to recognise that.
My ninth point leads me to wonder whether the Minister has considered giving district councils, the front-line authorities, greater powers to require riparian owners to undertake their responsibilities for clearing ditches and drainage, or allowing them to undertake the work and impose charges on those responsible. In some villages in my area, it is felt that the difficulties have reached the point at which that is necessary. There is confusion about riparian ownership, in some cases going back hundreds of years, and about overlapping responsibilities.

7WH
Perhaps it would be in order for the Law Commission to work on regularising and simplifying the law. There might be scope, using the new system of orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, for the Government to examine the difficulties in this area. I know that they are considering simplifying some other legislation. A mechanism exists enabling that to be done without taking inordinate amounts of parliamentary time on legislation. Perhaps the time has come to examine riparian ownership and responsibilities and to reform the law. I note that the Institution of Civil Engineers recommended that as titles are reregistered with the Land Registry, riparian ownership and responsibilities should also be registered. That would provide helpful transparency.
For my 10th point, I return to the matter of trying to prevent any more of the flood plain flooding that has occurred recently, which worries my constituents. As some hon. Members will know, in Cambridgeshire and around Cambridge itself there is an unprecedented amount of building work. The Government want 2,800 additional homes—the equivalent of one of our large villages—to be built every year. People wonder where so many properties can be built, year after year, in an area which is, in part, subject to fluvial flooding and which elsewhere—to the north and west of Cambridge—is relatively low-lying anyway, with internal drainage boards trying to avoid flooding problems. People ask, "How can we accommodate that sort of development?" That is one reason, among others, why the Government should consider stemming the increase in targets for building. They should bear in mind the environmental and flooding consequences.
Generally, when the Environment Agency examines plans for development, including structure plans, it should consider whether it should issue directions against building in certain places. Those directions should not be simply advisory. If planning approval is granted in contradiction to such a flood direction, the Secretary of State should call the case in, to stop flood plains being developed to the extent that has been going on. Clearly, there are circumstances in which some development can occur with appropriate defences. However, my constituents in Bourn see Cambourne being built—3,300 new homes where there are already 500. It seems to them that common things happen commonly and that the consequences in terms of flooding of the development occurring in such a place could fall upon them. They saw the balancing lakes fill on 22 October, when only one sixth of the houses that will eventually be built had been built, and they feel that, even if on that occasion the development was not the prime cause of their flooding, it may make things worse in the future.
Those are my points for the future. I know that the Minister recognises that the events of last winter and those recently experienced by my constituents should be prevented from happening again. As we enter another season of potential flooding, the public want to know that we have identified the necessary measures and that the work is in hand to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.
10 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for initiating the debate. I wish that I had done so myself a few weeks ago, but I have had one or two personal problems. I am delighted to he here this morning. I would like to raise a number of mainly parochial issues, but before I start to talk about such matters I should say that we must not forget the fact of global warming, which causes many of the problems that we are experiencing in our constituencies. I hope that the President of the United States will continue in his new international mode. Perhaps it will draw him into returning to Kyoto, which would be very significant for the world but particularly for us, whose constituents are at risk from flooding.
Mr. Richard Bacon: The hon. Lady may be aware that there are scientists who believe that the increase in flooding is due to the north Atlantic oscillation more than to global warming. We are dealing with a blip. The references to the flooding being the worst for 400 years beg the question of what caused the flooding 400 years ago. What is the hon. Lady's answer to that?
Mrs. Cryer: I was not around 400 years ago, so I have no idea. However, we should still concentrate on global warming—it clearly contributes to the flooding. I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman's point about what happened 400 years ago, but I feel that the United States is being selfish in its attitude to the use of fossil fuels and is causing many problems for our constituents and us.
In my constituency—Keighley—there are three rivers. These include the Wharfe, which is beautiful and comes down from the dales, but which also floods. Some 12 months ago, that River flooded and a small number of homes—about eight—in the Ilkley area of my constituency were affected. The River Aire caused many more problems. It is a beautiful river up in the dales, but as it gets into the industrial areas it becomes narrow, particularly near the Bridge Inn at Stockbridge, which the Minister visited shortly after the flooding. Stockbridge is built in a triangle at the confluence of the River Aire and the River Worth.
The Worth is a fast-flowing river because it comes from up in the Pennines towards Oxenhope, which is very high. It has a great force behind it. The 1950s houses in that small triangle where it joins the Aire have always been prone to flooding and will continue to be so unless something is done by the Environment Agency to the River Aire flood defences higher up the valley. The agency has promised me that work will commence next summer, but that seems to be moveable and I am worried that it may become next autumn. Some 12 months have already passed since the flooding devastated many of my constituents and their families.
Another problem arose in that area. In addition to the small semi-detached houses in the triangle, there were some Victorian terrace houses with cellars. To improve their homes, many people had dry-lined their cellars to keep the damp out and make them waterproof. Unfortunately, dry lining also keeps water in so at the time of the flooding 12 months ago, the homes became water tanks. The water did not simply seep away as it would have done many years ago.

9WH
Almost every day during the flooding, I attended a meeting of the co-ordinating committee of the local authority and the various agencies and services. One of my jobs was to co-ordinate with the West Yorkshire fire service, which initially told people that there would be a charge of several hundred pounds to pump out their cellars. As time went on, it became clear through discussions that they would pump out the cellars, but would charge if the householders had property insurance and the insurance companies could pay, rather than the taxpayer. I have no argument with that, but it took several days for that to become clear. The water came up to the cellar steps and the cellars were just tanks of water with things floating around in them.
We should clarify that issue before we have that terrible experience again. Every time that it rains heavily, some constituents are terrified and go through another trauma because they are reminded of the morning of the floods when they were awakened at 3 or 4 o'clock by the sound of water gushing down their street. That is a horrific experience for people, many of whom are elderly. One or two of the older people who, like me, are a bit deaf, did not hear the sirens or the water coming down and slept, oblivious to everything. At 4 or 5 am, they were awakened by well-meaning neighbours, who were breaking down the doors to get them out. They looked down and saw water coming halfway up the stairs.
We need to consider those issues, so that in the event of another terrible flooding, we know where we are going. Sandbags must be in place. There were sandbags, but there need to be more. We should also ask why the Environment Agency is telling us, 12 months on, that it will be another eight months before it can even start the work on the flood defences on the River Aire.
Some 300 houses in that area were flooded. Many problems have also been exacerbated by the reluctance of insurance companies to be more helpful. They simply dragged their feet. A few weeks ago, I got so angry with a large and famous insurance company—I will not name it—for doing nothing for an elderly lady that I wrote a postscript at the bottom of a letter, which said that if the company had not responded to my letter within a week, I would name it in Parliament. I am not sure whether I should do that, but I felt so angry with them, and it worked. The company started to respond to me, so I will not name it today, because it has gone some way to answer my constituent's problems.
Some 12 months on, my constituent is still out of her home, which was badly flooded. Four weeks before that, her husband died. She had to move out of her home, which was in a terrible state. The insurance company has still not sorted out the repairs to her property. It has had cowboys—people who are clearly unskilled—working on her home. They have only been working from 5 pm every day, so they obviously have another job and that is why it has taken the lady so long to have the work done. She was going to move back in a few weeks ago, but when she looked at the property, it was in an appalling state. My assistant and a surveyor have seen it and the surveyor says that it is not fit to live in. The doors do not fit and the plaster does not reach the skirting boards, which do not fit the floors. It will be a nightmare to live in, because it is very cold and full of draughts. That elderly lady, who is in her 70s, still cannot move back to her home, so I have a big moan
10WH
about a few of the big insurance companies that have been operating in that way. I must admit, however, that a number were very good: within a few months of the floods, wonderful repairs were made to some of my constituents' houses, which were almost like brand new homes.
I have one more point about insurance. One family returned to their long-standing insurers, a small company, which said, "We're not keen on insuring you again, but we will. However, there will be a £10,000 excess for flood damage." For a working-class family, that is pie in the sky; there is no way that they could raise that sort of money. We advised the family to shop around for their insurance and I should like that to be the message that goes out from this debate. Had that family gone along with their insurance company, they could have ended up in great difficulties and debt.
I again thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I shall not repeat the problems that he mentioned because other hon. Members want to speak, but a number of those problems have been with me for the past 12 months. I am still working on them and I am sure that many other Members are doing the same.
10.11 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I start by apologising to the Minister as I shall have to leave fairly shortly to chair the Standing Committee that is considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Of course, I undertake to read his remarks in Hansard carefully. I suspect that I may be joined in Committee by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). If he arrives there late, I shall understand why.
On 23 October, the Minister wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter about flood defence preparedness for autumn and winter 2001. He said:
"Operational responsibility for…flooding—saving lives and property—rests with the Environment Agency, who issue flood warnings, and local authorities and emergency services who ensure that emergency plans are implemented."
Would that it were so. The fact is that the devil lies in the detail. The notes to the section about the autumn 2000 floods, which the Minister kindly appended to what I appreciate was a well-intentioned letter, say:
"It does not cover non main river or local drainage problems".
However, they are the crux of much of what we want to talk about, in parochial terms, this morning.
Last winter, the Minister and I shared a happy half hour at the end of what was a long and tiring day for both of us paddling around the Eddington lane area of Herne Bay in my constituency. That winter, Eddington lane, the Plenty Brook estate, the Nurserylands estate, Cherry gardens, Gordon road, Spencer road and much of Greenhill were flooded. The Eddington lane area was first flooded on 4 April 2000. It was flooded again on 12 and 13 October 2000, on 8 February 2001 and, most recently, on 21 October.
On the last occasion, the waters did not enter any houses, but my constituents suffered genuine trauma watching the waters rise, in exactly the same way as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) described. They finally stopped within 4 in of an elderly gentleman's door. The insurance companies have said that from now on, although they will maintain insurance on properties

11WH
that are currently insured, they will not insure them again if they are sold. Effectively, therefore, my constituents who live in those areas cannot sell their homes unless they can find buyers who are willing to take them on without insurance.
Returning to the Minister's letter, the problem is that the responsibility is unclear. Certainly for minor rivers and riparian rights, there is no real responsibility. Sir John Harman, the head of the Environment Agency, made it plain that he was not prepared to take on the Government over their building programme. In opening this most welcome debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that far too little attention appeared to be given to the problems of building on flood plains. I would extend that by saying that this is not only about flood plains but about land adjacent to them. The Minister visited the relevant site in my constituency, so he knows exactly what I am talking about.
Two big estates have been built in Herne Bay recently: the Willow Farm estate at Broomfield and the Stillwater estate adjacent to Thanet way. The Stillwater estate has balancing ponds, which are supposed to be satisfactory to compensate for the loss of drainage. However, in the most recent flood on 21 October the balancing pond came within about 9 in of the top of its bank. It had nowhere to drain, because the Southern Water reservoir, which is designed to take floodwater, was full and backing up towards the new estate. The Willow Farm estate is of interest, because this will be the first winter in which the houses have been occupied. They were built on what was—last winter—a lake with waterfowl nesting on it; I am sure that that will interest the Minister. A lot of twitchers came and watched the birds nesting on what is now a housing estate.
The building work is going ahead, but no control is exercised on the infrastructure and no responsibility is taken for it. The Environment Agency claims that it does not have the powers to enforce the correct infrastructure prior to planning. Building work is going ahead, and one does not have to be a genius or a rocket scientist to work out that if one builds on land that has been drained, puts down tarmac, and builds roofs with tiles, the water has to go somewhere. The "somewhere" in question is a stream, such as the Plenty brook, which turned into a raging torrent last winter, and the Minister knows that because he saw it. That lasted only for a matter of hours, but it was enough to affect the sewerage system, to pump raw sewage into people's homes and to do an immense amount of damage—for the fourth time.
People have had enough, and I endorse the 10 points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider carefully the powers and responsibilities of the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that minor rivers—I was going to say "never mind the major ones", but they are important too—water courses and drainage systems are properly looked after. Until they are, and until the water companies carry out their responsibilities, floods will recur.
In my view, Southern Water has behaved disgracefully. When that company was privatised, it invested millions of pounds in new sewerage systems in
12WH
Margate and Herne Bay. We were assured that floods, which at that time were caused by breaches of sea defences, would never occur again. As a result of the previous Government's investment in sea defences, and Southern Water's investment in a new sewerage system, many of the difficulties were overcome in an Edwardian and Victorian town. A new difficulty has arisen from the change in climate and too much building with too little infrastructure. Southern Water knew for more than a year that its reservoir was clogged with weeds.
I am happy to say that Southern Water, as a result of the threat of being exposed in an Adjournment debate and of the pressure brought to bear by the hard work of Canterbury city council's Viv Pritchard, has completed the dredging of the existing reservoir. That company is now investigating the possibility—no more than that—of extending the reservoir and increasing its capacity by a third. That would be welcome, but when does Southern Water intend to do the work? It is no secret that Scottish Power, which owns Southern Water, wants to flog the company, because it is a liability. I suspect that Scottish Power does not want to spend any more money. That suspicion is borne out by a letter about one of my constituents, Mr. Bevan, who lives in Herne Bay. His house is a listed building and has been subject to flooding for quite a long time, not just the last two or three years. In that letter, the engineering manager for Canterbury city council told me:
"It would have been at least six years ago that my Drainage section, at Southern Water's request, reported upon the likely source of flooding at that time and recommended some possible solutions… I am not aware that any action by Southern Water resulted from our original recommendations. More recently my Drainage staff produced an updated version, initially for internal consideration, and this was passed to Southern Water… Southern Water have embarked upon a thorough investigation of the public sewers with a view to undertaking such works as are deemed necessary subject to their investment approval procedures."
Stuart Derwent, the managing director of Southern Water, in referring to the same case, said:
"if it becomes apparent that a capital solution is required to resolve the flooding, then this will be prioritised and undertaken in accordance with our capital investment procedures."
In the meantime, my constituent has had enough, has moved out of his home and is unlikely to return. Southern Water and many others are reluctant to invest in the necessary flood precautions to help to alleviate a problem that is not entirely of their making. I agree with my hon. Friend that the regulator, Ofwat, must seriously consider the necessary investment, or our constituents will face an even worse situation this winter than they did last year. I look forward with great interest to reading the Minister's response to the matters raised by my hon. Friend.
10.19 pm
Mr. John Grogan: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) graphically described the situation in her constituency, which, like mine, is in Yorkshire. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to Yorkshire in his speech on the levy increase, and I shall comment on the situation in Yorkshire and nationally.
Although Yorkshire can now boast that it has the best cricket team in the country, it has the worst flood defences—a fact that is just beginning to sink in across

13WH
the county. Only 15 per cent. of Yorkshire's flood defences are categorised as good, or better than good; 85 per cent. are only fair, or worse. Following the floods that affected Keighley, Leeds, Selby and York, the Yorkshire flood defence committee was the only one not to accept the Environment Agency's recommended increase in the levy earlier this year. That is having massive effects on flood defences in the county. It led to a reduction in the capital works programme of £3 million this year and £2 million was cut from the maintenance programme, so the 64 communities at risk of flooding will not get a flood warning system this year. The Yorkshire flood defence committee is now politically balanced: it contains two members of the Labour party, two Conservatives and three Liberals and most of the local authority representatives. I hope that it will live up to its responsibilities and fund a flood defence programme in Yorkshire, which lost more than £2 million of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grant this year.
There is much diplomacy in Yorkshire at present as we do not want to let the county down again. Last year, Ros Amor, a flood victim from my constituency, presented white roses to the flood defence committee in an effort to get it to be less parochial and to live up to its responsibilities for the whole of Yorkshire.
The Environment Agency recently examined flood defences throughout the county; it found that those protecting Leeds are a major worry and that the standard of service in Doncaster is of prime importance because of the many properties potentially at risk. In Selby, Drax power station, alone among the major power stations in the country, does not have its own flood defence bunding. There is much to do in Yorkshire. There is a special meeting of the flood defence committee early in December, when options will be considered. At this stage, the Environment Agency is not making a recommendation, but presenting options to the committee. The reputation of local government in Yorkshire depends on delivering a partnership with the Government. Talk about regional government is a joke to many people in Yorkshire if it cannot get the flood defences right. I hope that local politicians of all parties will respond as necessary to the county's problems.
A national review is now taking place. The local authorities recommended that capital expenditure should be separated from the maintenance of flood defences and that the Government should assume responsibility for the maintenance of flood defences and other flood expenditure. I am dubious about that because the outcome could be that the bright, new and shiny capital schemes will be funded, but maintenance, which is so important, will be neglected. I favour the suggestion that the Environment Agency and the flood defence committee should be given borrowing powers. At present, the flood defences are funded from general revenue expenditure, although that was not always the case. They are major items of expenditure, and if borrowing powers were utilised they would allow the necessary expenditure to be spread over several years.
There is a case for an all-party group on flooding. We have heard the expertise of many, hon. Members. We need extra resources for the decades to come, and I know that the Minister has been prominent in arguing
14WH
with the Treasury for that. It is a long-term issue. I hope to put out feelers among Members of all parties in the coming months on the feasibility of an all-party group.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. For the benefit of hon. Members, I point out that the three winding-up speeches will start at 10.30 am.
10.25 am
Mr. Charles Hendry: I shall be brief, in view of the time pressure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this important debate. The number of Members present and the fact that they represent different parts of the country demonstrate that this is not just a local but a national problem.
It is more than a year since the town of Uckfield in my constituency and the villages of Buxted and Hellingly were devastated by the floods in October 2000. Some of the people affected by those floods are still not back in their homes, which shows the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) had similar huge problems as the problems in Uckfield shifted downstream to his constituency. A year on, there is frustration bordering on anger in towns such as Uckfield that so little has been done. A great deal of investigation has been carried out into the sort of projects that the Environment Agency could undertake. Some ditches have been cleared and some minor repair works carried out, but no major scheme has been started or seems likely to be started for some years.
The Minister will know that the Environment Agency has proposed four schemes, on which it is consulting. There is a general wish that it should skip the consultation process because those in the agency are the experts; they know best. Members of the public do not have real views on the issue. We should move as fast as possible to get these schemes implemented. There is a suspicion, which I know the Minister will understand, that the driving force behind the schemes is not that they are the best method of preventing flooding but those that are most financially acceptable for the Treasury. Will the Minister give an assurance today that his Department will support whatever scheme the Environment Agency comes up with, even if it is the most expensive of the four? That will enable us to move forward with greater speed.
The Minister will also know of the continuing concerns about insurance matters. We have discussed domestic insurance but my constituency has a particular problem with business insurance. A large part of the flooded area of Uckfield was the business area at the bottom of the town. The Minister has been having important discussions with the Association of British Insurers, as has the hon. Member for Lewes. If we cannot secure agreement from the ABI that it will look benignly on insurance cover for properties in flood areas, will the Minister consider the sort of scheme that the Government recently agreed with the airline industry, albeit in different circumstances, to accommodate the significant additional insurance costs that it has incurred? The hon. Gentleman might be able to assist companies that are unable to get flood insurance, thereby helping them stay in business.
The lesson that we most need to learn from our experience is that we cannot continue building at the rate at which we have in the past. I welcome the

15WH
tightening of planning guidance in planning policy guidance 25 but the Government must also review the number of houses that they want built in the south-east. Many areas such as my constituency and Lewes cannot accommodate the number of houses that the Government suggest without building on flood plains. I therefore urgently request the Government to review that figure and reduce it.
I wish to end on a positive note. I recently attended a meeting of the Cuckmere flood forum—I sent the Minister a copy of the minutes—which brings together many of the villages along the Cuckmere. The hon. Member for Lewes also attended that meeting. It comprised environment agencies, the county and district councils, residents and a range of others who are concerned about the issue, and was an example of people working together exceptionally well and effectively. I hope that the Minister or one of the representatives from his Department will attend the next meeting of the forum so that it can be seen how effectively people who sit down together can avoid the heat of the discussion and focus on the steps that must he taken. Much work needs to be done, and I urge the Minister to bring that forward as fast as possible. As other hon. Members said, there is desperate anxiety every time it rains heavily. We nearly saw renewed flooding this year, so urgent action is required.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): I shall call the Minister no later than 10.50 am.
10.30 am
Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on this timely debate. Several Members spoke about flooding in their constituencies, and several others wished to do so. That demonstrates that flooding and the associated problems are live issues that must be addressed.
Using the situation in Cambridgeshire as an illustration, it is interesting and indicative that the exceptional rainfall in October happened during the warmest October on record. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) should understand that arguments about whether climate change is having an effect are somewhat irrelevant. Flooding is becoming a more severe and increasingly frequent occurrence throughout the country and, unsurprisingly, the public and their elected representatives want action to be taken.
We must focus on the problems and the practical action that can be taken. The Minister will have received information from various sources that flood defences are inadequate and that investment is required to bring them up to existing standards and, because of the volatility of the weather, possibly even higher standards. Our planning situation must be fundamentally reviewed, not only to prevent building on flood plains but to recognise that development distorts drainage patterns and can create new flood risks in places that have not been affected. It is a more complicated problem than might otherwise appear.
We must address the practical problems of individual householders' ability to get effective insurance and payouts on that insurance. Although flooding is an
16WH
insurable risk, that does not remove the horror of disruption, and total restoration is not always possible. When people find that they can get neither full compensation nor, worse still, further insurance, that has a devastating effect on the value of their property, and naturally they want to know where to turn.
Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dangers of the insurance situation are possibly more worrying to people than the lack of flood defences and the flooding itself? Some insurance companies, such as AA Insurance, are failing to adhere to the Association of British Insurers agreement—I know of three outstanding cases on that—and nothing is in place for when the ABI agreement expires next October. There is a danger that hundreds of houses in Lewes and elsewhere will simply be uninsured. Should not the Government address that problem and assure people in Lewes and elsewhere that they will be able to get insurance from next year?
Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend has made his point about a specific insurance company and that is on record. I am sure that it will be acknowledged, and I hope that the ABI will address the problem. He raised a pertinent point. Despite the serious disasters, we have mercifully had no loss of life of householders. One could argue that property is always restorable in a way that life is not, but that is what insurance is for.
I have read the ABI report, and its first conclusion was:
"In order to ensure that affordable flood insurance is available, at least throughout the greater part of the UK, urgent Government action is required."
We could say, "Well, it would say that, wouldn't it?", and there will have to be a partnership to decide who will deliver what. However, the ABI makes the reasonable case that unless insurers can be reassured that adequate flood prevention measures are in place, they do not see why they should accept all the risk of having to pay out incessantly for homes that flood continually. The ABI, although riot ducking out of its responsibilities, has a reasonable argument that there must come a point where public authorities are responsible for that.
On planning, I agree that we should question any further development on flood plains. We must review that. That is a considerable problem in a county like Cambridgeshire because of the terrain. I urge the Minister to recognise the extent to which development can distort drainage patterns. Although his responsibility is for England and Wales, I represent a Scottish constituency where there has been rapid development. We have had severe flooding in the lower part of Inverurie, which is mostly directly due to a high building programme higher up the town. Natural drainage was absorbable before but water falling on tarmac and tiles is now rushing down into the town and overwhelming the systems. We have had to upgrade them. We must recognise that any development can contribute to flooding.
Quite properly much has been said about the role of the Environment Agency. It has the expertise and not the money, and local authorities supposedly have the money but not the expertise. In reality, many of them, as in the case in Yorkshire that has been described, either

17WH
do not have the money or, because of the pressure on priorities, are unable or unwilling to contribute enough. My party produced a flood management programme earlier this year, in which we suggested that the Environment Agency should take a lead and be given some of the resources to deliver the programme. There can be regional flood committees but given drainage patterns, one local authority may be seriously affected by flooding while another is unaffected. Unless they both contribute there will not be the resources to deal with the problem, not least because action higher up a river or a river drainage system can have consequences further down.
While local authorities must be involved, and that coordination is relevant, we should shift more of the responsibility to the Environment Agency, not only to co-ordinate but to have the resources as well as the expertise to deliver the flood management plan and overall responsibility for it. More should be done within that plan for sustainable urban drainage. That is consistent with the planning point that I made, and the Minister has referred to that in the past. We must recognise that there are ways of developing new build that can help to absorb water in a natural and sustainable way and prevent it causing floods elsewhere.
Coastal defences are clearly a very live issue, particularly on the east side of the country where they have been seriously depleted. I have been at a number of meetings where people from East Anglia and further up the coast have expressed their concern that a decision has almost been taken to let a significant part of our coastline go. That will lose us agricultural and development land. There has been a consistent pattern of such erosion on the east coast over many years, and people in the area want to know what the Government's policy is. How much of England are the Government prepared to lose before they decide that we need defences to retain what is left? That is not a debate that would take long in Holland on the other side of the North sea, but it seems to go on for ever here. It is all very well to say that we can use salt marshes and allow them to re-establish, but that is effectively to allow the sea to invade and to yield our land to the sea. People want to know that there is a coherent strategy behind that, not just an unwillingness to pay the money to protect the coast.
My final point brings me round to the point that I made at the beginning. As well as considering how we should deal with the practical difficulties that arise from flooding and the severity of the rainfall that causes it, we must recognise, and make the wider public recognise, that these events will happen with greater frequency if we do not take much more global and international action to deal with the problems of climate change. The intervention suggesting that that was no longer the case astonished me. Not even President Bush would argue that there is no problem. The debate is about what action to take after the problem has been acknowledged.
Citizens must understand that what might appear remote—a change in climate that seems not directly to affect people—becomes very real when water is coming up the staircase. The two are connected and we must collectively support policies to modify the severity of climate change as well as deal with its practical consequences.
10.40 am
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) all congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate. They drew on their parochial experiences to produce more general conclusions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden mentioned Uckfield in his constituency. In many ways that town epitomises the problem. For 13 months, people were forced out of their homes and they are still not back in them. They have been waiting far too long for action, which is also needed throughout the country. My hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) also wanted to contribute to the debate. I am sorry that, due to lack of time, they were unable to do so.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on securing the debate. His contribution was thoughtful and balanced. He drew on his local experiences, but translated them into valuable general propositions. There can be no doubt about the scale of the problem. The Environment Agency has reported that 4 million people live or work in flood risk areas and that 1.2 million homes and businesses are at risk. The National Audit Office suggests that 2 million properties are at risk, while the Flood Hazard Research Centre believes that 10 per cent. of the population live in risk areas and that property worth £200 billion is at risk.
Whichever figure is correct—they may all be correct but using slightly different criteria—it is clear that flooding is a major problem that is likely to get worse. Last year, 11,000 people had to evacuate their homes and 150,000 people lived in areas directly at risk. As late as this October, Alison Baptiste, who works for the Government's own agency, Environment Action, speaking about the southern region said:
"Many houses in our region are far from back to normal"—and we are now a year on from the floods.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire asked who was in charge, who was responsible and where was the co-ordination to deal with flooding. Those questions were echoed by other hon. Members. The Environment Agency said:
"Encouraged by the Minister, the EA directed the process to undertake a general supervisory duty over the many public sector organisations responsible for delivering flood defence".
There is no doubt that flood defence is by far the EA's largest expenditure category. At £275.6 million in 1999–2000, it was 44 per cent. of its total expenditure.
The EA falls under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the position is more complicated. In 2001, the DEFRA grant aid was £107.9 million, but the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions supported local authorities through the local government finance system to the sum of £268.4 million. The Environment Agency's claim that it has taken over the general supervisory duties contradicts the proposition that he who pays the piper calls the tune. However, the Agriculture Committee clearly stated in its 1998 report that responsibility for flood prevention was too fragmented.

19WH
Where are we now? The National Audit Office claims that 40 per cent. of flood defences are not up to scratch. The Environment Agency has surveyed all flood defences in England and Wales. I would like to know whether it will publish its findings and conclusions. Before the autumn 2000 floods, the Environment Agency claimed to be concerned about the adequacy and the mechanisms of funding for flood defence and delays to the funding review. I hope that the Minister will deal with that concern.
The Environment Agency claimed that repair work had restored the damage done to flood defences last winter to the condition of a year ago, but no more than that. It also claimed not to have the budget or time to make all the necessary improvements. We need to know what budget and time it needs.
A July 2001 report of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs indicated that budgeted spending was significantly below the levels necessary to meet its standards. The Association of British Insurers suggested that an extra £145 million a year is required for several years and, in a report commissioned by the Government, the Institution of Civil Engineers said that current expenditure must be doubled. We need a proper, quantified assessment of the protection that England and Wales have now, a statement about a reasonable and appropriate level of protection, and a budget and time scale to achieve it.
Clearly, 100 per cent. protection can never be achieved. However, communicating with people in risk areas is important. They must understand the risk, the system of warnings, the preparations to be made and the actions to take after flooding. The Environment Agency has responsibility for that and has spent millions of pounds on advertising and direct mail, yet its research shows that only 9 per cent. of people in risk areas have made any preparation for flood defence. We need to know how many people are aware of the risk and what will be done to increase awareness. How many understand and can use the warning system? How many have made the necessary preparations, and are the local authorities properly prepared? Do people understand what action to take after they have been flooded?
I have a quick point to make about the long-term problem of land use. One of the oldest tricks for evading a difficult question is to suggest that the question is other than what it is. That is exactly what the Minister did last Thursday, when he said:
"Instead of saying that one cannot build on a greenfield site at any time, under any circumstances, we need a balance and some common sense."
I had not said that we should not build on any greenfield site, but that
"plans for massive development on water-absorbing greenfield sites will make a thoroughly bad situation worse".—[Official Report, 15 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 968.]
That comment has been echoed by nearly every hon. Member who has spoken today.
In addition to supporting planning policy guidance 25, we need to know that it will be easier for local authorities to veto planning applications on flood plains or on greenfield sites, because such developments affect the ability to deal with heavy rains. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, climate change is likely to get worse.
20WH
Last week, I said that I believed that the Government's response was too muddled, too little and too late. I hope that the Minister can persuade me that I was wrong, but they need to get organised, get funding and get on with it.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate. He made a thoughtful and detailed speech. He also raised several serious issues, but he had the good grace to acknowledge that the Government are trying to tackle them. It is clearly a subject for debate.
We have a great many issues to deal with, some of which go back many years. Although we can argue about the science, climate change is taking place. We are funding research at the Hadley centre for forecasting to help us understand the link between climate change and weather patterns. We cannot deny that sea levels are rising, the weather is getting warmer and heavy downpours are becoming more frequent. We have to prepare for change. We cannot ignore it. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, the devastation caused by the terrible floods that we suffered last year was a wake-up call. That raises a series of questions, an important one being that of preparedness for flooding.
The letter that I circulated to all hon. Members shows that the Government are thinking ahead to ensure that we are prepared this winter. It lists what action we have taken since last year's flooding and what action we intend to take. Indeed, the reports that have been mentioned were all commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Undertaken by various independent organisations, they describe the standard of flood defences that we should expect, the cost-benefit ratio of spending on flood and coastal defence and some of the structures that we should be considering. Another report is to be published shortly on the sources of funding for flood defence and some of the institutional arrangements that have been mentioned. Those reports will all be in the public domain. We want to concentrate on making our flood and coastal defences better, and to ensure that we are organised and able to respond to any kind of flooding.
Following on from the major flooding of 1998, the Government acted on the Bye report, which put us in a good position to respond to the floods of 2000. Although I have every sympathy with those whose properties were flooded—I visited many of the areas affected, and I am aware of the stress and disruption that people suffered—it was a relief to know that not one life was lost as a result of the flooding. That was quite an achievement, given the scale of flooding. Many properties at risk were properly defended. The flood defences worked, in many cases beyond their designed capacity.
Following that, we had a major upgrade in flood warning systems. The Environment Agency, with Government funding, has invested in a major flood awareness campaign. It is an annual campaign to make people who live in flood areas aware of the risk. We also have flood risk mapping and a helpline called Floodline.

21WH
I was sorry to hear of the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, and I am sure that the Environment Agency will try to rectify matters if things are not going as well as we would like. Local authorities and emergency services have the task of running annual exercises in responding to any kind of flood emergency. That would have been the case in the hon. Gentleman's area, so the local authority would have known what to do and how to respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) mentioned sandbags, and I understand how important they can be. Apart from anything else, it offers people reassurance to know that sandbags can be made available by the local authority or the Environment Agency. I stress that the legal responsibility for providing sandbags rests with the home owners. However, we must be realistic; we need to ensure availability, and we are working on that with the Local Government Association. The LGA has written to all its members to check that they are making preparations for flooding and we intend to introduce a sandbag strategy, to ensure that people are reassured. The Environment Agency and many local residents groups have promoted innovations such as flood shields that are coming on to the market. In the medium term, they have a great deal of scope and I am keen to pursue them.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to say that there has been some bad planning. I visited the area represented by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Some had decisions had clearly been taken, in terms not only of where houses had been built but of the impact of new estates, a new road and whether the sewerage system could cope. Flood defence is a multi-agency issue. I accept that we have a responsibility to bring agencies together and co-ordinate them properly, and we are considering that matter.
We expect planning authorities to take advice from the Environment Agency seriously. Current information suggests that they now give more weight to what it says about new developments. I would like to see a norm of a one in 100 years defence standard. We are raising standards in new defences, and those of some existing defences must also be raised.
The Environment Agency surveyed the constituency represented by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire after the floods and marked the peak flood areas, to help it understand where they are. That will guide its response, which is under way, as to whether the risk of future flooding can be minimised. As I said, 75 per cent. of the flooding was from non-statutory main rivers. Nevertheless, we must tackle that problem, which is partly due to lack of maintenance of ditches, dykes and drains and the impact of development. Discussions are under way on the subject.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the point-scoring system. I think that it is fair because it is clear and transparent, so people understand where they are in relation to priorities. When one spends money on flood defence, one will always want to defend the maximum number of homes at risk, which will tend to be in urban
22WH
rather than rural areas. That is a fact of life, unfortunately. However, it does not mean that we cannot have schemes for rural communities, and we do.
Mr. Greg Knight: Why have the Government not claimed a penny of the money available from the European Union to help member states alleviate flooding problems?
Mr. Morley: The simple answer is that there is no such money to help member states. The suggestion that such money is available is a fallacy that has been circulated. There is money for disasters, but it does not relate to flood and coastal expenditure. We have to raise the money ourselves, as we are doing.
The calculation of the points score is based on economic, social and environmental need. The pertinent points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, which we will try to address, were on social need. At present, the way in which the points system works is being considered in a review that is due to close on 26 November. It will take into account what people have said.
We have commissioned several independent reports on funding. We must calculate what would be a realistic rising spend. It is one thing to argue for doubling money to huge sums, but many engineering projects have to be planned two, three or four years in advance. Even if the budget suddenly increased, people would see no benefits because one would have to provide for the increase in the planning. We want a planned rising spend. In our spending review bid for 2002, we will discuss with the Treasury what the most appropriate spend will be.
My hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the hon. Members for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) also spoke. It is difficult to address all the ills of flooding in the country in 10 minutes, but I shall touch on some of their points.
One of the most important subjects raised was time scales for flood defence schemes. Such schemes must be consulted on. We have to take into account the effects that any scheme might have on other parts of the watercourse. Solutions are not easy in some parts of the country, such as Uckfield, which is represented by the hon. Member for Wealden. However, I am sure that we can find cost-effective solutions that will work. We have commissioned catchment area studies, which will report on the Uckfield area in the beginning of 2002. All operating authorities have also been asked to publish policy statements to set out the responsibilities for watercourses and drains, and plans for their maintenance.
My time is rapidly running out. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised several other points, and I shall write to him about them. However, the wider debate continues. I like the idea of an all-party group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Selby mentioned. I give a commitment that my Department would fully support such a group by providing information and by any other means, as it would tackle our common aim of reducing the risks of flooding for all our constituents.

Transport (Eastern Region)
11 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have this opportunity to put my concerns about transport in the eastern region to hon. Members and to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). Several parliamentary colleagues from the region are present, and I hope that they will have an opportunity to make clear their concerns.
The eastern region is doubtless one of the most prosperous in the country: average incomes are high, unemployment is low and the quality of life is better than in many other parts of the country. The region is not, however, without its problems. It is disparate and incoherent, stretching from Watford to Walton-on-the-Naze and from Basildon to Blakeney Point. It has areas of high-tech, high-skill and high-income activity, but also pockets of deprivation, unemployment and economic stagnation. Transport links are crucial to overcoming such problems, particularly at the periphery.
The region is dominated by radial transport links that spread outwards from London. Some are quite fast and efficient, but others are badly affected by overcrowding and traffic congestion during peak periods. New investment and higher on-going investment are necessary for transport purposes. Major difficulties are involved in travelling from east to west across the region, and poor east-west links will feature strongly in our debate. It is easier and quicker to travel from Luton to Sheffield than from Luton to Lowestoft.
The region has several significant sea ports. That sector is growing, and sustainable expansion must be supported by improved transport access. There are five airports, including Stansted and our rapidly growing airport at Luton. Those key regional and national infrastructure assets depend crucially on efficient and convenient terrestrial transport links. Given the decline of manufacturing in my town of Luton and, most notably, the closure of Vauxhall in four months' time, the growth of employment at our airport will be vital for the town's prosperity. Transport will also play a critical role in the successful regeneration of the Thames gateway.
Six multi-modal studies are being carried out in the east of England, of which the London and south midlands study is the most significant for my constituency.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the benefits of better east-west links in the area that he and I represent, will he concede that one useful aspect of such links, which should have been in place many years ago, is that heavy goods vehicles would no longer thunder along roads and through villages and towns that were not designed to take them?
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is especially acute in my constituency because an east-west route takes heavy lorry traffic right through the middle of the town, which is wholly inappropriate.
24WH
I hope that my colleagues will expand on how that problem affects their constituencies and the different parts of the region.
I turn now to the matters of most concern in my constituency and the sub-regions that surround Luton. The M1 motorway passes through my constituency and is regularly congested where it does so. I am delighted by the decision to erect acoustic barriers where it passes close to homes and schools in Luton, North. That will make a major contribution to the environment in which many of my constituents live. However, congestion on the M1 through Luton is caused as much by local commuting as by long-distance traffic. For example, a logical route from Dunstable to Luton airport and the car plants on the south side of Luton would use the M I between junctions 11 and 10. Commuting between Milton Keynes and the Luton conurbation also pours local traffic on to the M1 in peak hours.
During peak hours, there is extreme congestion in Luton, and we move closer to gridlock year by year. New transport links must, therefore, pass through and around Luton and between the conurbations in our travel-to-work areas. The most urgent need is to develop the eastern corridor route in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). Before the roads review during the previous Parliament, there was much talk of widening the M I northbound. Wisely, that was rejected. I trust that the M1 widening north of junction 10 has now been firmly rejected for the long term.
However, that has made even more vital the development of Translink, the dedicated public transport corridor from Dunstable and Houghton Regis that passes through Luton to the airport and other areas of employment on the south side of the town. Sadly, local authorities have been deeply divided about the form of transport that should operate on the corridor. Luton borough council has proposed a guided busway, while South Bedfordshire council prefers a rail option. Heavy rail would be an inefficient and inappropriate use of the corridor, and I support the development of guided buses.
The Translink corridor is too valuable simply for local bus traffic. That is why I have proposed that a light railway or tramway be built along the whole length of the old single-track rail line from Bletchley through the Translink corridor in Luton and onwards to conurbations further east. I have spoken to a number of transport engineers, who say that it is feasible to combine a tramway and a guided busway on one corridor. With a tramway and a busway, the Translink corridor would be more easily financed and of immensely greater economic benefit to our sub-region. It should be extended from Bletchley to the centre of Milton Keynes, and follow the old single-track railway line all the way to the conurbation of Welwyn and Hatfield.
A significant advantage of a light railway scheme is that the corridor would permit two-way trams but only a single-track heavy rail service. Although Milton Keynes is just outside our region, it has an impact on traffic in the Luton area, and on the M1 and the A5.
A second and associated major improvement that is vital for our area would be to build the long-proposed northern ringroad around Luton from the A5 to the

25WH
A505 Hitchin road to the east of Luton. I am not generally in favour of road building, but this is an exception. It would link up with the new M1 junction 11A north of Luton and provide an important link in a key east-west route across the region. It would take an enormous amount of through traffic off the narrow, residential roads in my constituency that are currently designated as a through route. That northern transport corridor has been protected for many years. It is time to develop it for future transport use. It is vital both locally and regionally and should be carefully designed and routed to minimise its impact on the local environment.
I must say something about rail. One of the casualties of the rail investment chaos of the last few years has been the Thameslink 2000 project. It should have been completed by now, but even the new track work seems to be years away from being started. As a rail commuter on that route for the past 32 years, I declare a personal interest. It is a vital project for the whole of the region, with the possibility of linking King's Lynn and Brighton at the extremes. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use all his influence to bring forward the regional railway investment that we so desperately need, in particular that for the Thameslink 2000 project.
I should comment on buses before I conclude. The deregulation and privatisation carried out by Conservative Governments were a profound mistake, driven by a market dogma that was wholly misplaced in public services. Our bus services are not good enough. They are not subject to democratic control or proper regulation and follow cherry-picked routes where most profit can be made. They do not provide a comprehensive needs-driven network, thoroughly integrated with other forms of transport. I would like to see bus services back in public hands, operated by local authorities or regional public sector organisations. Such arrangements work wonderfully in Holland and elsewhere in Europe and could bring enormous benefits both to our region and to the country.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister use his influence to the maximum on our behalf to bring forward the vital transport investment that the eastern region needs? The Government will need to play a greater role in transport provision in the future. I do not expect him to give definite answers to all the issues raised in today's debate, but I would ask that he give them serious consideration.
I could say much more about transport in our region, but I must leave time for colleagues to have their say. The primary theme of today's debate is the promotion of better east-west transport links in the eastern region. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message back to his Department.
11.9 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate, which covers the top priority issue in the eastern region.
I wish to make a number of general points about transport policy. First, it should not be cast in environmental terms alone; transport is too often discussed as if it were merely an environmental inconvenience, whereas it is also the engine of the economy. This country will not be competitive on the global stage and will not achieve the productivity that
26WH
the Chancellor wants unless we fully recognise the importance of transport infrastructure to the economy. A better balance must be struck between economic and environmental factors in making transport decisions.
Secondly, we must beware of a one-size-fits-all transport policy. The balance between environmental and economic considerations will vary in different parts of the country, depending on local circumstances. An elderly lady living just outside Beccles, a market town with a population of 10,000 in my constituency, once wrote to me in trepidation saying that she might have to pay a congestion charge to drive into town, and begged for exemptions for pensioners if such a charge should be imposed. The message that we are putting out is, in some ways, far too simple.
Thirdly, the overall state of transport infrastructure in this country is poor, as it is suffering from decades of under-investment. The road and rail networks have never been comprehensively developed and are now patently inadequate for modern purposes, especially in the eastern region, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said. The situation worsens the further east one goes, and one cannot venture further east than my constituency. The east-west links are bad, so coastal communities such as the one that I represent suffer the worst. Transport in East Anglia is all too often typified by large heavy goods vehicles trying to squeeze their way through villages and market towns, such as Beccles and Bungay, whose streets are narrow and full of historic buildings that shake as the trucks pass. Although those trucks may pass through villages for perfectly good economic reasons, nothing has been done to improve matters. Also typical is the experience of sitting in frustration in a line of vehicles following the ubiquitous tractor down an East Anglian road, whether it is an A road or a B road. What I have said must be set against the reality that people will not want to be less mobile under any future policy.
The Government's £180 billion 10-year plan for transport makes an impressive start in rectifying the problem. However, our planning system means that, all too often, large essential transport projects become bogged down and progress is painfully slow, so few people can plan ahead with confidence. As I travel the world, I see that we are falling behind other countries in developing modern transport systems.
We cannot continue like that. We must ensure that our transport policies meet the needs of the eastern region, while recognising that needs vary within that region, which stretches from the fringe of London to Britain's most easterly point. No single solution or policy will suit the whole of that diverse area.
The general principles to which I have referred are relevant in understanding the transport needs of my constituency. The long-standing problem in my area is unemployment, which reached 14 per cent. under the last Conservative Government and was 11.5 per cent. when I was elected in 1997. It now stands at 5 per cent., which is good news, but that percentage is still two or three times higher than that in much of East Anglia. The structural unemployment is still there, and one must ask why that is when our wage costs are low and our land is relatively cheap. We have excellent industrial relations and a pleasant working environment.

27WH
The answer is location. Lowestoft, the main town in my constituency, is Britain's most easterly point. It is in a peripheral position, at the end of a peninsula—East Anglia may be rounded, but it is a peninsula. If one measures by journey time, East Anglia juts so far out into the North sea that it almost touches Holland. My constituency is not connected to the national network of dualled roads. One has to travel 45 miles south to Ipswich to pick it up that way, or 50 miles east to Bury St. Edmunds. We are not included on the national rail network map that one sees at stations and on trains. That is surprising, because we are the country's most easterly point, and I have taken the issue up with the rail authorities. I suppose that it is because only two branch lines come to Lowestoft. That fact speaks volumes.
Poor transport links put business in my area and the local economy at a disadvantage. Existing businesses do not have a level playing field and it is difficult to attract new businesses. All the signs are that businesses in Britain increasingly prefer a more central location. The Lowestoft area can become more central only if it has better transport links. Coastal unemployment is a national phenomenon. The league table of unemployment by travel-to-work areas shows that, in October 2001, the Lowestoft travel-to-work area had the 23rd highest unemployment in the country. Of the top 23 travel-to-work areas for unemployment, 19 are on the coast, and that is not just a freak result for October.
When a coastal community is not connected to the network, things get worse. There is a feeling among my constituents that things are unfair, and a perception that they missed out during the road-building era. Now we are often told that roads are not a good idea anyway and that our roads do not need upgrading. However, I wonder how many people in those places where relief roads and bypasses were built or key routes were upgraded feel that those roads should never have been built. My guess is that they are very pleased that they were.
The greatest irony of all in this is the reason for Lowestoft's very existence. The town's origins lie in its port. Ports integrate land and sea transport and the Government have given us an integrated transport policy, but Lowestoft's excellent low-cost port has to contend with not being integrated into the national road and rail network, even though the old railway lines run parallel to the docks. Efforts have been made to establish rail freight. We were even mentioned in the famous transport White Paper, but sadly, there have been too many obstacles to overcome to turn that into reality.
We need at least one good road link to the rest of the country. The A12 has been detrunked and, after the trunk roads review, the strategy appeared to be to dual the A11 to Norwich and then carry on the dualling to Great Yarmouth, which has the same unemployment problems as Lowestoft. That was probably not the best solution for Lowestoft, but at least it was a link, and we supported it. However, a group of consultants for the Highways Agency has produced a report that comes out against dualling the key part of the A47, which is a real setback. It has struck the wrong balance between environmental and economic considerations, and my
28WH
hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) will seek a special debate on the matter. I am surveying businesses in my constituency on road priorities. The communities on the east coast of East Anglia with long-standing unemployment cannot be left unconnected. We must have one good road link to the rest of the country.
Transport is such an important issue in my constituency that, unfortunately, the problems do not stop when one finally reaches Lowestoft. The Al2 runs the length of the town, north to south, right through the town centre. The town is bisected from east to west by the inlet that forms the port, which crosses the A12 at a lift-up bridge. It is the only bridge in the town—one must go 2.5 miles further inland to find another. The bridge has a special place in this country's transport system. It is the most disruptive lift-up bridge in the country, with the highest number of lifts per day and the second highest traffic flow. Those factors combined disrupt more traffic than any other lift-up bridge. It must lift to enable the port to operate. We have lived with that state of affairs for decades, and for decades we have wanted another river crossing.
I am pleased that some progress is being made. We were delighted before Christmas last year to learn that the Government are providing £25 million for the south Lowestoft relief road. That is the best news that my constituency has received for years, and it comes after the completion of the northern spine road. If, eventually, we can link the two together with another bridge—what we in Lowestoft call "the third crossing"—Lowestoft's long-held dream will have materialised. In Lowestoft we do not talk about the second coming; we talk about the third crossing. Successive Ministers have stood on our bridge. We sometimes wish that it had lifted up and tipped them off, but the one who grants the new bridge will be immortalised by the people of Lowestoft.
11.20 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I join the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) in saying that the people of our area feel neglected compared with those of other parts of the country. Although the eastern region as a whole has done well economically, that economic benefit is concentrated more in the west of the region, around the Cambridge corridor, than in the east. When I went to Blackpool for my party's conference I found that I would save two hours by taking the train from Norwich to London and thence to Blackpool, instead of going direct from Norwich to Blackpool. That shows what neglect our area has suffered.
Further to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Lowestoft, I have a good sense of how far east it is because when I was growing up in Worcestershire we used to visit my grandparents in Lowestoft. It was the most interminable journey that I ever had to undertake as a child. Points east in Norfolk as well as Suffolk are disconnected. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Great Yarmouth. We all look forward to the development of the Yarmouth outer harbour and the contribution that it will make to reviving the eastern part of East Anglia.
We are delighted that work on the section of the A11 from Roudham Heath to Attleborough is going ahead and that the Government have announced their

29WH
preferred routes for the remainder. I understand that there will be one public inquiry to take account of both routes. That news highlights the problem of time scales. I am told that, if things go smoothly, the earliest that we can expect construction to start is 2005 and that dualling of the A11 will not be complete until 2007. That is six years—as long as it took to fight the second world war. There seems to be a wider policy point to be made about the length of time that planning inquiries take. However, we are grateful that progress is being made, albeit slowly.
What is the Government's current policy on bypasses? The residents of Long Stratton, in my constituency, are desperate for a bypass. I invite the Minister to visit Long Stratton to see what they put up with. The A 140 from Norwich to Ipswich runs through the centre of that small town and 45.000 cars a day use it. That is wholly inappropriate. The problem has festered for years and we look forward to a rapid solution. The county council will consult on the issue next year and when the process is complete it will assemble a bid for a major project. I hope that the Government will look favourably on that when the time comes.
We should not forget the other kinds of transport that are available. Norwich airport, just outside my constituency, is a vital resource for the area, and for many people is much closer than flying from Stansted airport in the west of the eastern region. The national media sometimes do not bring out the difference between what is happening in the east of the eastern region and what is happening in the west of the region. I hope that the Government will bear in mind, especially in relation to the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study, the fact that economic development of the region requires better transport links in the east too.
The hon. Member for Waveney spoke about environmental links and striking the right balance. That relates to a more general point that environmental protection can be afforded only if there is wealth. It is not an accident that the poorest countries tend to have the least environmental protection. Greater economic prosperity means that we can better afford to enhance the environment.
11.25 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate and on his wide-ranging consideration of several issues that affect the eastern region. I also endorse a key point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about the importance of location and of transport and its influence on economic development. That applies to coastal regions, as we have heard, but it also applies to Bedford, which is nowhere near the coast.
Bedford has two or three wards that record some of the highest unemployment in the eastern region, and the reason for that is connected to transport. North-south links are congested, and east-west links are under-developed. I shall concentrate on east-west links, especially the east-west rail link. The aim of the project is to establish a modern rail route that connects Ipswich and Norwich through Cambridge, Bedford and Milton Keynes to Oxford and the west country. Much of that
30WH
link requires existing track to be upgraded, and some of it, including a section east of Bedford and parts of the Bletchley-to-Oxford stretch, requires re-railing on former track bed.
The project is being promoted by a consortium—the East West Rail Consortium—that comprises 36 members, most of which are local authorities. The consortium has worked hard for several years to put together feasibility studies and business cases on the preferred route to get the scheme under way. It has raised funds to pay for that work. The East of England Development Agency is fully on board and strongly supports the project, which it regards as an integral part of delivering the region's economic development objectives.
The project will relieve pressure on the existing radial routes to London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North referred, that are congested. It will also offer more choice to residents and businesses in the region, and will underpin the economic benefits associated with what is known as the Oxford to Cambridge technology arc, a concept that is being studied seriously by several people in the region. The idea is that development that concentrates especially on the Cambridge area could extend along corridors to the west towards Oxford, but also, I imagine, to the east.
I fully support the east-west rail link. It will be good for my constituency, and I want it implemented as soon as possible. The route will serve the heart of Bedford. It will re-open the service to the east, which British Rail closed in the early 1960s, and modernise the badly neglected cross-country service west to Bletchley. The route onwards to Oxford, which British Rail also closed in the 1960s, will be re-opened. Importantly, the east-west rail link would not just benefit east-west movements in the eastern region, but would relieve pressure in London and the London orbital area, and create all sorts of opportunities for freight and passenger movements using parts of the east-west rail link across the country. It would also connect with movements north and south from the west coast main line, the midland main line and the east coast main line.
It is intended that the project be delivered in three phases: a western phase west of Bedford, an eastern phase east of Cambridge and a central phase, including the missing link, from Bedford eastwards to the east coast main line, mostly along the former track bed of the Bedford to Cambridge railway.
A rail passenger partnership joint bid to the Strategic Rail Authority for improved services eastwards of Cambridge was made earlier in the year by the consortium and Anglia Railways. It was surprisingly successful, winning £10 million for improved services and new trains, which will come into service in about 18 months' time. The problem is the western section; two years' hard work in research and discussion led to the consortium, on the advice of the SRA, making a much-reduced bid, a concept that the SRA eventually rejected on the grounds that it was not ambitious enough. However, the revenue schemes associated with a smaller project were not sufficient to deliver the correct cost-benefit ratios to pay for the longer-term capital investment. The fact that a scheme was advanced on the advice of the SRA, which said, effectively, that that advice was not correct, has filled many associated with the project with anxiety about how to deal with the

31WH
matter through the SRA in future. I hope that I am wrong, but it seems that although the SRA can handle simple projects involving a single franchise and train operating company, such as the successful and welcome scheme east of Cambridge, it has problems thinking strategically about more difficult concepts.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend may be aware of past railway investment projects, notably the east coast main line, where more elaborate and expensive proposals were rejected on Treasury advice. Over the years, the investment proved not to be effective and further work is now required for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to get it right at the beginning and not to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar?
Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Strategic thinking is all about looking ahead and investing for greater gain in the longer term, rather than short-term revenue, budget-led ways of looking at things. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wants to break the old, narrow, finance-based thinking and look ahead, but that is difficult, as the SRA shows in many other cases, too.
The SRA's "Strategic Agenda" on the east-west rail link, which was published earlier this year, describes it as
"a scheme that would not be needed for seven to 10 years,"
which contradicts everything that the consortium has demonstrated in the past few years. It even goes on to state that the scheme has
"not been the subject of any substantial analysis"
thus dismissing, in the most cavalier manner, six years of work and analysis costing about £500,000, raised by the consortium. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government take the east-west rail project seriously and that they understand the strategic economic arguments underpinning the concept.
We all understand that the rail industry is facing financial difficulties, and not just because of events in the past few weeks. In recent years there has been an increasing lack of confidence in the industry to invest. Railtrack failed to maintain the existing network, never mind expanding and improving it. We must look ahead, beyond taking Railtrack into administration, to a positive, confident future for the rail industry. In that context, it is vital that the SRA becomes more reliable, business-like, professional and strategic. It needs more Government investment if it is to play its part in delivering the Government's transport plans, but it also desperately needs to be managed better and to deal with people in a straightforward and reliable manner.
I urge my hon. Friend to take on board my comments, which are offered in a positive way. I hope that he will tell me, perhaps today or later in writing, whether he is prepared to discuss with the Secretary of State the need to review the guidance issued to the SRA after the general election. I also ask my hon. Friend to ensure that
32WH
nothing is done during the upgrades of the west coast and east coast main lines to jeopardise the east-west rail project, which will need to connect with and cross those main lines.
Another key matter is the rail industry's ability to invest. It was the Secretary of State's decision to put a stop to the 20-year franchise replacement process. In regard to east-west rail, that means that the consortium's train operating company partner has only a four-year financial horizon against which to assess a long-term investment project such as east-west rail. The fact that many franchises will have to be replaced soon after the next general election means that opportunities to deliver rail improvements in this Parliament will be missed. I cannot understand who will benefit from that—certainly not my constituents or people in other parts of the country, or the Government. I look forward to discussion on the issue.
We all know that life is full of problems but the problems encountered by the East West Rail Consortium in its bid for the western section of east-west rail has served to strengthen its will to succeed. That is pleasing, but if it is to be translated into positive action in the months and years ahead, it is crucial that the Government listen and that they support the project, directly and indirectly. I hear that we can have hope because there is talk—it may be only rumours—about means by which the project can be delivered. I refer particularly to the missing link east at Bedford: the section of track that was lifted in the 1970s after it was closed in the 1960s. That section is crucial to the delivery of the scheme as a whole and there is talk that that part of it could be delivered by the Government's special purpose vehicle.
I am not sure what a special purpose vehicle is. There is something attractive but mysterious about the idea. I have visions of a magical steam locomotive that will drive through and get everything built. However, tempting though that vision is. I do not think that Harry Potter, or east-west rail, will deliver the missing link. Ministers need to take action, possibly by waving a magic wand—that is up to them. Ministers, not Harry Potter, need to provide the motivation.
The consortium has looked at the important question of dealing with the missing link. With the agreement of the SRA some months ago, it advertised for an infrastructure partner to promote the development of that crucial section and Skanska Construction was selected by a competitive process. Skanska Construction is looking at route options, prior to the process laid down by the Transport and Works Act 1992, which will involve a public inquiry. It is also looking at interaction with the east cost main line upgrade plans in the Hitchin area and it is also investigating potential demand for services to Stansted and Luton airport. So we have the prospect of integrated transport and regional and national links.
With common sense and clear leadership—qualities that have not thus far been noticeable—we shall add to the improved services east of Cambridgeshire that are due to begin in October 2002. We could have new services from Bedford to the west of England by 2003 and—this could be called the full monty—the east-west rail link by 2006. How can my right hon. Friend resist such a temptation? I ask for his and his colleagues' support.
11.40 am
Bob Spink: I crave your indulgence today, Mr. O'Hara, because this is my first opportunity to contribute to such a debate. I hope that you will bear with me.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said that life is full of problems. Indeed it is and we certainly know about them in this place. Life is full also of opportunities, and I thank the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for providing the opportunity this morning to discuss some of the problems, so that we can find the solutions. He introduced the issue of transport in the east of England eloquently and thoughtfully, and I am grateful for the opportunity to add my little bit.
This has been an excellent debate, but so far it has focused on the north of the eastern region. I shall bring a balance, as I will talk about the south. I represent the interests of south-east Essex, in particular Castle Point and, more parochially, Canvey island. I see the Minister wincing a little. He is clearly not surprised to hear me utter the words Canvey island in this place; he has heard them many times and has shown great tolerance and understanding of our local problems.
Although south Essex is on the periphery of the East of England Development Agency region, we have not been overlooked. The agency has shown our problems great concern and understanding, and is prepared to invest £5 million in Canvey island to prepare about 50 acres of land for what is potentially an important employment-generating development. I will talk about that and the transport infrastructure that it will require. Without a strategic transport infrastructure in place, whatever the East of England Development Agency spends on Canvey island—to provide economic development land and the internal infrastructure—will be less effective.
The Thames gateway initiative is a great one and, providing that it can be made to work properly, should be welcomed. Transport will play a crucial role in the successful regeneration of the Thames gateway, and proposals are being prepared through the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership. It will require early ministerial support and commitment and, having heard Lord Falconer's comments, I am sure that the commitment is there.
However, there is a problem with the co-operation between local councils. The Thames gateway initiative involves local councils joining together to help put in place a strategic infrastructure for the economic benefit of the whole region. The key problem for me as the Member for Castle Point is that Basildon council is not prepared to co-operate with Castle Point council on an infrastructure that will see the Canvey Island third access road go over some of Basildon's greenbelt land. That road will be necessary if the vision of the Thames gateway is to succeed. The vision sees the Basildon-Castle Point business hub as an important local hub, and that is how the Thames gateway is being sold. Without that third road for Canvey island, the vision will become a nightmare rather than a reality.
I am seeking talks with Basildon council and my council, particularly councillors Dave Wells and Ray Howard, to try to break this logjam with Basildon council. I find it a bit rich that a new town that is built on greenbelt and continually expands on greenbelt wants to
34WH
stop us putting our little road in so that we can have a little bit of the action because it is greenbelt land. No residential houses in Basildon are involved in the Canvey island third road and some of the greenbelt is tip land. Those are arguments that we will have locally and I hope that we can find a way around the impasse with Basildon. I know that the Minister is aware of the problem. He has shown great patience in listening to us over the years and I hope that that will continue.
I turn from the third road link to Canvey island, which I shall take up with Basildon council, to an important and more imminent local scheme: the extension to Roscommon way. There is some opposition from the residents of Western esplanade where the new road will join, but that always happens when there is a development. Generally the people of Canvey island see the benefit of this extension or southern relief road as it is being called. It is seen as an important opportunity for Canvey island.
The scheme has positive benefits across a range of integrated transport objectives, but its main benefits relate to two key issues. The first is employment and regeneration. The scheme will facilitate development opportunities and generate local jobs in the Thames gateway, which nationally is the number one priority area for economic regeneration. The second issue relates to transport and safety. By improving the island's distributor road system, the scheme will enable further improvements in safety and passenger transport to be made elsewhere on the island. In particular, the scheme will improve access to the eastern end of the island and provide much needed relief to Long road, which runs right down the middle of the island.
A key point to remember in looking at the potential benefits of the scheme is its role for the future of the island, which has a population of about 45,000 and is an important part of my constituency. In promoting the scheme, the county council, led by Councillor Ron Williams, who is a well-known advocate of integrated transport in Essex, recognises that its immediate impact on transport may not be as great as competing schemes. For that reason, the funding for the full £9.1 million cost of the road scheme is not being sought. The aim will be a form of private-public partnership. However, the long-term benefits to the island of securing this infrastructure improvement, effectively at a public cost of about £4.7 million, are considered to represent extremely good value for money.
Turning now to the detailed case for employment and regeneration, lack of local employment is a major problem on the island. In the borough only 38 per cent. of jobs are met locally. Putting the available land to use is expected to create a further 1,500 much-needed jobs. The East of England Development Agency has an 18-month plan for the preparation of the £5 million Northwick road site. The Thames gateway strategy identifies Canvey island as being one of the major sites for development and job creation. This 50 acre Northwick road site maximises the use of brownfield land. Accessibility to sites in Canvey will be improved by the new Roscommon way infrastructure, which is a key part of the proposed integrated infrastructure improvements for the island.
Canvey island needs support or it will become physically, economically and socially isolated from the mainland. Regeneration will also give the island a

35WH
greater sense of purpose, helping it to be a place where people contribute to their local community and which contributes to the wider economy. I trust that the Minister has heard all that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I certainly have.
Bob Spink: Again. I am grateful to the Minister for listening carefully. There is a strong case for the scheme, on the basis that it is a prerequisite for, and will facilitate, further improvements that fit within the broader aims of an integrated transport policy for the whole region.
11.50 am
Tom Brake: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate and setting out imaginative proposals. The Translink idea of tram and bus is certainly worth pursuing.
The debate has been informative. There has, of course, been special pleading. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked for a little road to be built on the green belt. There was some not so discreet special pleading from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who offered the Minister immortality if he delivered the third crossing.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) referred to interminably long journeys through the region to see his grandparents. I hope that he was not suggesting that the countryside in the area was boring—I am not sure what he was driving at.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) was right to bring Harry Potter into the debate, because he stands a much better chance than the Government of achieving an integrated transport policy. Using broomsticks would certainly be an effective way of getting away from congestion, and they could use the new facilities at terminal 5 if that is announced later today.
Hon. Members have made interesting contributions. As they have outlined, the eastern region is quite prosperous. It has a population of 5.5 million and is one of the fastest growing areas in the United Kingdom, with one of the lowest recorded crime rates in England. Unemployment levels across the region as a whole are 3.3 per cent., which is well below the national average.
The East of England Development Agency is seeking to promote a number of key themes to 2010. One of the six key aims is for the region to become more outward looking, and Members have explained why the region feels isolated in many respects. If the development agency is to achieve that objective, transport in the area must be improved.
Many Members have outlined ways in which the transport system could be improved. I think that we all agree that the main transport problems have been caused over many years by neglect, a significant lack of investment in the road and rail networks and a lack of capacity. There are problems getting into Liverpool Street station, for instance, because of bottlenecks. In particular, there is a lack of east to west transport links, on which the hon. Member for Bedford focused.
36WH
The road network includes the A14, Al2, A47 and A11, most of which are already dual carriageway or part dual carriageway. However, they are struggling with capacity. As the hon. Member for Luton, North explained, apart from the M1 and the M11, motorway links are poor in the eastern region.
The Government announced on Friday that the A11 will be dualled, but cited 2005 as the earliest completion date. Will the Minister tell us the most realistic, rather than the earliest, completion date?
The A14 takes most of the freight coming out of Felixstowe. Currently, 40 per cent. of the UK's freight comes into that port, and only 20 per cent. leaves Felixstowe by rail. If we are going to move freight off roads and on to railways, we must significantly improve rail links in the port area. The section of the A14 road from Cambridge to Huntingdon is one of the busiest and most dangerous in Europe.
A multi-modal study for that area has been completed and I hope that it emphasises improving rail links for freight. The Felixstowe to Nuneaton line needs improvement to achieve that. The line needs a basic change in the loading gauge to enable bigger, wider trains to carry large freight containers. That would affect bridges, which would need to be raised, and further electrification along the line would be needed. Will the Minister comment on the likelihood of making those improvements?
We must also consider passenger services. Decent passenger rail services would provide an alternative to the A14 for people travelling from Ipswich to Cambridge. At the moment, that service is very limited: only nine trains run each day and if anyone needs to travel quickly, the journey by rail takes about an hour and a half, but the trip by road takes only 40 minutes. If we wish to see more people using the rail network, we must improve train speed.
The hon. Member for Bedford referred to British Rail closing lines in the 1960s. The Oxford to Cambridge line was closed in 1968 by Barbara Castle, so in that case British Rail closed a line on behalf of a Labour Government. I hope that many lines will be reopened. Some have called for the reopening of the Cambridge to St. Ives line, but I understand that funding has not been forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will confirm that rail schemes are not disadvantaged when decisions are taken on the promotion of such schemes as opposed to road schemes, which seem regularly to get the go-ahead.
Many towns in the area are suffering from traffic congestion, although there have been success stories. The Cambridge park-and-ride scheme has been successful. Does the Minister believe, as the hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned, that there is a role for tram systems in smaller towns with populations of 100,000 or less? Will the Government provide guidance on such schemes to those towns?
Hon. Members will know that Stansted airport wants to increase its capacity from 15 million to 25 million passengers a year. Stansted has also called for a standby runway, which has caused local concern as some fear that it may be converted into a full runway. Has the Minister had any recent discussions on that and does he support such a proposal? Stansted airport is in a strong position: it has good public transport links to London, with trains every 15 minutes. However, the services

37WH
going north are not nearly as good; for example, the service from Liverpool through Peterborough and Cambridge is a one-train-per-hour service and is extremely unreliable. Work must be done if we are to make greater use of public transport to access airports. That is increasingly a source of concern, particularly with respect to the terminal 5 announcement.
The public transport links to Luton airport are not good. In fact, I will be meeting with a representative from Luton airport tomorrow. Are there any plans in the pipeline for a decent rail link in addition to the bus service?
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the link to the station. That link, between the new mainline station and the airport, is the problem. Translink might provide a link—certainly in my scheme—with a tramway that would go directly from the station to the airport departure area. That is part of my suggestion.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful clarification about a way to solve that integration problem.
It is clear that transport infrastructure is at breaking point, not just in the eastern region but across the country. I hope that the Minister can explain the impact of the 10-year transport plan in the eastern region. How many extra miles of railway line will have been constructed by the end of the process? What effect will the plan have on the roads network? The Minister is frowning; he does not like my questions. None the less, I hope that he will respond. I thought that a purpose of Adjournment debates was to raise questions, but the Minister shakes his head.
We need guidance from the Minister about what the 10-year transport plan, which is the Government's key method of delivering improvements and integration, will mean for the region. Hon. Members have described the isolation that is felt in parts of the eastern region because of the relatively poor transport links with London and with the north and west of the country. The Minister's response will, no doubt, clarify whether the situation is likely to change.
12.3 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate, which has been wide-ranging and good. Many questions have been posed to the Minister, and I hope to allow him sufficient time to answer as many as he can.
The hon. Member for Luton, North began by describing our region as disparate and incoherent. I thought for a moment that he said "desperate"; I will accept "disparate". I throw at the Minister the fact that one of his colleagues thinks that the region does not have an obvious cohesive entity, yet the Government are pressing ahead with regional government for an area that is, apparently, disparate and incoherent.
Mr. Hopkins: The point is that a transport link would make it more coherent.
Mr. Moss: I do not disagree with that.
38WH
The hon. Gentleman said that the situation in our region results from the radial routes that come out of London. That key problem affects the important east-west links about which many hon. Members spoke and with which I shall deal in a little more detail.
Mr. Blizzard: Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, rightly focus on east-west links and have spoken about the "radial" pattern. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the north-east region, where I come from, even the radial links tend to peter out some 40 or 50 miles before they reach us?
Mr. Moss: I agree, but the A 11, which is a key link into his region, is being dualled. It is long overdue, but represents an important radial link from south to north.
The hon. Member for Luton, North spoke about the importance of ports such as Felixstowe and Harwich—the London gateway and east port. Luton and Stansted are the pre-eminent airports in the region. If those are to expand—and there is every sign that they will—we must focus on improving access. The hon. Gentleman spoke about congestion on the M1, and I would also mention the M11. The dual system north of Stansted airport is inadequate and long tailbacks often arise where it joins the A11. That problem should be examined immediately; we should not wait for the expansion at Stansted mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
I shall start at the macro level and later examine the micro detail, particularly with respect to my constituency in the north of the region. Six multi-modal studies on the roads have been undertaken: the London orbit, London to south midlands, London to Ipswich, Cambridge to Huntingdon, Norwich to Great Yarmouth and Norwich to Peterborough. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned the Norwich to Great Yarmouth route and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) mentioned the London to south midlands route.
Mr. Blizzard: May I put a correction on the record? The hon. Gentleman referred to the Norwich to Great Yarmouth study as multi-modal, as did the briefing paper produced by the East of England Development Agency. However, a road-based study was requested. Will the Minister explain why what was ordered as a road-based study turned out to be a multi-modal study?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) is trying to involve the Minister, but his intervention should be addressed to the Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Moss: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Winterton. I am used to being a conduit for questions that hon. Members forgot to ask the Minister when they were on their feet.
On this occasion, it would be remiss not to thank the Minister personally for his recent announcement about the Thorney bypass on the A47. It has now moved on to its next stage and I know that the Minister has taken a keen interest in it. Thorney is probably the only village on a trunk road in the United Kingdom that has not yet had a bypass. The congestion there every morning and evening is huge, so the bypass is long overdue.

39WH
The problems do not stop at Thorney. The Eye bypass, which seems almost like a three carriageway road in design terms, is only a single carriageway. Two recent fatalities have involved motorcyclists, so I ask the Minister to examine the design and configuration of the road, which is inherently dangerous. The congestion around the periphery of Peterborough due to travel-to-work traffic is also huge, so the Eye bypass should—in conformity with the original intention—be upgraded to dual carriageway. The problem is that the Department bought insufficient land to achieve that.
I want to correct the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who said that most of the A47 was dualled. In fact, most of that road in the eastern region is not dualled, even though it is a key east-west route linking Yarmouth and Lowestoft to Norwich, King's Lynn and Peterborough. A multi-modal study is being undertaken, but does the Minister know when it will be published? Can we can expect a sensible dualling programme for the whole of that road? It is presently dualled piecemeal, which leads to all sorts of problems.
Another problem that has raised its head in the eastern region is the Government's policy of detrunking some roads, including the A10 from north of Cambridge to King's Lynn and the A12 between Ipswich and Lowestoft. It is simply an excuse for the Government to offload blame for failing roads. Once the roads are detrunked, they can say that the problem is no longer theirs but one for local authorities. The only way that those roads can be improved to beat the congestion problem is for the Government to make sufficient funds available through local transport grants to county councils and other bodies—
Mr. Jamieson indicated assent.
Mr. Moss: The Minister is saying that they have, but that is not so in every case. Unless it is done, some of our historic trunk roads—they are important arterial routes—will continue to decline.
Several hon. Members have touched on the importance of the rail network in our region. In particular, I refer to the east-west rail route—the hon. Member for Bedford asked the Minister about that—and the Felixstowe and Harwich to Nuneaton freight route, which is considered by EEDA to be a high priority. The recent decisions taken by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have thrown rail investment into chaos. It will cost more to pay the companies involved in receivership than it would have cost to pay Railtrack as originally envisaged.
Why are the Government not prepared to grant long-term extensions to some of the key franchises, especially the Great North Eastern Railway, which goes through the western part of our region and I believe runs an excellent service from Peterborough to London? The service has much improved since privatisation, but investment will grind to halt if the Government are not prepared to allow a long-term extension to its franchise. Without it, no company will make the necessary investment.
40WH
Many of the important and strategic rail links in the region are not yet electrified. The section from Peterborough to March in my constituency and on to Ely and Cambridge is a priority. It is difficult to link the various services; for instance, the trains that serve Stansted airport and Liverpool cannot be electric-powered because of the gap in electrification.
Many towns and cities in the eastern region have difficulty with the Government's policy on congestion charging. Councils are closing car parks in city centres and increasing parking fees. In Ipswich, car parking costs are set to increase by a massive 43 per cent. Have the Government given any thought to the future success of many local businesses in the city centres? That policy works only if there is alternative transport into city centres—in most instances, a bus service. All too often, bus services in our region are in chaos. For example, in Suffolk in 1994–95, public transport subsidies were £630,979, but by 1999 they had risen by a measly 0.3 per cent. In the current year, the county council subsidy for local bus contracts is only £636,000.
Ipswich is particularly badly served. It has poor bus services, which are frequently the subject of letters to the local press. One local paper, the Evening Star, has run a campaign to
"solve the scandal of Suffolk's bus services".
The key problem seems to have been the withdrawal of services because of a lack of funding. One might have expected the Government, wedded as they are to the idea of public transport, to seek to do something, either directly or indirectly through the borough and county councils. However, that is not the case in Ipswich. Through the Urban Bus Challenge, Ipswich Buses recently applied for a grant to improve late-night services and to increase to every 10 minutes the frequency of an out-of-town service to a village called Whitton. That would have been a great help to commuters and would have taken cars off the road, but both proposals were turned down. Thus a local Labour-controlled borough council, with a policy on congestion charging to get cars off the road in the city centre, turned down sensible applications by a local bus service to improve quality and timing.
The problem stems from the Government's policy, set out in the Transport Act 2000, to re-establish the failed bus monopolies of the past. The Government seem to want to dictate terms to local bus services through local councils, via "quality contracts". Given that that is opposed by the bus industry and is neither popular nor welcome, it is not likely to lead to the improved services that both the Government and we would want.
Bus passenger usage is still declining in rural areas in the eastern region and the Government seem uninterested in doing anything to address that decline. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in February 2001 revealed that the Labour party's 10-year plan envisages a decline in bus services outside London.
Mr. Blizzard: Did the hon. Gentleman receive yesterday a large report from the Countryside Agency, which found that the number of parishes that now benefit from a bus service has increased markedly since the Government came to power?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me say that the Minister requires a minimum of 10 minutes to reply to the debate. I hope that interventions will now cease.
Mr. Moss: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I think that that was the third or fourth intervention by the hon. Member for Waveney, who has, I see, lost weight recently. Perhaps he has taken his bicycle or the pedestrian paths in Waveney to achieve that. I was going to wind up in any case.
We have had a useful debate and the Minister has many questions to answer of which he might manage only a small number. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North on securing the debate.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate and on putting his well-presented and carefully argued case so briefly. Brief points are often the best made. He raised a number of important issues and I shall try to address them. If I do not cover all of them, I shall write to him. Early in his speech, he welcomed the new acoustic barriers on the M1 where it passes through his constituency. I know how important that is to people in the area. He will have noted that our 10-year plan dealt with noise from motorways and other trunk roads.
Hon. Members mentioned the Milton Keynes to Hatfield light rail link. I shall discuss some of their specific points, and then deal with more general ones if there is time. As my hon. Friend knows, the light rail link is a matter for the London and south midlands multi-modal studies, which are examining east-west road and rail routes between the M25 and the Al4 and will be completed in 2002.
I noted my hon. Friend's disappointment at the delay to Thameslink 2000, which is probably shared by many in my Department. He will know, however, that the public inquiry is now complete, and we expect the inspector's report soon. We cannot second-guess what it will say, but we share my hon. Friend's optimism that the project will go ahead as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) rightly described transport as the engine of the economy and said that the region was rather rounded. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) rather unkindly referred to the rounded regions of my hon. Friend's persona. None the less, my hon. Friend made some important points, particularly about the careful balance that we must strike between the environment and transport needs, although I suspect that he erred more in one direction than the other.
My hon. Friend also mentioned a lady from Beccles, and I can assure her that congestion charging is unlikely to be imposed on small towns. He welcomed the money from the 10-year transport plan. I should tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that we are using the plan as the engine of the economy to bring prosperity and employment to areas that suffer difficulties. If it does not achieve those aims, we shall not have succeeded in our ambitions.
42WH
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) mentioned bypasses, but we receive requests for many more than funding would allow. Our general theme is improvement in the quality of people's lives, reducing congestion on roads and, sometimes, reducing noise and pollution. We take those in order of priority. The hon. Gentleman will know that, on a recent visit to the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), we examined certain improvements to, and bypasses on, the A11, to which other hon. Members have referred.
Mr. Bacon: If Thorny is the only village in the United Kingdom on a trunk road that does not have a bypass, that is only because the A140 has been detrunked, and Long Stratton, which has the A140 running through it, is still desperate for a bypass. The fact remains that congestion in Long Stratton is unacceptable, and something must be done.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman's comments are well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) welcomed some of the improvements that have been made on the east-west rail line. I assure him that we consider it important and are anxious that the matters that he raised are seriously examined. The SRA considered the scheme but felt that the economic case had not been entirely made. My hon. Friend's points were well made, however, and we shall ensure that they are conveyed forcefully to those who deliberate on the matter.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire discussed the length of franchises, which we have carefully examined. Some people have asked whether two-year franchises are long enough. We must assess the state of the infrastructure to make a realistic long-term assessment of the franchise, but that is sometimes difficult given the current circumstances. To avoid delay, therefore, we are pressing on with two-year franchises. If appropriate, there will be longer-term franchises, but there is no blueprint. Different franchises are under different pressures, so we shall follow no specific model; we shall simply consider what will deliver best in the long term for railway customers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked whether short franchises could inhibit franchisees from acquiring new rolling stock. Section 54 of the Railways Act 1993 ensures that purchased rolling stock can be moved on to a new franchisee if the company that has the franchise changes.
I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) back in debate, as he was regularly between 1992 and 1997. There was a brief interregnum at the wishes of the electorate. He bet me a tenner that he would have a bigger majority than me in 1997, but I have never collected it. Perhaps at some stage—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The Minister will agree that all Members of the House of Commons are honourable gentlemen and ladies.
Mr. Jamieson: I am sure of that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will honour his commitment. Among the many good points that he made about his

43WH
constituency was one about the Roscommon way on Canvey island. He will be aware of the Essex county council local transport plan bid, on which the decision will be announced next month.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome—perhaps he did not have time to mention it—the substantial extra funding that has come to local authorities through local transport plans. It must be welcomed by all hon. Members. In some cases, funding under local transport plans has increased two or three fold. Opposition Members do not always mention that fact when talking about their constituencies, but I keep a list in case they forget and their memories occasionally need jogging. Some of the benefits that he sees will have come from that funding, which we made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney tried to tempt me to Lowestoft. It would be my first coming to Lowestoft, but he said it would be greater than the second coming if there were a third bridge. I can think of no higher accolade than to be immortalised by the people of Lowestoft. He posed a question to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—I like my questions to go by that route, as it gives me time to think—about the road-based study for the A47, which although not multi-modal does not preclude other forms of transport such as rail.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), or at least the person who writes his speeches for him, because they always contain lots of questions. He said that I frowned at one stage, but I was doing so only because I was counting all the questions that he had piled up. He asked what we intended to deliver in the 10-year plan for the region. In broad terms, the plan will provide extra road improvements along the lines that hon. Members have mentioned, such as bypasses and dualling of roads, including the A11, which I visited recently. Some of our plans to modernise the railway system are under way. We shall cut casualties on the roads and reduce pollution. The eastern region will receive a substantial cut of the £180 billion available under the 10-year transport plan.
In a recent debate in this Chamber, the hon. Gentleman was challenged by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about Liberal Democrat plans for extra spending on transport. I would take him more seriously had he not said that there were none and that any extra money—that famous penny—would be spent on education. We like his lists, but we do not take them terribly seriously because they cannot be achieved.
I want to let the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who mentioned buses, off the hook. The date of 26 October 1986 should be firmly in his mind, because it was then that the Tory Government deregulated bus services. That was when the decline in many rural areas began. The Labour Government supplied the extra funding that is providing rural bus services.
The debate has been very wide and, as always, I have had a brief time in which to deal with the valuable points that hon. Members have made. However, I shall endeavour, in correspondence, to deal with those as necessary.

Haemophilia
12.30 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to be able to discuss the plight of haemophiliacs in the west country, particularly those who suffer from hepatitis C. Many right hon. and hon. Members have taken part in a long campaign on the issue. As a Member of Parliament for the past nine years I have also been aware of the excellent and important campaign by the Haemophilia Society. I have been in correspondence with Ministers in the Department of Health about the problems.
It was, however, in summer this year that the campaign became real for me. I was contacted, for the second time I think, by Mr. Richard Waring, who lives in Staddiscombe in my constituency. I went to see him in July and found out more about his background and what he was going through as a haemophiliac who, sadly, has hepatitis C. Richard Waring is a good, decent man. He is a committed family man, happily married to Jacqueline with a lovely daughter called Charlotte. He lives in a very nice part of my constituency—although, of course, all my constituency is wonderful.
Richard Waring had the grave misfortune to be born haemophiliac. I used to think that, if haemophiliacs were cut, it would not be possible to stop their bleeding. Of course, that can happen, but the problem primarily concerns internal bleeding, particularly internal bleeding into joints. I am no medical expert but to me that sounds painful and uncomfortable. It is not a problem that I would want. Naturally, as a result of internal bleeding, many transfusions are necessary. That is where the problems began for Mr. Waring.
Mr. Waring was born a haemophiliac. It was not his choice or his fault. Because of regular blood transfusions he had the additional, secondary misfortune in 1985 to contract hepatitis C through one of the many instances of contamination of blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. The blood was provided by the national health service, and through no fault of their own about 5.000 haemophiliacs were contaminated. Hepatitis C is a horrible disease. It attacks the liver. It is potentially life threatening. It is extremely debilitating and painful and causes consistent tiredness. That terrible disease has greatly affected the lives of Mr. Richard Waring and many other people in the west country who suffer from it.
I sought the debate because I was not only informed, but moved by Mr. Waring's plight. I believe that a real injustice is being done to people like him. I accept that it is not the present Government's fault: this debate has been going on a long time. However, it lies in their hands to remedy the injustice. My reason for introducing a debate on a matter that has been the subject of plenty of debates over the years is to ask the Government to think again.
Living in the west country is terrific, but it is not so great for haemophiliacs suffering from hepatitis C. There are four reasons for that. First, we do not have a comprehensive care centre in the west country. The nearest such centres that haemophiliacs in Mr. Waring's position can use are at Basingstoke and Oxford. That is at least three hours' travelling time. Many people in London confuse Plymouth with

45WH
Portsmouth. I sometimes drive to Plymouth via the M3 and A303, and every time I reach the edge of London I smile at the sign that says "Portsmouth 65 miles", because I know that I have another 220 miles to travel. I wonder how people can confuse Plymouth and Portsmouth, but they do, and they fail to realise how far Plymouth is from London and Bristol—from the centre of the country, in other words. It is not unusual to have to travel three or four hours to get somewhere from Plymouth, which is the last thing people need if they suffer from a debilitating disease and have to go for treatment.
There is no comprehensive care centre in the west country, but the Trent region has four such centres, based in the west midlands and the north-west and possibly even serving your constituency, Mr. Winterton. The issue was debated on 9 November last year with the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who said that he hoped that the regional commissioning group would reconsider the provision of a comprehensive care centre in the west country. My first question to the Minister is, has any progress been made on that?
The then Minister for Health acknowledged that, although no comprehensive care centre existed in the west country, hospitals at Bristol and Southampton can provide some specialist services. That is good, but not good enough. Bristol is two hours away from Plymouth and even further away from Cornwall, and getting to Southampton is also difficult. This is an important point because those centres are the places to go for routine and emergency medical treatment for people suffering from haemophilia, for drug therapy, physiotherapy and counselling, and for genetic and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis sufferers. The west country is not a good place to live if one has hepatitis C and is a haemophiliac. We need better facilities.
Secondly, the west country does not receive recombinant factor 8 on the national health service as do other parts of the United Kingdom. Recombinant factor 8, as I discovered in the summer, is a blood clotting agent prescribed on the NHS in some parts of the United Kingdom. If Mr. Waring lived in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, or elsewhere in England, he would get it free, but he does not get it free in the west country. How can that be justified?
I can cite an absurd example from the north-west. Welsh health trusts have decided that they will fund recombinant factor 8, which means that people who live to the west or south of Liverpool and happen to live in Wales can go to specialist hospitals in Liverpool and receive that product free on the national health service, whereas people living to the north or east of the city who go to the same hospital and have the same disease cannot get those blood clotting agents on the NHS. That is an extraordinary situation: it is a postcode lottery of the first order.
On 9 November 2000, the then Minister for Health said that
"the clinical case for recommending the use of recombinant clotting factors has not yet been made. Plasma-derived clotting factors have had an excellent safety record".—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 546.]
46WH
If someone is born with a serious complaint and is infected with contaminated blood products provided by the national health service, is that person not entitled to the best support and treatment that we can give? Mr. Waring is in no doubt as to the superior quality of recombinant blood agents, and the Haemophilia Society has no doubt that they are superior. The Government themselves seem to have accepted that, because they decided that from April 1998 all 16-year-old haemophiliacs must be provided with recombinant factor 8 and that from April 1999 they must be provided with factor 9, which is another recombinant blood agent. If the Government are making a tacit admission that those agents are superior because they are safer, why cannot those drugs be made available to everyone?
Mr. Waring already has hepatitis C, and he might get more diseases, such as HIV or new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, through future blood transfusions, so we should give him the best and safest products. As I have mentioned, some national health service trusts in England already do that, but sadly, not in the west country. For all its beauty and its outstanding Members of Parliament, the west country is not a good place to live if one is a haemophiliac suffering from hepatitis C. In a written answer on 10 May 2001, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said that the Department was carefully considering the case for extending provision of re-clotting factors to all haemophiliac patients in England. Has any progress been made on that issue?
My third point is brief. The Haemophilia Society is calling for a public inquiry into how, in the 1970s and 1980s, so many people were infected with contaminated blood products. Given the recent scares over new variant CJD, people who are vulnerable to contamination from blood transfusions are entitled to know that we have got to the bottom of what went wrong and that every conceivable lesson has been learnt and every possible safeguard put in place. Last year, the then Minister said that there would be no public inquiry. I understand that, but the Government should think again. I do not want to be too controversial, but if we can hold a public inquiry into the Bloody Sunday incident from 25 years ago, is it really too late to hold an inquiry into this silent scandal, which affected so many lives?
My fourth point about compensation is the most important of all. Richard Waring accepts that nothing can be done to undo the past, but the impact on his life of his unwilling contamination has been very great. It has had a serious impact on his family life and his potential to earn a reasonable income and live the kind of life to which most of us aspire. Is it really too much to ask the Government to introduce a compensation package for the relatively small number of people who are suffering in that way? When the matter was raised in the House on 9 November 2000, the then Minister said:
"Government policy remains that compensation or other financial help to patients is paid when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. The underlying principles are clear cut and independently established under common law."—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 457.]

47WH
As a lawyer, I recognise that. The relation between negligence and compensation in such action is well established. However, there are more and more exceptions to that rule. Notably, in 1987 the then Government decided that they would compensate people infected with HIV in very similar circumstances, and established the Macfarlane Trust to do that. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Government of the day did not accept legal responsibility for the fact that people had contracted HIV through blood transfusions, but seemed to accept that they had a moral responsibility to compensate people who, through no fault of their own, were given HIV. The problem may not have been the fault of the NHS—we have learned a lot more about screening blood products since then—but people suffered as a result.
If it was right to compensate HIV sufferers, why is it not right to provide a similar package for people who contracted hepatitis C in exactly the same way? Will the Minister deal specifically with that question? What possible justification can there be for treating HIV sufferers differently from those hepatitis C sufferers, given that the disease was contracted in just the same way, and the impact on a person's life can be just as great? Last week, I met some haemophiliacs at the House of Commons, as the Minister may have done. One of them told me that it would have been better if he had contracted HIV and not hepatitis C, because he would have had some financial help. It is terrible to hear someone say that. His life is in a mess as a result of contracting hepatitis C.
The Government were right in 1987 to provide financial help for HIV sufferers who had contracted the disease through blood transfusions, and they are right to talk about compensation for sufferers of new variant CJD who have acquired the disease in a similar way. Why cannot we do the same for sufferers of hepatitis C? If newspaper reports are to be believed, the Government are now considering compensation for families who witnessed the terrible events of 11 September, and who watched the planes knowing that members of their families worked in those buildings. I realise the impact that that would have had on them: one can never get over something like that. However, if the Government are prepared to consider compensation in a situation that was not their fault, why cannot they think again about the principles that apply to sufferers of hepatitis C? After all, negligence is not at issue, and litigation does not apply. Sufferers of hepatitis C are blameless. I sometimes think that we do too much for too many people who do not deserve support. Some groups of people, for whatever reason, have been overlooked. They deserve more support than they get.
It would be a popular decision if the Government were to reconsider the issue. That would be good news, not bad news. I have a petition signed by several hundred people in my constituency, who happen to know of the case and who feel strongly that the Government should put their hands in all our pockets to give more support to those who suffer in this way.
48WH
The Government have resisted claims for compensation before, and I understand that. However, the case is compelling and, inevitably, the Government will one day have to address the issue of compensation. I ask the Minister to respond as positively as she can and to think about the justice of the case. She must take whatever steps are necessary to put in place better local facilities and end the postcode lottery. She must also understand the need for an inquiry.
I am sure that the Minister's speech will be excellent and well worth hearing. However, whatever else she says, I hope that she will agree to think again about the situation of Mr. Waring and others who have suffered this injustice. I realise that Governments make decisions and run along the same track for years and years, but in this case a paradigm shift is required. I ask the Minister to think again and to come back with the welcome news for these 4,800 sufferers that the Government have seen the justice of their cause, believe that they deserve compensation and are willing to put a package in place.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I thank the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for raising this matter, and I pay tribute to him for the committed and passionate way in which he has represented the interests not only of his constituent, Mr. Waring, but of the wider group of people who, unfortunately and tragically, are in similar circumstances.
I hope to be able to deal with all the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. He may have anticipated some of my comments, and they may not take him as far as he would like to go, but I shall deal with his points separately and in some detail, so that he will understand the Government's position.
Some 7,000 people with inherited bleeding disorders are registered with haemophilia centres in the United Kingdom. Those disorders include haemophilia A, which affects one in 10,000 men, the rarer haemophilia B which affects one in 50,000 men, and the milder von Willebrand's disease, which affects one in 10,000 men and women. Haemophilia is a lifelong, painful and debilitating condition. However, modern treatments are effective and many patients can look forward to a good quality of life. Sadly, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the hon. Gentleman said, the majority of regularly treated patients with haemophilia were infected with HIV or hepatitis C before it became possible to remove those viruses from clotting factors made from human plasma. As a result, about 3,000 haemophiliacs are estimated to be living with hepatitis C 500 of whom are also infected with HIV, and most of those with HIV are also infected with hepatitis C. That co-infection may accelerate the clinical course of both disorders as well as making the haemophilia more difficult to manage. People in those circumstances face considerable medical and psychological problems over and above the ordinary problems faced by people with haemophilia.
The Government have enormous sympathy for haemophiliacs in that situation, and it is essential that the NHS is properly geared to delivering the full range of clinical and support services needed by people with haemophilia and treatment-acquired infections. Those

49WH
include routine and emergency medical treatments, drug therapies, physiotherapy, counselling, which is crucial in such circumstances, genetic services and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis. As the hon. Gentleman said, the key need is for a range of high-quality services. He is right that specialist services are provided by a network of comprehensive care centres, but there are a range of smaller haemophilia centres that help to support the existing comprehensive care centres.
All haemophilia patients who need the care provided by a comprehensive care centre should have access to one. People, especially from the south-west, often have to travel a long way to gain access to the wide range of comprehensive services. Many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have to travel to London or Oxford for that care. He rightly drew attention to the need to ensure that there is equity in the service, and that people who live in far-flung, disparate rural areas have access to as much comprehensive care as we can provide.
As the Minister with responsibility for the south-west region, I took time out in the summer to visit Plymouth, Exeter and Cornwall, and I appreciate the distances that people living in that part of the country have to travel. There is a tension between excellence and specialised services and local access throughout the country, but the problem is acute in the south-west region, which needs special attention. The Haemophilia Society has been drawing up a national service specification to inform the Government of the range of facilities that should be available to people with haemophilia and other acquired infections. The work of the Haemophilia Alliance, which comprises the Haemophilia Society and the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, is a sign of progress. People with these conditions and their medical specialists are drawing up the service specification that informs Government policy on how to put it in place.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted specialist service commissioning. The comprehensive care facilities offer extremely specialist services, and now that responsibility for commissioning is to be devolved to primary care trusts, it is necessary to ensure that they have sufficient expertise and guidance to undertake regional specialist commissioning of those highly specialised services. The issue must be kept at the top of their agenda. The development of the national service specification will ensure that the commissioning process is informed by a depth of knowledge about what the services should be like and where they should be located.
There must be enough patients to justify the provision of a comprehensive care centre in an area, and a balance has to be struck in ensuring that everyone has reasonable geographical access. However, a plan is being developed in the south-west for several haemophilia support centres rather than one, and for specialist facilities to be available in a range of centres so that within the region there will be access to the full range of facilities normally found in a comprehensive care centre. Rather than drawing provision into one geographical centre, each centre could specialise in a service. That may be a way of overcoming the problem of insufficient patients to merit a comprehensive care centre.
50WH
We must be more innovative, flexible and creative in our development of services so that they are appropriate to the needs of people in areas such as the south-west. That theme is emerging not just in haemophilia services, but in the full range of NHS services. An attempt is being made to meet the requirements of disparate areas, where transport is a real problem, by departing from set models of care and taking more flexible and innovative approaches—what might be termed hub and spoke arrangements, whereby spokes radiate out from the hub into the community, allowing people access to facilities.
On recombinant clotting factors, as the hon. Gentleman said, synthetic clotting factors have been developed in the past 10 years. The Haemophilia Society and British haemophilia doctors have actively pressed for factor 8 and factor 9 to be the treatment of choice for people with haemophilia. I understand why people want that. Recombinant products are regarded as free from the risk of transmission of as yet unknown viruses and from the theoretical risk of variant CJD. People with haemophilia are very worried about the likelihood of future risks and the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C.
The unavailability of recombinant factor products is not a matter simply of funding. Worryingly, there is a world shortage of those products. Along with the medical profession, we have been directing our energies to the management of existing products so that they are given to the people most suited to receive them. That was one of the reasons why children under 16 and new haemophiliacs were priorities for recombinant products. We are actively considering whether recombinant clotting factors should be the treatment of choice for all haemophiliacs, although that is not possible at the moment because of the world shortage, as a consequence of which some children have been temporarily switched back to the plasma-derived clotting factors. We are keen to get children back on to recombinant factors as a priority as soon as the supply of those products improves.
I am afraid that my response on compensation will be disappointing. As the hon. Gentleman said, successive Governments have considered the matter and established the principle that compensation payments are made when the NHS has done something wrong. Whether such actions fit the technical definition of negligence, the principle is that compensation is paid only when the NHS is at fault. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the issues of HIV and CJD compensation. Those cases were truly exceptional and have been considered in depth. In the late 1980s, HIV had a vast and dramatic effect: it carried huge stigma, no treatment was available and sufferers almost invariably died of AIDS-related diseases. The prognosis for people with HIV at that time was virtually nil. The circumstances were therefore exceptional, and it was in that context that the Macfarlane Trust was established and payments made. The circumstances of and background to variant CJD are also exceptional. Such circumstances do not change our long-standing policy on compensation for injuries caused by the NHS: the hon. Gentleman said that he understood the logic and reasoning behind that policy. I understand his strength of feeling on the matter, but I cannot say that there will be any change in the position.

51WH
The hon. Gentleman requested a public inquiry. I understand the strength of feeling of people infected with hepatitis C, who want to know how and why it happened. We have given careful consideration to the issue of a public inquiry, and it has been raised at numerous meetings and in correspondence. We have explored the possibility, but I am not in a position to promise a public inquiry into this matter. However, I believe that it is vital that the health services available to those with hepatitis C, HIV or haemophilia are of the highest possible quality. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to improve those services in his region. We must ensure that combination therapy is available to sufferers, that there is good local specialist commissioning and that those health services are improved.

Prisoner Rehabilitation
1 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a pleasure to be here in Westminster Hall, Mr. Winterton. This is my first time. As someone who has come blinking into the sunlight from the Whips Office, I am once again participating as a full Member. I look forward to your gentle guidance as I stumble through the procedures. I sent the Minister a copy of my speech yesterday to try to be helpful. It is also available on my website and through e-mail at Allengw @Parliament.uk. Essentially, there are three points that I should like to make. I shall make them very briefly so that the Minister can have as much time as she wishes to put her views on the record.
First, I should like the Government to outline the state of play with regard to the rehabilitation of prisoners and their proposals to improve rehabilitation. My second point, which I have already raised with the Minister, is about personal rehabilitation plans for each prisoner. The Prime Minister outlined several months ago that the hard core of recidivist prisoners have three things in common. First, they have a problem with literacy and numeracy. Secondly, they have a high propensity to drug problems. Thirdly, they have problems in their family background.
I should like the Minister to consider seriously introducing a personal prisoner plan for most prisoners—it probably would not apply to all—in which they would be set targets that they would be helped to meet. They could thus become more literate and more aware of the problems of drug abuse, and could develop the personal and emotional skills to allow them to reenter society and not to go back into prison. Prison does not work. The statistics make that clear. Our exploding prison population gives eloquent testimony to that.
Finally, I should like to refer to a scheme that does not take place in prison but which helps those who are trying to reduce prison numbers, and that is the youth offender panels. Youth offender panels have been an immense success in Nottinghamshire. I shall explain the scheme briefly. The panel consists of volunteers from the community. They meet offenders in the 10–17 age group who have pleaded guilty. The offenders bring along their parents and the victim is present. They are challenged by the volunteers about their behaviour and what they intend to do to become better citizens, so they do not need better rehabilitation in prison because they do not get to prison.
The Nottinghamshire scheme is important and I hope that it has come to my hon. Friend's attention. I would like to praise it publicly in Parliament and also, if I may, ask that people who listen to this debate participate in this valuable scheme, which helps to get young people back on the rails before they end up in prison needing expensive and serious rehabilitation.
With those brief remarks, I will leave as much time as possible to my hon. Friend the Minister. If it is appropriate and acceptable, I may intervene on occasions. Incidentally, I do not expect her to go all the way to half-past 1 if she has not been given an enormous brief to take her there.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I believe that this is the first time that I have been in the Chair in

53WH
Westminster Hall when a Member who has raised an important subject has spoken so briefly and sent his speech to the Minister prior to the debate. I can only express hope on behalf of the hon. Gentleman that the Minister will deal with the matter fully, in detail and to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction.
1.05 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): We have seen another aspect of the evolution of Parliament in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) introduced the debate. I thank him for giving me notice of the issues that he wanted to raise. I hope that his speech will appear in its entirety on his website, because I have just been told that the Parliamentary Data and Video Network is down and in total chaos. Equipment updates are causing it problems, and I hope that his speech will be restored to the web quickly, as well as our electronic services, which we desperately need.
The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the question of reducing reoffending and trying to turn the tide of increases in our prison population in past years. I am not one of those Ministers who thinks that a rising prison population is a cause for great rejoicing. Some Home Office Ministers may have thought that in the past, but I hope they do not return in the future. Clearly, we must do what we can to battle crime and ensure that those who perpetrate it are appropriately punished. The public must be protected from those who pose a danger to the society that we cherish. However, if we want to get crime rates down and have a long-standing effect, we must reduce reoffending. We must put a lot of work into rehabilitation, so that we get people, especially younger people, off the path on to which they have stumbled before they damage themselves, their families and society as a whole.
Clearly, prison has a role in rehabilitation. We want to give people the skills and motivation to rebuild their lives, so that they do not reoffend. The Prison Service, the national probation service and other groups are working hard to achieve that. They share a target of reducing the reconviction rate of those serving custodial or community sentences by 5 per cent. by April 2004 compared with the predicted rate. A substantial agenda of joint work is in hand to achieve the target, and my hon. Friend mentioned the areas on which we must focus—basic skills, drug addiction and offending behaviour. Offending behaviour may result from rage, or an inability to express anger or violence in childhood. There may be many reasons for such socially unacceptable behaviour.
We do not underestimate the problems, and we must concentrate on the hard core of people who keep reoffending. Like my hon. Friend, I praise the Nottinghamshire youth offender panel. It has been a pioneer in the establishment of a central feature of our youth justice reforms. Juvenile offenders who appear in the youth court for the first time and plead guilty can be referred to a youth offender panel comprising trained volunteers from the local community and the local youth offending team.
The panel agrees a contract with the young person, perhaps providing some structure in their lives for the first time. The contract often involves reparation to the
54WH
victim or the community for the offence. Other activities may be specified that address the offending behaviour and associated factors. If young offenders do not follow the contract, they can be returned to court for resentencing. The Nottingham project piloted and pioneered this highly successful approach. Because of its success across England and Wales, we intend to implement youth offender panels in April 2002.
I visited the youth offending teams in my own constituency and met some of the mentors. Young offenders, often for the first time in their lives, have someone who is not from officialdom or from their family who is interested in them and able to provide support and guidance as they struggle to come to terms with the change in their lives.
Mr. Allen: People in Nottinghamshire and the east midlands will be pleased to hear the Minister's strong encouragement of youth offender panels. It is often the last chance for 10 to 17-year-olds to break away from a path that leads inevitably to prison. As an aside, the volunteers on youth offender panels who help to tackle these young people's problems and get them back on the straight and narrow are the motivators, the mentors and the gold dust without whom the schemes cannot work. I hope that people reading the debate will reflect on whether they could spend some of their precious time helping out on youth offender panels, which would help young people not just in Nottingham, but throughout the UK.
Angela Eagle: I agree with those sentiments. I was struck by the degree of satisfaction enjoyed by individuals who agree to mentor young offenders. When it works, it is extraordinarily rewarding, so I would encourage those who feel that they have a contribution to make to get in touch with their local youth offending teams to offer their support.
I should like to deal with the scale of the problem of the social exclusion of offenders, to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks. The figures show that one key aspect of effective resettlement that can make reoffending less likely is getting individuals back into jobs and into stable housing conditions. That is often difficult when people leave prison. It is less easy for people who have been in prison to obtain employment.
Some figures show the scale of the problem: only 50 per cent. of prisoners have reading skills; only 30 per cent. numeracy skills; and only 20 per cent. the writing skills necessary to apply for 96 per cent. of jobs. Basic skills training, for which extra money has been provided, is the key to making the prospect of resettlement and a reduction of reoffending a reality—both for those in prison and those working with them.
My hon. Friend is right that the people who are likely to end up in prison are those who have been in care or institutionalised in other ways, which makes it difficult for them to live independently in the community. Mental health and drug-related problems and low levels of basic skills are also factors. Once those problems are taken into account, it becomes clear what we should focus the extra money that we are spending on trying to bring down levels of reoffending.
Mr. Allen: People watching or listening to the debate may say, "Here we go. The Government are being soft

55WH
on prisoners and giving them an easy time. Now we're going to teach them to read and goodness knows what else." In fact, it is very demanding for someone to tackle a drug habit, or for someone who was frightened by school and probably opted out of it to try to achieve challenging educational goals within the prison system. We can almost hear the ghosts in the distance saying that we are being soft on these people. In fact, rehabilitation is designed to keep people out of prison in future by making them better citizens and more able to look after themselves, rather than to keep recycling them through the prison system, which is very expensive. That will greatly benefit everyone who may be under threat of crime.
Angela Eagle: Clearly, if we contemplate the cost of keeping people in prison, on and off, for most of their lives, we realise that the prison system is a far more expensive option. If we can make these policies work, we will take some people out of the system. I do not want to become too philosophical, but there will always be some recidivists whom it is very difficult to rehabilitate. To some extent, we are not as interested in them as in the people whom we can help. We are trying to give those people practical opportunities. It is no good telling people that they should reform if we do not give them practical ways in which they can transform their lives.
We are investing an extra £18 million in prison education over the spending-review period, which will deliver 23,400 nationally recognised qualifications in literacy and numeracy at level 2 or higher. Last year, 12,462 qualifications were achieved. The target is for a rise to 36,000 at the end of the spending review process. That will make some people literate and numerate for the first time and therefore much more employable than before.
We are spending an extra £88 million under the Prison Service drugs strategy to ensure that we help almost 6,000 prisoners a year to enter drug rehabilitation programmes. Clearly, that will deal with some of the issues that have been raised.
We are spending an extra £16 million over the same period—2001–04—on the continued extension of independently accredited offending behaviour programmes. The number of completions is targeted to rise to almost 9,000 by the end of that period. We hope that, by focusing on the areas in which prisoners have difficulties, we will reduce the likelihood of reoffending in many thousands of cases.
We await the Social Exclusion Unit's study on reducing reoffending to provide us with further impetus in the development of our integrated inter-agency action zone resettlements. That includes an investment by the Employment Service of £1 million a year from this financial year to strengthen links with prisons. Often, the Benefits Agency does not know that a prisoner is coming out. A place to live and housing benefit claims could be sorted out before the prisoner leaves. Everyone knows the release date, but agencies have not been working together. Clearly, the prospect of reoffending rises significantly if the individual is just turned out of
56WH
prison on to the streets without support, so a place on a training course or a structure in which he can look for work is necessary.
Mr. Allen: I am sure that the Minister will deal with two important points. The first is about personalisation of a plan for the prisoner. My hon. Friend spoke about the global amounts of money that are allocated to education, drug awareness, and so on. That is welcome, but devising a personal plan is important if initiatives are to be practical and real for the individual. I would be interested in the Minister's remarks about that.
Secondly, would the Minister discuss the culture in prisons and the value of prison officers, education officers, probation officers and others who perform education and rehabilitation work? Again, I welcome the additional resources, but it is important not only that we keep prisoners under control and locked away, but that we value those who undertake education and rehabilitation work—unusual, at the moment—in the Prison Service.
Angela Eagle: Certainly. I was just about to deal with personal plans as part of a seamless sweep across the whole structure. All young offenders and those aged 21 and above who are serving sentences of at least a year are subject to arrangements for sentence planning and post-release supervision, which involve the probation service and youth offending teams. Such arrangements include joint action to tackle offending behaviour problems, and address practical issues such as employment and accommodation. Post-release supervision follows up and reinforces the work that is done in prison.
However, short-sentence prisoners—those who are serving under a year—may, depending on whether they were on remand, end up in prison for less than three months, and certainly no more than six months, by the time sentence has been passed. That is not always enough time to get to grip with their problems.
The recent Halliday report proposed a framework for short-sentence prisoners. It suggested a new sentence of custody plus, which would involve a substantial amount of custody planning and post-release supervision for those serving short custodial sentences. The number of such prisoners is a significant proportion of the overall figure, and we are considering how to deal with them in light of the Halliday proposals, the consultation and the responses that we have received. We must get to grips with that issue.
In my time in government, I have often had to tackle cultures in institutions. Closed institutions such as prisons have a stronger sense of their own culture than organisations that are more open. Despite the large increase in prison numbers, we have managed to maintain the 24 hours a week average that prisoners spend on purposeful activities. That average is not as large as I would personally like but, given the rapidly increasing numbers of prisoners, our commitment is shown by the fact that the amount of activity that is arranged for individuals has not fallen. In allocating extra resources for education, we must maintain the focus on ensuring that prisoners spend their time in a purposeful and useful way, which increases their chances of being able to avoid reoffending after they leave.

57WH
If my hon. Friend wants me to praise those who educate people in prison, I certainly will; if he wants me to say something about their salaries, that might be a bit harder. We obviously value those who carry out that work, because we want to give prisoners a chance to reform.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend is extremely generous in giving way again. Sentence remission is often automatic in personal plans. If prisoners behave themselves and keep their noses clean, they may get a third off their sentence. Will the Minister consider linking personal achievement to remission? A prisoner may have worked damned hard with courage and determination to achieve a low level of literacy, or broken a long-standing drug habit. It may also be linked to the prisoner's category, so that people can claw their way to a better life and have that achievement recognised while in prison.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before the Minister replies, may I say that I allowed the hon. Member for Nottingham, North long interventions because he was brief in his opening remarks? I hope that that does not set a precedent.
Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend's idea is interesting and I will regard it as a submission to the Halliday review. I will ensure that that goes back to my ministerial colleagues and those who are considering our response to the Halliday review, because we want to encourage positive behaviour, and what he said was logical. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue.
The Government are investing in public services, but they are also reforming and developing them so that the money is used well. The Prison Service is part of that programme, and focusing on reducing offending behaviour is a more efficient use of money than putting people into prison, locking the door and throwing away the key. As long as the public are protected, it is cheaper to reform offenders and reduce reoffending.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend seems to be ending her remarks. This subject is so important for people in our constituencies. It is important to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who are both present, and to all of us, that we crack the problem. When people are arrested, it must not be the first occasion of many on which they go to prison, but the first occasion that enables us to prevent them from going to prison again.
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for her positive response, and you, Mr. Winterton, and the staff of Westminster Hall, for helping a novice through his first debate here.
Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend has raised an important matter. Unless we tackle reoffending, we will not reduce crime levels and maintain that reduction. The number of ex-prisoners who reoffend is a large percentage of those committing crime. If we crack that problem, we will see a sea change in the crime figures, which we are all working to achieve. Despite some early signs of success, I would not underestimate the problems. Already 12,500 prisoners have achieved level 2 literacy and numeracy qualifications. We have also promoted random drug testing, and the number of those who tested positive fell from 24.5 per cent in 1996–97 to 12 per cent. Drug use in prison has reduced dramatically. The number of completions of accredited offending behaviour programmes rose from 1,373 in 1996 to nearly 6,000 in 2001. We are on the right track. It is a difficult issue, and we have to focus our resources, our creativity and our attention on it. I hope that we shall succeed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): It has been a different debate—one might almost say unique. We now come to the final debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), on the traditional medicines directive—a subject in which the hon. Gentleman has been involved for a long time.

Traditional Medicines Directive
1.30 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Winterton, for that kind introduction. I cannot say that I have caught your eye—we all know that these debates are balloted—but I am grateful to have this opportunity to debate such a vital issue at this important time. It is also a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), in her place.
Many herbal products are sold in the United Kingdom under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 as medicines not requiring a product licence. Those products are regarded by some regulators as technically illegal under European Union law, but I shall not go down that route today. The proposal for a traditional medicines directive would allow a product licence to be given to herbal medicines without proof of efficacy, provided that they are safe, have been traditionally used for 30 years—the current proposal suggests that at least 15 of those years must have been in Europe—and that they are produced to good manufacturing practice standards.
I suggest that regulation on the subject should aim to establish a new system that provides the consumer with assurance on the safety and quality of the products that they purchase, and enables information on the purpose of the products to be given. However, individuals and organisations in the UK, including the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the European Herbal Practitioners Association and the Consumers for Health Choice—umbrella bodies that represent many interests—are concerned that the directive no longer does what it set out to do.
The problem is that, as the directive has developed, it has changed direction. Its criteria now rule out many safe and popular products that are on the market. That leaves many products in limbo, because although they are regarded as medicines they are unable to meet the criteria for registration. The consequence will be that many valued products will be removed from the market and thus denied to the consumers who wish to use them.
The traditional medicines directive is now in its third informal draft. The first formal draft is due to be published by the Commission soon. If the Minister is to act, it is vital that she does so speedily. The title of the latest draft is significantly different. What earlier drafts called the "directive on traditional medicinal products" is now entitled the "directive on traditional herbal medicinal products". Thus the new directive will not accommodate those traditional medicines derived from mineral or animal sources. Traditional medicines from India, China, Pakistan and Tibet that use natural products of animal or mineral origin will therefore have no place—especially if we do not use them now. That does not seem to be a scientific decision, and the Commission needs to redraft the directive so that it can include traditionally used medicinal products of non-plant origins. The decision whether to include such products should be taken on scientific grounds alone.
The directive has become very Eurocentric. In its present form, it runs the risk of being branded Eurocentric because it will prevent a full range of
60WH
traditional medicinal products from ancient medical traditions—Chinese and ayurvedic—from being placed on the European market.
Another problem is that there must be evidence of usage for 30 years, of which 15 must have been in the European Union. Furthermore, many companies have gone out of business or changed hands, and many new companies marketing old products have not been around for 15 years, let alone 30. That problem will be overcome if we apply that qualification not so much to the product but to the active ingredients—the constituents of the product.
Thirty years is a long time, so it will be difficult for manufacturers to meet that requirement. As a result, it will be impossible for other traditional medicines to enter the United Kingdom market, as they will not qualify under the 15-year rule. I fear that many traditional products—we may not know about some of them—will be blocked, which is highly unsatisfactory. As drafted, the directive applies to traditional products. The industry's view is that it should refer to traditional ingredients because, although data will support a long history of use of ingredients, they are less likely to be available for products. There are also concerns that the directive is drafted in such a way that it could not be used to register products from non-EU traditions.
Although the current draft is called the "traditional medicinal products directive", its scope will probably be restricted to herbals. I cannot see what else could happen. At a stroke, that would make the many products that combined herbals with food nutrients ineligible and would rule out many important and popular combinations produced in traditional Chinese and ayurvedic medicine.
There are concerns that the standards proposed for registration under the directive will be too difficult for manufacturers to meet. That issue needs to be addressed, as there will be serious problems if the industry simply gives up trying to register products that are already saleable.
The directive should be a major step forward, but it no longer looks as though it will help. Indeed, it now seems to threaten many herbal remedies. It would require natural herbal medicines to comply with strict pharmaceutical testing procedures that are completely inappropriate for such naturally occurring substances. Especially at risk are blends of herbs with vitamins and minerals, which the Medicines Control Agency argues should be classed as medicines requiring a full licence if the herbal ingredient is at therapeutic levels.
One expert said to me in a written submission:
"What is needed with regard to regulation in this area is either a Directive that can be used by a broad range of unlicensed products currently on the market or, if EU agreement for this cannot be achieved, appropriate national rules for products unable to achieve EU registrations."
If such a measure could not be implemented, the effects on industry in terms of employment, survival and growth, and on the consumer in terms of restriction of choice, would be extremely serious.
Another expert told me:
"As the Commission is likely to press ahead rapidly with this revised draft, it is essential that trade associations and companies fully appreciate its possible consequences. It is unlikely to have any significant benefit for firms in a large number of EU countries,

61WH
and it could have a serious effect on the market in those countries currently enjoying relative freedom for the sale of herbal products."
If ever there was an amber light for a Minister, and if ever a Back Bencher fired a Verey light to alert the Government to a problem, surely this is it.
You were generous in your remarks, Mr. Winterton, about the interest that I have shown in the subject in the House during the past almost 15 years. I warn the Minister to take great note of what I say, as the subject is worrying.
The consultation exercise by the Medicines Control Agency on a proposal to extend the list of potent or toxic ingredients that are not permitted in unlicensed herbal medicines has an indirect bearing on the directive. We need to educate the Department and the agency on the fundamentals of Chinese medicine. It works by combining as many as 15 herbs. It is nonsense to test one herb to see whether it is safe, because others are often included in a recipe to counteract side effects. It is meaningless to test in isolation a herb that is part of a prescription. I gather from one source that formulating
"various herbs into a recipe is the essential way to treat diseases in clinical practice of Chinese herbal medicine."
Usually, between four and 15 herbs are used. Practitioners believe that it is fortunate that their ancestors have left them so many effective formulae, which have been tested over thousands of years in clinical practice. Doctors in this country have been regulated for more than 100 hundred years, but Chinese medicine is based on thousands of years of experience. When people say that there is no evidence to support such remedies, I ask, "What about the anecdotal evidence?" Are we so misguided as to adopt an imperious, if not imperial, attitude towards countries that have used such remedies for such a long time?
Why must herbs be used together to treat a disease? A single herb usually cannot resolve a complex disease, so to do so Chinese medicine must combine several herbs with similar or different therapeutic effects. The basic principles behind combining herbs are co-ordination and mutual restriction. In co-ordination, two or more herbs with similar therapeutic functions or two or more herbs with different therapeutic functions are combined to strengthen their curative effects. Mutual restriction is quite technical, but important. It means that one herb inhibits or relieves the side effects or toxicity of another. Combining herbs is, therefore, the art of selecting two or more herbs with a clinical purpose that is the crux of the matter. Mutual restriction means that one herb can inhibit or relieve the side effects or toxicity of another, but well-known Chinese herbs that should be used only as part of specific combinations are now being taken off the market in Britain, and will be taken off elsewhere in Europe, too. A senior Chinese practitioner told me last week, "David, it is so sad. It is a disaster for us. We simply cannot treat some conditions. The Medicines Control Agency foolishly banned substances on the ground that they were toxic if used on their own. But they are not toxic if used as we use them."
Traditionally, there are four methods of combining herbs in Chinese medicine. It is a pity that the Minister is not a former Whip because the language involved might have appealed to her. Generally, practitioners talk of using a chief herb, a deputy chief herb, an assistant herb
62WH
and an envoy to achieve curative results. That would go down well in the Whips Office, where there is a Chief Whip and a deputy. The chief herb is used to produce the leading effects in treating the cause. The deputy herb has two purposes: first, it helps the chief, just as the deputy does in the Whips Office; and, secondly, it is used to produce the leading effects in the treatment.
The assistant herb strengthens the therapeutic effects of the chief and deputy herbs, and treats less important symptoms by itself. It is also used to prevent the possible toxic side effects of the chief and deputy chief herbs—the very side effects for which the MCA has banned these herbs. Finally, the assistant may possess opposite properties to those of the chief herb, and may be used to deal with possible adverse reactions in serious cases where the herbal tea has too potent an effect.
The fourth constituent is the envoy, which we do not have in the Whips Office, although there are perhaps such things in the diplomatic service. The envoy herb works in two ways, as the medicinal guide and as the conductor. As the guide, it leads the other herbs in the formula—the chief, the deputy and the assistant—to the affected parts of the body. As the conductor, it harmonises them, co-ordinating the effects of the various herbs. I do not think that anybody on the expert panels—except, perhaps, one person—is capable of making such assessments, and that is a fundamental problem.
The easy way out is to say that all the herbs should be tested on their own. However, as I hope that I have shown by giving the House the benefit of this briefing from one of the leading Chinese medical institutions, that policy is nonsense and must be looked at again. I have been through the problems that we face with the medicines control directive, not least because it has been renamed, because the 30-year period is beyond reason, and because if we do not address the issue now, products will be removed from the shelves in many shops and pharmacies across the country at a time of public demand for greater access to them. The blame will lie fairly and squarely at the door of the hon. Lady and the Government.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for having raised the important matter of the proposed European directive on traditional medicines. This is an opportune time for the debate because we are expecting the European Commission to make formal proposals. As the hon. Gentleman said, several unofficial drafts of the directive have already been issued.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Gentleman. I have not been in the House for 15 years, but I am aware that he has raised such issues regularly and he brings to the subject great knowledge and expertise. I have learned some things today that I was not aware of before the debate. I should also like to record our appreciation of the helpful contribution of the many herbalists, manufacturers and people involved in the industry to the preparation of the directive. It is important for us in the Department of Health to look outwards to the industry, to consumers and to the range of people with direct experience of how medicines work.

63WH
There has been a constructive dialogue between the industry and consumers and the Medicines Control Agency. I understand that there are tensions, but it is important for dialogue to continue, otherwise we shall be operating in isolation from each other. I hope that today's debate will contribute to the effort to identify both the weaknesses of existing arrangements for regulation and what might be done to improve the regulatory framework for herbal medicines. As a result of the dialogue, and of the information that we have, the UK has been able to play a prominent role among member states in arguing the case for the reform of European law to provide a secure regulatory home for traditional herbal medicines.
It is widely acknowledged that the current, unlicensed system is a very weak legal basis for regulation, and there has been a search for a more secure regulatory framework. To give a simple example of the problem, a consumer might find two apparently similar, unlicensed herbal remedies at a local health store. One might be made to high standards, following good manufacturing practice, and the other might be a low-quality product. However, the consumer has no way of knowing which is which. Product information can vary widely between two apparently similar products. The consumer cannot tell which is the more reliable and effective product.
The hon. Gentleman gave examples of unlicensed herbal medicines that contain products that pose a risk to public health. The Government must be mindful of striking the right balance and ensuring that the public are protected. By implication, he mentioned the ingredient aristolochia, a toxic herbal ingredient used in traditional Chinese medicine. It has been known to cause renal failure and cancer. I understand that there is documented evidence of that. It has happened not just here but elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, in China.
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister makes a valid point. That ingredient was over-prescribed in Belgium, but one case does not necessarily make good law. The Minister must consider my explanation, which described how proper Chinese practitioners often use ingredients that can be toxic in one situation but are beneficial in another. That is the real issue.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman's explanation about the chief, the deputy, the assistant and the envoy gives a clear picture of the complex interaction of herbs, and I understand his point. However, the Government have a responsibility, when serious public health issues arise, to protect the public from toxic ingredients. I expect that the hon. Gentleman would accept that.
Another example of what I am concerned about involved Chinese skin creams that were found to contain prescription-only steroids. That is a serious matter. They were being used on children, and I do not think that any hon. Members would want such a state of affairs. I do not say that that is typical, but cases arise in which the Government need to take action.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the traditional Chinese medicine sector will have every opportunity to contribute to discussions about the ingredients that should be licensed and regulated. There is no intention
64WH
of making the process exclusive, and one in which the Medicines Control Agency adopts a "we know best" attitude and imposes its views. We want to be inclusive and to consult people, because we want to reach the right result. That is the most important thing for the public, including people who want access to traditional herbal medicines.
The directive is being developed to provide a secure regulatory framework, so that consumers can be assured on quality, safety and a history of use. Those factors will enable them to have trust and faith in a product, and reassure them that it is not completely untested and undependable. We are keen to ensure that people representing all the traditional sectors are represented in our consultations. Responsible herbalists are concerned that proper standards should be built into the system. For the sake of their reputations and the conduct of their business, they want standards to be raised to enable the public to depend on the products in question.
We have three main aims. We want the public to have continued access to a wide range of safe, good quality, traditional herbal remedies, we want consumers to receive systematic information to enable them to take the right decisions; and we want the regulatory framework to be established, so that we can safeguard the long-term future of various herbal traditions, which are greatly valued by many people. We should not underestimate that.
As to the requirement for 30 years of traditional use, the United Kingdom has pressed strongly for account to be taken of use outside the European Union as well as within it. Remedies must be safe and meet the normal quality standards, and people need information about them, but it is important to draw on the experience of other cultures and the use of herbs outside Europe. I understand that some European countries have good, well-documented histories of traditional use. In France and Germany there is a good base of information on which we should be able to draw.
We also want to ensure that as well as traditional Chinese medicines, ayurvedic medicines, which, I understand, originated in India, should be available. The idea is to find the right balance and, without compromising on safety or quality, to permit access to a wide range of traditional remedies that might help people to improve their health.
We are aware that many people in the industry would like the directive to extend further than it does at present. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of combinations of herbal and non-herbal items. The difficulty is that consensus across the European Union about extending the directive to cover that would be unlikely. Our prime objective is to find a safe regulatory framework for traditional herbal medicines. Combination products cannot be sold as an unlicensed medicine, although many can be sold as a food if they contain vitamin and mineral supplements, and we should ensure that they can continue to be sold in that way. However, we should focus on what we can achieve within the confines of the directive, which has widespread support, although I accept the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tredinnick: What the hon. Lady says will be reassuring if combination medicines can be sold under existing legislation. If she can assure us that that is the case, she will remove many of the concerns expressed by the representative groups.
Ms Blears: Some of the combination products can be sold as foods under the legislation, as I said, and that position will continue. I can also give an assurance that, as the Commission's proposals proceed, the Medicines Control Agency will continue to consult the herbal sector. Last week, a useful meeting took place with representatives from the industry's herbal registration forum. We have established a group considering specifically ethnic medicines, and we also have an ethnic medicines forum. Plenty of discussion and consultation is taking place, which is key to getting the maximum benefit from the directive to secure the future of traditional herbal remedies in this country. People rely on those remedies and value them for improving their health.
There should be many more such meetings, which will help to inform our negotiating position when we go to Europe, and will enable us to speak from a position of strength, based on evidence in the field. We look forward to keeping in regular contact with those groups.
We are cautiously optimistic that the directive and the proposals will achieve the objectives that we have set for safety, quality, information and a good regulatory framework. Many in the herbal sector have been hoping for such an approach for a long time. Those operators who fail to operate systematic quality standards will have to raise their sights considerably to meet the requirements of the new scheme, which is good because it will bring consistency into the industry. Consumers will be able to rely on the quality of the products that they are purchasing, which will benefit the public and the many responsible operators. It will make for a good regulatory framework, and could lead to greater
66WH
stability in the industry and increased public confidence in the products on offer. The industry has little to fear because setting up a proper regulatory framework will mean that the products have a standard of guaranteed quality on which people can rely. We should take the best scientific advice that we can find.
The hon. Member for Bosworth raised interesting issues about the combination in which some products are provided. I undertake to do more work on those issues, because it is important that we consider matters not only in isolation but across the piece. I will take those issues away with me for consideration, and acquire some further information.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister also consider the proposed 30-year role, which may restrict the number of companies that can register their products?
Ms Blears: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the 30-year rule, but persuading Europe that 30 years is not an appropriate period may be difficult, to say the least, so we must consider what we can reasonably hope to achieve. A 15-year rule exists for use in the European Union, and there is a possibility of looking outside the European Union to make up for the 30-year rule. Trying to make the period shorter than that would pose severe difficulties, especially in achieving a consensus on the directive across Europe. It is difficult to achieve consensus within the European Union, but we are anxious to do so in the interests of consumers, the public and the industry to ensure that quality products are available on which people can rely for their traditional value. We must provide a good regulatory framework to sustain products that have been of such great benefit to so many people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal (Equal Value Pay Claim)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the agreement reached between her Department and the National Union of Mineworkers in April on the equal value pay claim of ex-British Coal women workers; and if she will make a statement. [16093]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the letter of the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) of 23 April to the President of the National Union of Mineworkers setting out the details of the agreement reached on 9 April.

  Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce targets for reducing the number of regulations issued by her Department over the next four years and for consequent financial savings. [14430]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI keeps the regulations for which it is responsible under constant review and welcomes the comments of stakeholders on them. There are no plans to introduce numerical targets for the reduction of regulations.

  The Government's policy is to regulate only when necessary, ensuring that regulations are fair and effective, so that they protect the vulnerable but do not stifle competitiveness or productivity. New processes including the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 give us powerful tools to help cut down over-complex, overlapping and over-burdensome regulatory regimes.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked all Whitehall Departments to identify by the end of this year areas of legislation that are ripe for reform under the Act and other procedures. A Government-wide action plan will then be published containing firm commitments to specific reforms and initiatives which will aid both businesses and the public sector.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations were introduced by her Department in each year since May 1997. [14428]

  Ms Hewitt
  Figures for the number of statutory instruments introduced each year are as follows (year from 1 April in each case, save 1997, where the figures run from May 1997 to 31 March 1998):

  1997–98: 76 regulations

  1998–99: 112 regulations

  1999–2000: 172 regulations

  162W

  2000–01: 127 regulations

  2001 to date: 43 regulations.

  Of these 530 regulations, we estimate that 9 per cent. reduced costs borne by businesses, charities and voluntary bodies, while over 75 per cent. had little or no effect on costs for businesses, voluntary bodies, and charities. Over 30 per cent. of all the regulations introduced by DTI since May 1997 have been orders licensing firms to provide public telecommunications services, increasing consumer choice and competition in this sector.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments (Compliance Cost Assessments for measures introduced before August 1998) have been completed in respect of all measures imposing or reducing costs and placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [12260]

  Ms Hewitt
  For expenditure on information literature, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1225W. Expenditure on advertising, excluding VAT through the COI has been as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  1,086,410

  1996–97

  3,087,350

  1997–98

  2,475,705

  1998–99

  14,154,738

  1999–2000

  12,620,476

  2000–01

  12,159,710

  Expenditure on campaign materials is not held centrally.

  Euro
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funds are available from the(a) EU and (b) UK Government to compensate the (i) industrial and (ii) service sector in Britain for losses caused by the weakness of the euro; and how much has been paid, by industry and service, for each of the last three periods for which figures are available. [15402]

  Ms Hewitt
  No such funds are available from either Her Majesty's Government or the EU. No payments have therefore been made.

  Equal Pay
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to encourage employers and trade unions to work in partnership to achieve equal pay. [15727]

  Alan Johnson
  The pay gap is now 18 per cent. for full-time hourly earnings. This has halved from 37 per cent. since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act in 1970 and is the smallest gap recorded, but is still far too high.
  163W
  We have announced extra funding for the Equal Opportunities Commission to prepare a model for voluntary pay reviews and will encourage employers and trade unions to take up this and other tools. To encourage partnership working generally between employers and trade unions, the Government have several initiatives including the Partnership at Work Fund. Applications for grant are currently being sought and could include projects looking to use partnerships to achieve equal pay.

  More generally, the Government are taking a range of actions to improve the operation of the labour market and, in doing so, the position of women. For example, about 900,000 women have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage in 1999, and this measure has helped to reduce the pay gap by over one percentage point. The Employment Bill placed before Parliament earlier this month provides for equal pay questionnaires and improved maternity rights, and the Government have accepted each of the recommendations made by the Work and Parents Taskforce on how a duty can be placed on employers to consider seriously requests from parents of young children to work flexibly.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the purchase price paid by BNFL for each of the companies acquired in the US since 1990 was. [14862]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL has informed me that BNFL Business Group has purchased five companies in the US since 1990:

  January 1995—Pajarito Scientific Corporation (now BNFL Instruments Inc.) for £3 million;

  December 1997—Manufacturing Sciences Corporation for £2 million;

  March 1998—Sierra Nuclear Corporation for £2 million;

  March 1999—Westinghouse Electric Company LLC for £607 million; and

  April 2000—nuclear power business of ABB for £291 million.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual throughput capacity is of the Sellafield MOX plant; and what the original design capacity was. [14860]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is commercially sensitive information.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the final cost of the Sellafield MOX plant constructed by BNFL was. [14861]

  Mr. Wilson
  In BNFL's latest published annual report and accounts SMP is identified as a tangible asset in the course of construction with a carrying value of £462 million. This value was based on the assumption that there would be a positive decision on justification of the manufacture of MOX and that plutonium commissioning of the plant would proceed.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) profit and (b) loss of BNFL Inc has been in each year since the company was established. [14863]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a commercial matter for BNFL.
  164W
  As a US subsidiary BNFL Inc is not required to report annual profit and loss details as is required by BNFL plc in the UK. BNFL Inc is part of BNFL plc's Nuclear Clean Up and Decommissioning Business Group for which segmental information is published in BNFL's annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value is of overseas contracts won by BNFL since 1990 for(a) reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, (b) shipping spent nuclear, vitrified waste and MOX fuel and (c) manufacturing MOX fuel. [14864]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a commercial matter for BNFL. Information about the financial performance of BNFL's spent fuel management business can be found in the company's annual report and accounts.

  Atomic Energy Police Force
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Atomic Energy police have(a) transferred to the police service and (b) been made redundant in each of the last three years; and what plans she has to merge the Atomic Energy police force and the MOD police force. [15162]

  Mr. Wilson
  Eight officers resigned from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) constabulary to take up appointment in other police forces in the last three years and four in the calendar year 2001 so far, two in 2000 and two in 1999. No officers have been made redundant over this period. The Quinquennial Review of UKAEA has considered a range of options for the future of the UKAEA constabulary including options involving working more closely with the MOD police force. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of operating the Atomic Energy police force in the last 12 months; and how many Atomic Energy police officers are employed. [15160]

  Mr. Wilson
  The cost of operating the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary for the financial year 2000–01 was £21.1 million. There are currently 515 officers employed in the force.

  Financial Assistance (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) financial investment and (b) other assistance the North West Regional Development Agency has put into Blackpool, North and Fleetwood in each of the last three years. [16057]

  Alan Johnson
  The North West Development Agency is not able to provide the information in precisely the form requested as the Blackpool Challenge Partnership, which handles the Agency's Single Regeneration Budget investment in the town, cuts across constituency boundaries. During the last three years, investment in Blackpool via the Partnership has been as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  1998–99

  3.9

  1999–2000

  3.9

  2000–01

  3.2

  165W
  Investment for 2001–02 will be approximately £3.3 million.

  In addition, investment in Fleetwood has been as follows:

  £ thousands

  Year

  1998–99

  514

  1999–2000

  410

  2000–01

  314

  Investment for 2001–02 will be approximately £1.1 million.

  The Agency works closely with the borough councils in Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, and with other public and private sector partners, to provide advice and guidance on economic development and regeneration issues.

  Unsolicited Marketing Material
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to prevent the practice by companies of sending unsolicited marketing material by fax to(a) businesses and (b) individuals. [16449]

  Mr. Alexander
  Arrangements for preventing the sending of unsolicited marketing material by fax to individuals are already in place. The Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 ban the sending of unsolicited marketing faxes to private individuals and sole traders in the UK, as well as to partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The Regulations also establish an "opt-out" scheme—The Fax Preference Service (FPS)—for corporate subscribers who do not wish to receive such faxes.

  Departmental Spending (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, in real terms, for each year since 1979(a) the total sums of money spent directly by her Department in Scotland and (b) the total sums of money allocated by her Department for spending in Scotland through (i) the Scottish Office, (ii) the Scotland Office and (iii) the Scottish Executive. [16183]

  Alan Johnson
  Public expenditure information by territory and function is available in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 (Cm 5101) for the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000, and earlier years are available in previous PESA publications (copies of which are in the Library of the House). Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Executive
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13820]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will discuss with the Chairman of Consignia the impact on(a) rural and (b) other local sub-post offices of the sale by major retailers of postage stamps at a discount to their face value; and if she will make a statement. [15472]

  Mr. Alexander
  Operational issues such as these are a matter for Consignia from whom I understand that, in addition to the post office network, over 65,000 retail outlets sell stamps. While stamps cannot be sold above their retail price, there is no restriction preventing retailers from selling stamps at less than face value.

  Scottish Consumer Council
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made since 1999 of the effectiveness of the Scottish Consumer Council. [15548]

  Ms Hewitt
  The National Consumer Council regularly monitors the performance of the SCC to ensure that it meets its performance and work-related objectives. The SCC, in its annual report, includes a report on its activities and how well it has achieved its objectives.

  In 1999 the Department carried out a thorough review of the role, objectives and performance of the NCC and its country committees, including the SCC. This was followed in late 2000 by a Governance review (completed early 2001) of the NCC. This review recommended changes to the NCC board and as a result a new board was appointed as of 1 October.

  Textile Industry (World Trade Conference)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the textile sector on the WTO talks. [16084]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the Director General of the British Apparel and Textiles Confederation and the General Secretary of the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades on 19 October. The forthcoming Fourth WTO Ministerial meeting in Doha was among the issues discussed.

  State Subsidies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated, broken down(a) by member state and (b) by industry, on state subsidies currently authorised by the European Commission (i) annually and (ii) for the current year. [14795]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested can be found on the European Commission website www.europa.eu.int. The website has the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Surveys on State Aid in the European Union. Copies of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th surveys are already in the Libraries of the Houses. A copy of the 9th survey, which has recently issued and covers 1998–99, will also be placed in the Libraries of the Houses. The Commission is at present collating figures for 2000–01.

  Utilities Act
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many statutory instruments have been laid before Parliament; and what ministerial guidance notes have been issued to implement the commitment in the Utilities Act 2000 on energy supplies from renewables. [15644]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under section 67 of the Utilities Act 2000 the following statutory instruments (SIs) have been made:

  The Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources Saving Arrangements Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/2727)

  The Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources Saving Arrangements (Amendment) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3268)

  The Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Scotland) Saving Arrangements Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3269 (S.17)).

  These SIs ensure the preservation of arrangements which were made under section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 to secure the availability of capacity from non-fossil fuel sources. It was necessary to take such measures on the coming into effect of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements and on the splitting of Public Electricity Suppliers into separate supply and distribution companies.

  Ministerial guidance notes have not been issued on these SIs, but they are accompanied by any necessary explanatory notes.

  It is proposed that further SIs will be made under section 62 of the Utilities Act 2000 in order to introduce the Renewables Obligation. Drafts of those SIs have recently been put out to statutory consultation and the Department is in the process of considering the responses given.

  It is also proposed to make a further SI under section 67 of the Utilities Act 2000 in order to permit locational flexibility for certain NFFO projects. A draft of this proposed SI is out for informal consultation.

  Renewable Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in the(a) development of and (b) support for thin film solar photovoltaic renewable energy technology. [15573]

  Mr. Wilson
  Thin film photovoltaic technology (largely amorphous silicon) currently accounts for about 20 per cent. of total world shipments of all PV products but its market share is increasing. Several countries and companies are investing heavily in research into and development of existing and new thin film technologies. Although thin film modules and tiles tend to be less efficient than the more established crystalline silicon products, they have the potential to be much cheaper, because they are more suited to automated processing and use much less of the basic PV material, such as silicon.

  In the UK, the Government have supported a number of research and development projects for thin film technologies, including several large projects with the UK's only thin film cell producer. The DTI is also supporting the deployment of thin film products under its Domestic Field Trials, and the recently announced Large Scale Field Trial for Public Buildings will be open to all PV technologies. Budgets for these trials amount to some £8.4 million. In addition to this the Government have
  168W
  allocated £20 million to the first phase of a major PV demonstration programme over the next two to three years.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in(a) decommissioning redundant facilities and (b) decontamination of radioactively polluted land at the Dounreay nuclear site. [15580]

  Mr. Wilson
  Dounreay is being decommissioned. In October 2000 UKAEA published the Dounreay Site Restoration Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for restoring the site. Most of the radioactive hazards will be removed over the next 25 years. The plan is available on the UKAEA website (http://www.ukaea.org.uk/sites/dounreay/rplan.htm).

  Work is currently in progress on the Prototype Fast Reactor, the Dounreay Fast Reactor and redundant plants within the Fuel Cycle Area. New and upgraded facilities have also been commissioned for the management of wastes and discharges.

  The programme includes the decontamination of areas of land where low levels of radioactive contamination has occurred in the past. The majority of identified areas have already been decontaminated.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in decommissioning the Windscale plutonium production piles at Sellafield; and what is her estimate of the cost of decommissioning these piles. [15579]

  Mr. Wilson
  Both Piles are in a safe, stable condition and pose no threat to the public or the environment.

  Progress on decommissioning the Pile 1 and Pile 2 reactors is as follows:

  The air and water ducts of Pile 1 have been cleared and a contract for dismantling the core of the reactor for treatment and storage was awarded to a consortium in 1997. A comprehensive technical review is currently in progress to ensure that the project arrangements are robust before proceeding. Pile 2 is currently in safe care and maintenance pending decommissioning at a later stage.

  UKAEA's detailed cost estimates for decommissioning both Piles will be completed when the plans for their removal are finalised.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a decision will be made on how many customers the Universal Bank should serve. [10129]

  Mr. Alexander
  Our policy is to encourage benefit recipients to use the accounts that will best meet their needs. This matter is being considered further within the context of an overall migration and marketing strategy on which detailed work is in progress.

  No-fly Zones
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the establishment of no-fly zones around nuclear power stations. [13474]
  169W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: My officials and I have received a number of representations from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, from the public, and from the nuclear industry. On 2 November, British Energy contacted my officials to raise concern about a recent number of flights over its nuclear power stations. In response to the concerns expressed, the system of flying restrictions over nuclear installations has now been extended to apply to all nuclear power plants with immediate effect. Restrictions were already in place for a number of nuclear installations.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of Fair Trade goods. [15215]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development has stated, it is Government policy to promote fair trade products, subject of course to the need to obtain best value for money from public funds. In my own Department, for example, our caterers provide fair trade beverages.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what provision will be made to protect SMEs which are unable to pay the aggregates levy; [16088]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the ability of SMEs to fund the aggregates levy; [16087]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the effect of the aggregates levy on small and medium-sized companies. [16086]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the levy was published as part of Budget 2000. The aggregates levy will be payable only by those who commercially exploit aggregate.

DEFENCE

  Operation Enduring Freedom
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 114W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), on Operation Enduring Freedom, when he will place a copy of his letter in the Library. [15241]

  Mr. Hoon
  I expect to provide the information requested in due course.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many appointments he has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in his gift. [15487]
  170W
  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include numbers of appointments at 31 March 2001, will be published around the end of the year.

  Since the current edition of "Public Bodies" was published, the War Pensions Agency (and its 14 public bodies) has transferred to the Ministry of Defence, and we have re-classified two existing committees as non-departmental public bodies (the Nuclear Research Advisory Committee and the Advisory Group on Medical Countermeasures). As a result, MOD currently sponsors 33 non-departmental public bodies, with a total of 423 public appointments. Since 7 June 2001, 31 appointments have been made to these bodies.

  Sovereign Bases
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Government have had with the Commission for Racial Equality concerning the applicability of the Race Relations Act 1976 to service personnel serving on sovereign bases outside the European Union. [15641]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no such discussions to date.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will amend the UK armed forces policy statements on equal opportunities to make it clear that service personnel serving wholly on sovereign bases outside the European Union are not covered by the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. [15637]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces policy statements on equal opportunities are kept under review and will be updated if necessary once the legal position for service personnel serving on sovereign bases outside the European Union is clarified.

  In addition I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 November 2001, Official Report, column 380W.

  Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many S10 NBC suits his Department has in stock and what is the average life expectancy from first use. [16159]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current in-service NBC suit is the Mk4. There are sufficient stocks of the suit to meet defence planning assumptions. I am withholding the information relating to specific quantities under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The Mk4 NBC suit has a shelf life, vacuum packed, of eight years. Once unpacked, the suit remains operational for 28 days. In adverse biological and chemical environmental conditions this time would be considerably reduced.

  Defence Academy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) academic and (b) military staff are employed at the Defence Academy. [15349]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: It is expected that in April 2002, the Defence Academy will employ some 190 academic and 280 military staff. The academy will also employ some 240 Ministry of Defence civil servants and 740 contractors' staff. Apart from the head of the academy and his personal staff, the small HQ support staff will be found from within current resources of the existing colleges.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) to which top level budget holder in his Department the head of the Defence Academy reports; [15347]

  (2) what is the administrative and budgetary relationship between the head of the Defence Academy, the Commandant of RMC Shrivenham, the Commandant of the Joint Service Command and Staff College and the Commandant of the Doctrine Centre. [15348]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The Head of the Academy will be responsible and accountable to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff for the work and development of the Academy. He will manage the academy's budget, for which he will be accountable directly to the joint managers of the Ministry of Defence Central Top Level Budget. The components of the Defence Academy such as RMCS Shrivenham and the Joint Services Command and Staff College will become cost centres of the academy and will report financially to the Head of the Academy. The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre will not be a part of the Defence Academy and will continue to report to the Policy Director.

  Widows' Pensions
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the pension entitlement of those second wives of ex-servicemen who become widows who are not entitled to a pension. [15759]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have no plans to increase the current Armed Forces Pension Scheme provisions for post retirement widows. Following longstanding practice, improvements to the armed forces and other public sector pension schemes do not apply retrospectively.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what analysis of the threats to UK airports requiring military protection he has made; and if he will make a statement. [16157]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security at airports is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The threat of a terrorist attack on UK airports is constantly monitored by the appropriate authorities. There are, in place, a series of robust measures and contingency plans to guard against a range of different threats. These include the provision of military support, should it be required. These plans have been reviewed in the light of events of 11 September.

  Major Project Report
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the Defence Acquisition 2001 report. [16156]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Major Project Report (MPR).

  The Ministry of Defence's annual progress report on the acquisition of major defence equipment, the MPR, was submitted to the Committee of Public Accounts in October. The Comptroller and Auditor General plans to publish his report on this year's MPR on 23 November.

  Logistic Stockholding Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria which have shaped the review of the logistic stockholdings following 11 September. [16161]

  Mr. Ingram
  Logistic stockholdings are reviewed on a regular basis to take account of experience gained during exercises and operations, and to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, more formal reviews of logistic planning are conducted from time to time in the light of the strategic military and political situation. The most recent review was considered over a 12 month period that ended last month. Though September 11 has not led to any further formal general reviews, in keeping with sound military practice logistic plans and availability have been carefully considered as an integral part of military response planning.

  Anti-tank Weapons
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce the replacement to the proposed Trigat anti-tank guided weapon programme. [16155]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 148W.

  Cyprus (Migrant Birds)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to prevent the illegal trapping of migrant birds in the sovereign base areas within Cyprus; if he will make more resources available to control this activity; and if he will make a statement. [15731]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) Administration and Police already devote significant resources to the control of illegal trapping of migrant birds. In this autumn's migration season wardens from the Republic of Cyprus's Game Service have joined the SBA Police in a number of large scale patrols, involving up to forty officers, while the SBA Police have carried out smaller anti-poaching patrols on an almost daily basis. Over 500 mist nets, nearly 300 limesticks and many other items of trapping equipment have been seized and will be destroyed. Nine people have been arrested and charged with trapping offences. They now face prosecution in the SBA Court, which can and does impose heavy fines for trapping offences. An extensive publicity campaign has been undertaken by the SBA Police in the Eastern Sovereign Base Area aimed at discouraging local people
  173W
  from engaging in trapping and spelling out the consequences if they are caught. This autumn's anti-trapping campaign has had a significant impact on the level of trapping activity in the Eastern Sovereign Base Area and the SBA Administration will pursue similar campaigns in the future.

  Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the battlefield light utility helicopter programme; and what is its in-service date. [16553]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1140W.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Chief Executive of DARA first met the First Secretary to discuss the relocation of the fixed wing aircraft repair business from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff International Airport. [16390]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Aviation Repair Agency records show that the Chief Executive of DARA first met with the First Secretary on 5 May 2000.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the German Defence Minister on providing troops for the international coalition in Afghanistan. [15822]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have spoken with my German colleague on a number of occasions on a range of issues associated with the international response to the events of September 11, including options for the use of armed forces in support of the international coalition.

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he is making of the siting of Army units at RAF St. Athan. [16459]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is looking at the possibility of locating two major Army units on the West Camp site after 2004. This is subject to further detailed study.

  Veterans' Affairs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 630W, if he will publish the terms of reference he has agreed on policy development for veterans' affairs. [15539]

  Dr. Moonie
  The terms of reference for the task force responsible for the development of our policy on veterans' affairs have now been published on the Ministry of Defence website "www.mod.uk", together with other 174W
  information about the initiative. They can be found under Contacts—Veterans' Advice Unit. The terms of reference are as follows:
  To ensure that the policies of individual Government Departments and of devolved administrations are co-ordinated to produce a coherent and integrated response to veterans' needs and concerns.
  To identify and prioritise areas of particular need within the veterans' community and develop policies to address these as appropriate, focusing in particular on the most vulnerable.
  To improve co-operation between government and veterans' organisations, seeking to ensure that Government policies address the reasonable concerns of veterans and that the work of veterans' organisations is supportive of, or at least consistent with, government policies.
  To ensure that the Government's current support and future plans for veterans is effectively understood by them.
  To ensure that the contribution of ex-Service personnel is appropriately recognised at the national and the individual level within the country.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Adjournment Debates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Council if he will increase the time allocated for the Christmas, Easter and summer Adjournment debates. [15410]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The introduction of Westminster Hall has greatly increased the number of Adjournment debates available, and, indeed, returned the pre-Adjournment debates to the Floor of the House.

  The Modernisation Committee may look at them when it examines the future of Westminster Hall, but I see no need for immediate change.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many appointments she has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in her gift. [15480]

  Clare Short
  I have made no appointments to public bodies since 7 June. I have 21 appointments in my gift.

  Albania (Child Welfare)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Albanian Government on their policies concerning the(a) welfare and (b) protection of children. [15304]

  Clare Short
  We have assisted the Government of Albania with the preparation of its recently completed poverty reduction strategy and with the complementary process of developing a Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). The poverty reduction strategy includes targets to reduce infant mortality and improve school enrolment. The MTEF has already led to increased Government spending on health and education.

  We are responding to these policies by supporting several projects that have both direct and indirect benefits for children, from our bilateral programme of £3 million

  175W
  per year. These include a £2 million project to reform social service delivery and to target resources better, including services for children; help for reforms to policy development, planning and financing of health care; and a project to improve rural livelihoods in the poorest rural communities.

  We are also contributing £4.3 million to the EU programme for Albania in 2001, which includes measures that benefit children and their protection, such as local community development and strengthening of policing and public order.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assurances he can give that the stockpiles of IRA weapons and explosives have not been transferred into the possession of the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. [11399]

  Jane Kennedy
  I receive daily reports on the security situation from my security advisers and would be advised of any information that came to light indicating that IRA arms had been passed on to dissident republican groups.

  The international arms inspectors, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, had stated in their reports that the arms dumps they inspected had not been tampered with and remained secure. Subsequently we have had actual decommissioning of IRA weapons.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about future acts of decommissioning; and by what date he expects the process of decommissioning to be completed. [11398]

  Jane Kennedy
  Future decommissioning events are a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the representatives of the various paramilitary organisations.

  Decommissioning is only one part of the Good Friday Agreement of which we can now say that implementation of every aspect is underway. Full implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects is a task that will take some time to accomplish.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what age and in what condition the illegally held weapons and explosives were which were decommissioned by the IRA; and if they can be quantified according to type; [11397]

  (2) what quantities of weapons and explosives have been decommissioned by the IRA (a) under the Good Friday Agreement and (b) under the decision on 23 October to engage in decommissioning; and by what means IRA weapons and explosives were decommissioned. [11396]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning stated in their report that they have witnessed an event in which the IRA has put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. They confirm the material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives.
  176W
  That also means that under paragraph 11 of the decommissioning scheme made in August 2001, the Commission has taken a record of the arms decommissioned and has verified the information on that record, although it is the Commission's judgment on this occasion, that such information must remain confidential.

  The Government and all of the pro-Agreement parties have said throughout the process that the details of the actual process should be left to the Decommissioning Commission.

  The Government accept the integrity of the Commission's judgment.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the percentage of the IRA's arsenal which has been put beyond use. [15272]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 23 October that it had witnessed a quantity of IRA arms being put beyond use according to the terms of the decommissioning schemes and regulations. However, in the interest of furthering the process of putting all arms beyond use, the Commission declined to provide further details. Accordingly, it has not been possible to assess the percentage of the provisional IRA's weaponry involved.

  The Commission's mandate under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement is to facilitate the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. The Government have every confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues and respects their wishes on how best to proceed to fulfil their mandate.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  DHSS Leaflets
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library copies of the DHSS leaflets NP32 and NP27 dating from 1983. [7573]

  Mr. McCartney
  Copies of the DHSS leaflets are not routinely held by the Department for Work and Pensions and any which were current in 1983 may have been discontinued or subsumed into other leaflets. However, we have obtained copies of ones which were current in 1983 and they have been placed in the Library.

  Public Servants (Assaults)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members of staff working in(a) benefit offices and (b) jobcentres were assaulted while at work in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [8610]

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many reported incidents of an aggressive nature against Benefits Agency workers there were in each of the past five years for(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [11115]
  177W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many attacks on Benefits Agency staff were recorded in each year since 1997; and how many successful prosecutions were brought against the perpetrators of such attacks; [14227]

  (2) how many assaults on Benefits Agency staff were (a) recorded last year and (b) recorded in each of the previous years since 1997. [11253]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information available is in the tables. The information requested on the number of successful prosecutions is not available.

  The increase in the number of reported incidents in 2000 can be attributed to awareness raising activities with Benefits Agency staff about the importance of reporting incidents and to a poster issued by the PCS Union advising staff that all incidents of customer aggression should be reported.

  Benefit Agency

  Total assaults

  Year

  Physical assaults

  Non-physical assaults

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1997

  100

  3,426

  2,959

  278

  289

  1998

  41

  3,092

  2,579

  313

  241

  1999

  98

  2,357

  2,071

  186

  198

  2000

  163

  5,144

  4,467

  398

  442

  20011

  92

  3,567

  2,990

  283

  386

  Employment Service

  19994

  2000

  20011

  Number of staff reporting a physical assault

  166

  232

  166

  Number of staff reporting a non-physical assault

  2,530

  4,146

  2,850

  Total number of reports received2

  2,696

  4,378

  3,016

  Total number of incidents occurring3

  2,481

  4,044

  2,729

  1 Information to date. These figures are based on the reports so far received; other incidents may have occurred but may not yet have been reported.

  2 This figure represents the number of individual reports completed.

  3 This figure relates to the number of individual incidents that have occurred. This number is lower than the number of reports as several individuals can report the same incident if they feel that they have been a victim of it.

  4 The figures shown for the Employment Service for 1999 record the number of incidents that occurred between April and December. Prior to this date the information was collated on a separate database which did not provide data in compatible categories. During the period January to March 1999, 1,115 reports were filed and 1,106 incidents occurred but these figures include 'other' incidents between clients where no staff were involved.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of the long-term unemployed in the pilot areas for the new deal for the long-term unemployed found(a) jobs and (b) sustained jobs in (i) each of the three years prior to the inception of the new deal pilots and (ii) in each year since their inception. [9334]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the new deal 25-plus pilots, the proportion of long-term unemployed participants who left the programme for sustained jobs was 33 per cent. in 1999 and 34 per cent. in 2000 and 2001 to date. Equivalent figures for years prior to the new deal 25-plus pilots are not available. However, evaluation of the new 178W
  deal 25-plus pilots showed that long-term unemployed participants were over 70 per cent. more likely to move into work than those participating in the pre-April 2001 national programme.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people joined the voluntary section option of the new deal for young people between July 1999 and October 2001; and how many of these(a) completed their course before leaving the new deal and (b) left their course before completing the new deal; [11598]

  (2) how many people have joined the (a) Environmental Task Force option, (b) the subsidised employment option and (c) the voluntary sector option of the new deal since implementation; and how many and what percentage of these (i) completed their programme before leaving the new deal, (ii) left their programme before completing it and (iii) left at any stage for unknown destinations; [11599]

  (3) how many people joined the Environmental TaskForce option of the new deal for young people between July 1999 and October 2001; and how many of these (a) completed their course before leaving the new deal and (b) left their course before completing the new deal. [11595]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The latest results for the new deal for young people are contained in the Statistical First Release which is available in the Library. Information on numbers completing options is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit sanctions were imposed on participants in the New Deal for Young People in each year since its introduction(a) nationally and (b) by region, broken down into each of the four options. [11601]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is published in the Employment Service Labour Market Statistics: Analysis of Sector Decision Making, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer the question (No. 7981) of 8 October from the hon. Member for Hertsmere concerning the number of persons on the new deal for young people recruited by Government Departments. [15775]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: I answered the question on Monday 19 November 2001.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the number of participants in the new deal for young people from the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency in the last 12 months, (b) the destination of people leaving the scheme and (c) the cost involved. [16433]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the tables:

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency

  Month

  Number of new deal for young people participants

  2000

  August

  509

  September

  491

  October

  477

  November

  459

  December

  447

  179W

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency

  Month

  Number of new deal for young people participants

  2001

  January

  454

  February

  459

  March

  448

  April

  430

  May

  417

  June

  414

  July

  400

  August

  352

  Note:

  Figures are for the end of each month and are the latest available.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency

  Destination on leaving the new deal for young people

  Number of clients

  Unsubsidised employment

  656

  Other benefits

  224

  Other known destinations

  331

  Not known

  393

  Total leavers

  1,604

  Note:

  Figures are cumulative to the end of August 2001.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Estimates of the cost of the programme are not available at constituency level.

  Appeals Service
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much additional funding was awarded to the Appeals Service relating to the increase in Disability Living Allowance appeals in 2000–01. [9807]

  Maria Eagle
  The Appeals Service was awarded an additional £2.809 million for 2000–01 in respect of disability appeals. This represents the total for Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance combined, where funding is provided by tribunal type rather than benefit.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the Employment Service job entries of people who are included within the Welfare to Work definition in 2000–01, with reference to the annual performance agreement target; [14065]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of jobless people helped into work by the Employment Service in 2000–01, with reference to the annual performance agreement target; [14016]

  (3) if he will make a statement on Employment Service job entries of people with disabilities in 2000–01, with reference to the annual performance agreement target; [14054]
  180W
  (4) if he will make a statement on Employment Service job entries of (a) New Deal and (b) Employment Zone participants in 2000–01, with reference to the annual performance agreement target. [14064]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is contained in the Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts 2000–01, which is in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the public service agreement targets were for the Employment Service placings of the New Deal for(a) lone parents and (b) young people participants in 2000–01; and if they were achieved; [14216]

  (2) what efficiency savings were achieved by the Employment Service in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if these savings met the public service agreement target; [14087]

  (3) what the public service agreement targets were in 2000–01 for the Employment Service placings into work of (a) people with disabilities, (b) jobseeker's allowance claimants unemployed more than six months and (c) unemployed people; and if they were achieved. [14198]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is contained in the Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000 and 2000–01, which are in the Library.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a Community action plan to combat social exclusion at EU level. [14828]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A five-year EU action programme to encourage co-operation between member states to combat social exclusion is expected to be formally adopted shortly and to come into force on 1 January 2002. This programme will include provision for financial support totalling 75 million euro to support:

  analysis of characteristics, processes, causes and trends in social exclusion;

  policy co-operation and exchange of information and best practices;

  participation of the various actors and support for networking at European level.

  The Government look forward to implementation of this action programme, which follows the framework set by the Lisbon European Council of March 2000.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department applied for Investors in People; and if it has achieved it(a) in whole and (b) in part. [14857]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: The Department for Work and Pensions is fully committed to Investors in People and is continuing to maintain the standard.

  All constituent parts of the Department are currently recognised as Investors in People. Officials are in discussion with Investors in People(UK), to agree a strategy for the future corporate recognition of the Department.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many self-funders in(a) residential and (b) nursing homes are in receipt of attendance allowance; and what assessment his Department has made of the survey of self-funders undertaken by the Department of Health. [15774]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Estimates of the number of self-funders in residential care homes and nursing homes who are receiving attendance allowance are not available.

  Work Incentives (Child Care)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to improve incentives for those with children to work; and how many people have availed themselves of them(a) in Middlesbrough and (b) in Redcar and Cleveland in the last year for which figures are available. [16429]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for those who are able, We have introduced a wide range of measures including the Working Families Tax Credit to help make work pay and the National Childcare Strategy to help make work possible for people with children. Since April this year, lone parents can also get help with childcare payments if they take up part-time work through the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  We are also easing the transition to work through a range of benefit run-ons. Lone parents benefit run-on was introduced in 1999 and in the year 2000–01 helped over 50,000 lone parents nationally. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit run-ons have been available for a number of years and in 2000–01 were claimed by 140,000 people nationally. From April this year we have also introduced the Mortgage Interest run-on to help home owners moving from benefits to full time work. In the Middlesborough local authority district, 670 people claimed the Housing Benefit Run-on and 410 people claimed the Council Tax Run-on in 2000–01. Equivalent figures are not available for Redcar and Cleveland. The numbers of people taking advantage of other run-ons are not available broken down by area.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many older people will receive winter fuel payments this winter(a) in the UK and (b) in Middlesbrough South, and Cleveland, East. [16431]

  Mr. McCartney
  Last winter, nationally, over 11 million people aged 60 and over received a Winter Fuel Payment. Around 18,000 of these were in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. The figures for this winter will be similar.

  Social Security Fraud Act (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish a summary of the responses to the public consultation on the draft Code of Practice on obtaining information under the Social Security Fraud Act 2001. [17153]
  182W
  Malcolm Wicks
  A summary of the responses has been placed in the Library and copies have been sent to all those who responded.

  Housing Estates Refurbishment (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the Beaumont Leys Stocking Farm scheme in Leicestershire; how many people obtained work as a result of the scheme; and what the cost was of the scheme. [15780]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Leicester North West SRB 5 Programme, which covers five housing estates, including Beaumont Leys and Stocking Farm, was agreed by Ministers as part of the SRB programme. To date 29 jobs have created, along with other outputs such as refurbishment of community buildings, CCTV provision, improvement of local advice services, projects to reduce crime, vandalism, domestic violence, and assist vulnerable youngsters. The programme received £1.9 million in the last financial year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Terrorism
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the membership of the coalition against International Terrorism and the contributions they are making. [13383]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  States across the world expressed their sorrow and outrage at the dreadful events of 11 September and there has been widespread acceptance of the need for an international coalition to tackle terrorism. UN Security Council resolution 1373 was passed unanimously on 28 September. It is the first resolution to impose obligations on all states to respond to a global threat to international peace and security. It focuses on two key areas: to suppress the financing of terrorism and to deny terrorists a safe haven from which to operate. All UN member states are bound by UNSCR 1373 to take measures against international terrorism. The present military campaign directed at Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime has the support of all NATO allies who agreed unanimously to invoke Article 5 (the collective self-defence commitment at the core of NATO). A wide range of other countries also back the military campaign. For operational reasons we cannot disclose details of that support.

  Iraq
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has received on the impact of sanctions on the access of Iraqi citizens to clean water; and if he will make a statement. [16274]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly receive parliamentary and public correspondence on all aspects of sanctions on Iraq, including the water and sanitation sector.

  Since 1990, the UK has donated over £100 million od humanitarian aid to Iraq (including £5.5 million this year) for projects which include the rehabilitation of water and

  183W
  sanitation infrastructure. In addition, earlier this year the EU agreed a 13 million euro aid package for projects which include the provision of clean drinking water.

  By contrast, the Iraqi regime continues to hamper all aspects of the oil for food programme. At a time when around $2 billion lies unspent by Iraq in the UN escrow account, Iraq has, for example, cut spending in this sector by 18 per cent. in 2001 compared to last year. Iraq continues to refuse to allow UN officials to enter Iraq to dicuss a cash component for sectors identified by the UN Secretary-General as being critical, one of which is water and sanitation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the performance of the oil for food policy regarding Iraq and the attitude of the Iraqi Government towards this policy. [16230]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The oil for food programme is the UN's largest humanitarian programme ever, worth some $12.5 billion last year alone. In his most recent report (September 2001), the UN Secretary-General concludes that the oil for food programme has made a considerable difference to the lives of ordinary Iraqis and, in spreading beyond the food and medicine sectors, to the rehabilitation of Iraq's civilian infrastructure.

  These achievements have been made despite the continuing efforts of the Iraqi regime to hamper the oil for food programme. For example, around $2 billion of funds lie unspent, by Iraq in UN accounts and the Iraqi Central Bank consistently holds up the delivery of around $1 billion-worth of goods. Iraq continues to refuse to allow UN Officials to enter Iraq to discuss a cash component for sectors identified by the UN Secretary-General as being critical, such as health, education and water sanitation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussion he has had with the Iraqi Government on no-fly zones. [16231]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  Intelligence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision he has made to increase intelligence on security matters since 11 September. [14946]

  Mr. Straw
  It has long been the policy of this and previous Governments not to comment on details of intelligence and security matters. The events of 11 September, and the role of the intelligence and security agencies in responding to them, are being taken into account in considering their financial allocation.

  Jordan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with King Abdullah of Jordan during his recent visit on(a) the middle east peace process, (b) terrorists living in Britain, (c) terrorism outside Britain, (d) Iraqi sanctions and (e) the present economic situation in Jordan. [15610]
  184W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary had talks with King Abdullah in London on 8 November. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary thanked the King for his leadership and determination in supporting the coalition against terrorism, agreed on the need to put the best humanitarian effort into dealing with the problems of displaced people and refugees and discussed how the international community could help reconstruct Afghanistan post-conflict. King Abdullah thanked the Prime Minister for his efforts during his travels throughout the middle east and the Islamic world to clarify the West's position that this is not a struggle between the West and Islam.

  The King and Prime Minister agreed the importance of moving forward the Middle East Peace process as quickly as possible. The Prime Minister praised King Abdullah's record of pushing for progress in that area. The King, Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary discussed the need to control Iraq's military capabilities, while minimising the effects on Iraqi citizens. They also discussed ways in which the UK could help Jordan to achieve its economic objectives through support of King Abdullah's economic reform programme and encouragement of inward investment. There was no discussion on the issue of terrorists in the UK.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made regarding the(a) religious make-up and (b) ethnic make-up of Afghanistan; and what is his policy on the role of each of the (i) religions and (ii) ethnic groupings within Afghanistan in a future Government of Afghanistan. [15607]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Afghanistan has an immensely complex social tapestry. That complexity has been increased by the disruption of almost 20 years of continual warfare involving the movement of population both within and out of the country and whose effects are not yet properly documented. Traditionally, the main communities have been described as Pashtun (c. 38 per cent.), Tajik (c. 25 per cent.), Hazara (c. 19 per cent.), Uzbek (c. 6 per cent.) with the balance being made up of a patchwork of smaller groups. About 99 per cent. of the population are Muslims divided between Sunni (c. 84 per cent.) and Shia (c. 15 per cent.) adherents: the Hazara constitute almost all the Shia population.

  The Government welcome the new UNSCR 1378 (2001) which sets out the international community's road map for a broad-based successor government to the Taliban regime, which should be multi-ethnic and fully representative of all the Afghan people.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times he has met the(a) Head of the Cabinet's Defence and Overseas Secretariat, Robert Cooper, and (b) UN special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, since 11 September; and what was discussed during each of these meetings. [15611]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State met the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, several times at the recent UN General Assembly
  185W
  (including at the open Security Council meeting on 13 November). They discussed the UN's role in a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

  Robert Cooper, the UK Co-ordinator for the Future of Afghanistan, has met the Secretary of State frequently since the 11 September attacks (most recently on 19 November). They discussed all aspects of the crisis.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions he has discussed the prospect of a United Nations monitoring force for Afghanistan with the Government of Turkey; and what was discussed. [15608]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During his visit to Turkey on 17–18 October, the Secretary of State discussed a wide range of issues related to the current crisis with the Turkish Foreign Minister Cem. He has since met Foreign Minister Cem at the UN General Assembly on 12 November.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the coalition against terrorism's proposals for UN intervention in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [15493]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We and the US have strongly supported a UN role in Afghanistan. We welcome the new UN Security Council Resolution 1378 (2001), which was unanimously adopted on 14 November and sets out the international community's vision for the future of Afghanistan.

  Inter alia, the resolution outlined the principles that should govern the formation of a new administration in Afghanistan. It affirmed that the UN would play a central role in supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to establish such an administration. And it encouraged UN member states to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and in particular to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital for all Afghan people, and especially to protect civilians, transitional authorities, United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organisations.

  We have also discussed with the UN Secretary-General and his Special Representative for Afghanistan, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, a number of other proposals, including for possible UN roles in security, which might be appropriate at some stage.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that support the international coalition's actions in Afghanistan. [15824]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) today,Official Report, column 182W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United Nations on the creation of a multi-national force to provide peacekeeping in Afghanistan. [15826]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During my visit to New York for the UN General Assembly from 10–16 November, I held consultations with the UN Secretary-General and his Special Representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, on the future of Afghanistan, including what possible 186W
  security arrangements might be appropriate at some stage. We are fully supportive of Ambassador Brahimi's efforts to resolve these issues.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UN Security Council's role in relation to the international coalition's actions in Afghanistan. [15825]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In response to the 11 September attacks, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1368 (2001) on 12 September 2001, in which it stated that it would hold accountable those indirectly responsible—those who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators—as well as those directly responsible. This resolution also reaffirmed the right of self-defence, enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Coalition military action has been undertaken in self-defence to avert further terrorist attacks.

  We and the US both notified the Security Council of the action when it began in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

  On 14 November, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1378 (2001), which sets out the international community's vision for the future of Afghanistan. Inter alia, the resolution encourages member states to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and in particular to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital for all the Afghan people, and especially to protect civilians, transitional authorities, United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organisations.

  Cluster Bombs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with(a) the United Nations and (b) the International Red Cross about the use of cluster bombs. [15656]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As part of the review process of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the UK co-sponsored a working paper proposing a way ahead for future work on explosive remnants of war, including cluster bombs. The UK will continue to participate actively in the UN as discussions develop, aiming to work together with EU partners and other States' parties, towards a practical solution that addresses humanitarian concerns while safeguarding the UK's military requirements. UK officials have also participated in discussions, about cluster bombs, with the International Committee of the Red Cross, in the context of consultations about the ICRC' s proposals on explosive remnants of war.

  The Gambia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of preparations for the forthcoming parliamentary elections in The Gambia. [15604]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Gambian Independent Electoral Commission is in the preliminary stages of planning for parliamentary elections to be held on January 17 2002. Similar arrangements to the October Presidential elections
  187W
  will be used, including the unique marble system of voting. The voter education campaign is not yet finalised, but will also follow a similar course to the Presidential election, where the turnout was high (89 per cent.). The British observing team found the Presidential election well organised, fair and transparent on the day. I hope that the Parliamentary elections will be conducted in a similar manner. The Independent Electoral Commission has told us it will invite all those who observed the Presidential election, and others, to observe the parliamentary elections.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of existing international efforts to prevent ballistic missile proliferation, with particular reference to the MTCR; and what international plans there are to strengthen these efforts. [15642]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) has done a good job in countering the proliferation of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction through the co-ordination of the export controls of its 33 members. But it is not comprehensive in its membership or scope. The UK has therefore been active in the development of an International Code of Conduct (ICOC) against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. A draft text was agreed by MTCR members at their plenary meeting in Ottawa in September 2001, and will now be opened for wider negotiation. We hope the Code will become a universally accepted international agreement establishing global standards of practice in an area where currently there are none.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the Russian suggestion to engage permanent members of the Security Council in negotiations on nuclear weapons reductions. [15643]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign Secretary has received no formal Russian proposal that Permanent Members of the Security Council should engage in negotiations on nuclear weapons reductions.

  Arms Control (Outer Space)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on arms control in outer space. [15649]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are parties to the Outer Space Treaty and other treaties that place some important limitations on military activity in space, prohibiting the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space and military activity on the moon and other celestial bodies. While we do not wish to see a general prohibition on the military use of outer space we do recognise that there are legitimate concerns about these issues and support further consideration of them within the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which places the 188W
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited during her recent visit to Zimbabwe with the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group; whom she met; and what discussions she has had since returning from the region. [15407]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos and the Commonwealth Committee visited Harare and toured two farms, one near Masvingo and one in Marondera in Mashonaland East. She met members of the Zimbabwe Government as well as groups and organisations representing chiefs, farmers, war veterans, ZANU(PF), the MDC, the churches, UNDP, NGOs, the media and the Electoral Supervisory Commission. Since the visit Baroness Amos has discussed Zimbabwe with Ministers from SADC countries and with senior US officials.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter of 6 September from the hon. Member for Putney with regard to his constituent, Mr. M. Sandhu (GV100/69005/JS). [15073]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not receive my reply of 24 September to his letter of 6 September. Another copy was sent on 13 November.

  Human Rights (Chechnya)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning human rights in Chechnya. [16680]

  Peter Hain
  The Secretary of State has raised the human rights situation in Chechnya with the Russian Foreign Minister on a number of occasions, most recently during his visit to Moscow on 31 October.

  Diego Garcia (The Ilois)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings have been held with the US administration of Diego Garcia on the conditions relating to the return of the Ilois people to the islands; and if he will make a statement. [16677]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There have been no recent meetings with the US administration on this matter but it has been discussed once since my hon. Friend last asked this question on 26 April 2001,Official Report, columns 337–38W.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has held with the Government of Morocco concerning their occupation of the Western Sahara. [16679]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly discuss the issue of western Sahara with the Government of Morocco. I raised the issue during my visit to Morocco on 24 to 26 September.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he expects the UN administration in the Western Sahara to name a date for a referendum on the future governance of the territory. [16678]
  189W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK supported United Nations Security Council resolution 1359, which was passed unanimously on 29 June 2001. This reiterated full support for the on-going efforts of MINURSO to implement the settlement plan and the agreements by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

  The United Nations Security Council resolution made no provision for setting a date for the referendum and at this stage we do not know when it will be possible to set such a date.

  The resolution does, however, reaffirm the UN's commitment to assist the parties in achieving a just and lasting solution to the question of the Western Sahara. The personal envoy of the Secretary-General is currently engaged in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The special envoy is discussing with the parties the draft framework agreement (as set out in the United Nations Secretary-General's report of June 2001) which may offer a mutually agreed political solution to the dispute. He has also discussed with the Polisario their proposals to overcome the obstacles faced in the settlement plan.

  United Nations Security Council
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposal of the Japanese Government to expand membership of the Security Council. [15828]

  Peter Hain
  The UK is a strong advocate of Security Council reform, which is discussed at the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform at the United Nations in New York. Since views differ widely on what the size and shape of the Security Council should be progress has been slow.

  Like Japan and a number of other countries, we support enlargement of the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. We believe that a Council along these lines could provide an acceptable balance between retaining effectivness and making the Council more representative of the modern world.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to accept at his meeting with his Spanish counterpart on 20 November proposals that(a) the Government and (b) the people of Gibraltar do not support. [16345]

  Peter Hain
  The Government stand by the commitment set out in the preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution that we will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar will pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

  The Foreign Secretary met Spanish Foreign Minister Pique for talks under the Brussels Process in. Barcelona this morning. At the conclusion of the meeting, they issued the following statement.
  190W
  Brussels process Ministerial meeting on Gibraltar, 20 November, Barcelona

  Joint Press Communique
  Josep Pique i Camps, the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom
  At our meeting today we confirmed our shared objective to continue our discussions about Gibraltar, in an atmosphere of trust and mutual co-operation, a commitment which Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar endorsed when they met in London on 9 November. We are delighted that we are making good progress.
  We discussed the full range of issues set out in the November 1984 Brussels Communique. We did not want to draw conclusions today. Our aim is to conclude a comprehensive agreement by the summer of next year. This overall agreement will cover all outstanding issues, including those of co-operation and sovereignty.
  Our share objective is a future where Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and the opportunity to reap the full benefits of normal co-existence with the wider region. The guiding principle is to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and a modern sustainable status, consistent with our common membership of NATO and the EU. We also agreed on the need for rapid progress on key areas of co-operation. We asked officials to work up ideas and report to the next Ministerial meeting.
  While the British Government welcomed the Spanish decision to more than triple the number of telephone numbers for Gibraltar to 100,000, both Ministers agreed on the need for experts to continue discussions to resolve the other telecommunications issues. The British Government welcomed Spain's proposals to improve health care facilities in Spain for Gibraltarians, and both Ministers agreed that this should be followed up quickly. The Ministers also agreed that bilateral discussions would continue to address the pensions issue.
  We agreed that the Government of Gibraltar had a very important contribution to make to our discussions. Gibraltar's voice should be heard. We reiterated the invitation which we issued to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar when we met in London on 26 July to attend future Brussels Process Ministerial meetings. His role will be fully respected and he will have the opportunity to contribute fully to the discussion. The Process would benefit greatly from the direct views of the Government of Gibraltar, and through the Government of the House of Assembly and public opinion in Gibraltar as a whole.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what models of sovereignty he is exploring with the Spanish Government in the Brussels process. [16344]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement issued in Barcelona earlier today by the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Secretary, a copy of which is also being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made to ensure that the people of Gibraltar enjoy the rights of citizens of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [16287]

  Peter Hain
  The UK Government take their responsibility for Gibraltar in the EU very seriously and will continue firmly to defend the rights and interests of the people of Gibraltar.

  HMG are actively working to ensure Gibraltar's enfranchisement in time for the 2004 elections to the European Parliament. HMG tabled an amendment to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections in order to extend the European franchise to Gibraltar. But such amendment has not proved possible. So, the UK is now actively

  191W
  considering taking unilateral action to extend the franchise to Gibraltar. This would involve bringing in domestic legislation without prior amendment to the 1976 Act.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Gibraltar about facilitating their participation in the talks with the Spanish Government on terms that are acceptable to the Government of Gibraltar. [16288]

  Peter Hain
  I have held extensive discussions with the Government of Gibraltar about their participation in the Brussels process beginning in July and during my visit to Gibraltar on 6 September. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar called on the Foreign Secretary on 9 October. The Chief Minister called on me on 24 October. I also spoke to Chief Minister on 6 November and again on 13 November. At the Brussels Process Ministerial meeting held in Barcelona this morning the Secretary of State and the Spanish Foreign Minister reiterated their invitation for the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to attend future meetings.

  Bangladesh
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Bangladesh regarding the treatment of Hindus. [15785]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our High Commission in Dhaka closely monitor reports of human rights abuses against minority groups and will continue to do so. They have raised the persecution of Hindus several times with the Bangladesh government, encouraging them to investigate allegations. High Commission staff recently visited regions where abuses were alleged to have taken place. The evidence suggests minorities have been caught up in inter-party clashes following the recent elections.

  Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held by the the British High Commission in Mauritius with representatives of the Chagos islanders.

  Mr Bradshaw
  The British High Commissioner in Mauritius met with the Chairman of the Chagos Refugee Committee and his advisers in Port Louis on 12 November.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent visits to the Chagos islands have been made by officials of the British Indian Ocean Territories during the current calender year; and if he will make a statement. [16675]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  MOD staff and UK military personnel have visited this calendar year but not officials of the British Indian Ocean Territory Government.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the environmental impact assessment report on potential future settlement of the Chagos Islands by its former inhabitants and their descendants. [16676]
  192W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 June 2001,Official Report, column 164W. Phase 2 of the feasibility studies remains on target and we expect it to be completed by mid-2002.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has held with representatives of the Chagos islanders concerning their legal rights of return. [16673]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have maintained a regular dialogue with various members of the Ilois community and their lawyers.

  Terroism Convention
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with drawing up a draft convention on international terroism. [15827]

  Peter Hain
  There has been extensive work on the Comprehensive Terrorism Convention in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York. The UK has played an active part. The areas still under discussion have been narrowed consideralby. But consensus on the whole text has not yet been reached.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) India and (b) Pakistan on the situation in Kashmir. [15829]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly discuss Kashmir with the Indian and Pakistani Governments. The Prime Minister met the Pakistani President and Indian Prime Minister on 5 and 6 October and again during their respective visits to London on 8 and 12 November. The Foreign Secretary met his Indian counterpart in London on 3 October and his Pakistani conterpart in New York on 13 November. We will continue to urge both countries to persevere with dialogue to find a solution to this and all the issues outstanding between them.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that(a) have ratified and (b) have undertaken to ratify the Treaty on the International Criminal Court. [16233]

  To date, 46 countries including the United Kingdom have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute of the ICC. These are:
  Ratifications: Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino, Italy. Fiji, Ghana, Norway, Belize, Tajikistan, Iceland, Venezuela, France, Belgium, Canada, Mali, Lesotho, New Zealand. Botswana, Luxembourg, Sierra Leone, Gabon, Spain, South Africa, Marshall Islands, Germany, Austria, Finland, Argentina, Andorra, Paraguay, Croatia, Cost Rica, Antigua and Barbuda. Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Liechtenstein, Central African Republic, United Kingdom. Switzerland, Peru, Nauru and Poland.
  Accession: Dominica

  The Statute will enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the 60th deposit of ratification, accession, acceptance or approval with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
  193W
  139 States have signed the Rome Statute of the ICC. Of these, many are well advanced with preparations to ratify. 12 EU member states have ratified to date and the other three are committed to doing so. We continue our efforts to encourage state to ratify or accede to the Statute as soon as possible.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Cultural Objects
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy towards 2001/C193/17, extending Council Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state; and what assessment she has made of its impact on holdings in British museums. [14832]

  Dr. Howells
  The provisions of Directive 2001/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 93/7/EEC will be implemented into UK

  Lottery Awards

  Clubs

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Tennis

  66

  93

  79

  47

  45

  28

  Association Football

  38

  34

  15

  12

  17

  8

  Cricket

  83

  98

  93

  49

  45

  39

  Rugby League

  0

  3

  3

  3

  1

  5

  Rugby Union

  21

  17

  9

  7

  11

  4

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the total value of lottery ticket sales in the Buckingham constituency since the National Lottery began. [15771]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on National Lottery ticket sales by constituency is not routinely collected. Camelot did, however, conduct a one-off exercise to calculate ticket sales by constituency early in 2000. At that time, cumulative ticket sales in Buckingham from the start of the lottery were £11.1 million.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of lottery ticket sales in the Cheltenham constituency is since the National Lottery began. [16045]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on National Lottery ticket sales by constituency is not routinely collected. Camelot did, however, conduct a one-off exercise to calculate ticket sales by constituency early in 2000. At that time, cumulative ticket sales in Cheltenham from the start of the lottery were £46.2 million.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what alteration in(a) number and (b) value of lottery awards to Cannock Chase has occurred as a result of recent initiatives to increase awards to coalfield areas. [16423]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the period up to August 1998 Cannock Chase received six awards, worth just over £330,000. Following the National Lottery Act 1998, revised policy
  194W
  law. The amendments should have no impact on the holdings in British Museums.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of lottery ticket sales in the Twickenham constituency has been since the National Lottery began. [15313]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on National Lottery ticket sales by constituency is not routinely collected. Camelot did, however, conduct a one-off exercise to calculate ticket sales by constituency early in 2000. At that time, cumulative ticket sales in Twickenham from the start of the Lottery were £35.4 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) tennis clubs, (b) football clubs, (c) cricket clubs and (d) rugby clubs have received Lottery awards in each year since the National Lottery began. [16166]

  Mr. Caborn
  Lottery awards have been made to the following number of tennis, football, cricket and rugby clubs in each year since the lottery began:

  directions and recent coalfields initiatives by Government and distributors, this figure increased to 93 awards, worth over £1.3 million.

  The proportion of grants going to coalfield areas as a whole has increased by a third since the reforms.

  Playing Fields
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the reason is for the delay in the publication by her Department of monthly figures on the number of playing fields sold off; and when she will publish the figures. [15854]

  Mr. Caborn
  Statistics on playing field sales were not collected until our playing fields legislation came into force. The Playing Field Monitoring Group was established to agree which statistics would be most useful in informing playing field policy. The Central Council of Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association are members of the group to help that process. Figures from the Department for Education and Skills on applications made by state schools to dispose or change the use of school playing fields are published monthly, and those from Sport England giving details of planning applications affecting playing fields which have been referred to them as statutory consultee are published annually. We are aiming to produce combined figures including relevant data from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions shortly. The differing time frames and areas covered by each set of figures, along with double counting in some areas and
  195W
  gaps in the data have complicated the issue and delayed publication. We hope to publish the first set of statistics, agreed by the monitoring group, early next year.

  Tourism (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote tourism in the coastal resorts in the north-east. [15781]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Seaside resorts continue to represent a very important sector of our domestic holiday market, generating well over 15 per cent. of England's total domestic tourism income. The principal responsibility for supporting and promoting British seaside resorts lies with local government, working with other interested parties in the light of a clearly enunciated vision and strategy for tourism and other economic activity. The North East Regional Development Agency also has a key role to play at the regional level.

  The north-east benefits, as does the rest of Britain, from British Tourist Authority (BTA) promotions overseas. Among BTA campaigns featuring coastal resorts in the north-east are Hidden Britain, due for launch next year, which suggests itineraries through less well known places, the Walking Britain map, due for launch in January and Harry Potter and Magical Britain, which will be launched on Monday 19 November. This is a guide to locations used in the recent film. Promotion of the Harry Potter guide includes a BTA press trip to Alnwick and Whitby, planned jointly with England's north-east.

  Gambling
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from which(a) individuals and (b) bodies the Gambling Review Body received advice regarding problem gambling among (i) children and (ii) adults. [16571]

  Mr. Caborn
  Annexes D and E to the report of the Gambling Review Body list the individuals and bodies who gave evidence.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received concerning problem gambling among(a) children and (b) adults. [16570]

  Mr. Caborn
  A substantial number of the submissions which we have recently received on the report of the Gambling Review Body comment on problem gambling. A number express concern that some of the recommendations in the report could increase current levels of problem gambling.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the impact on(a) small businesses, (b) private clubs and (c) other organisations of the implementation of recommendation 70 of the report of the Gambling Review Body; [16572]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the impact on (a) small businesses, (b) private clubs and (c) other organisations if all recommendations of the Gambling Review Body were implemented. [16573]
  196W
  Mr. Caborn
  We have not yet completed our consideration of the many representations on the report in general and recommendation 70 in particular which we have received; but a substantial number have drawn attention to the serious financial consequences for clubs and small businesses which they argue it would have.

  Staff Dispositions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport how many employees of(a) her Department and (b) agencies sponsored by her Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU objective 1 status, (iii) areas with objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16103]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has 462 staff in post (as at 15 November 2001):

  453 in London;

  Three in areas benefiting from EU objective 1 status; and

  Six in areas with objective 2 status.

  The Royal Parks Agency has 224 staff in post in London only. They have no staff with objective 1 or 2 status.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will make an announcement on the recommendations of the Gaming Board for Great Britain on the maximum stakes and prizes in gaming machines. [16887]

  Mr. Caborn
  I will make an announcement on this tomorrow.

  Free Television Licences
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many older people will receive free television licences(a) in the UK and (b) in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [16435]

  Dr. Howells
  Approximately 3.2 million people who previously paid the full television licence fee and 475,000 people who previously paid a £5 concessionary licence fee currently benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,800 people aged 75 or over in the Middlesbrough. South and Cleveland, East constituency.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Response Times
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Members' correspondence,

  197W
  (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords; [7010]

  (2) if she will place in the Library for each year since 1995 the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members, (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by her Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if she will make a statement. [7011]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 324–28W and on 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  The time limits for answering written parliamentary questions vary considerably and the calculation of an average response time would not, therefore, provide a reliable indication of the timeliness of answers.

  Departmental Spending
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total amount of spending by her Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of her Department's total spending this constitutes; and if she will make a statement. [6809]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  Departmental Staff
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the number of staff employed by her Department by region and nation of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6804]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1009–12W.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement regarding the implications for Scotland of the proposals to reform the House of Lords. [10245]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Royal Commission on House of Lords reform recommended a minority elected element to represent the nations and regions. It found no appetite for direct representation of the devolved institutions in the House of Lords and recommended against it. The Government have pledged to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the most 198W
  effective way possible, and have recently published their proposals in the White Paper, "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform" (Cm 5291).

  MSPs (Numbers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on the operation of the Scotland Act 1998 concerning the reduction of the number of MSPs as a consequence of a reduction in the number of hon. Members from Scottish constituencies. [14398]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the Executive on a range of issues. I announced to the House on 6 November that I will be consulting widely on the size of the Scottish Parliament and expect to receive the views of Scottish Ministers and others on this matter.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Environment Agency (Navigation Responsibilities)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has reached a decision on the review of the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities. [16771]

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has reached a decision on the review of the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities. [16827]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities were considered during Stage 1 of the Financial, Management and Policy Review (FMPR) which has recently been completed. The review team considered a wide range of views on the subject, including responses to public consultation, reports such as that of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee, and an independent consultant's study.

  The Stage 1 report concluded that there were no compelling operational reasons for a transfer of functions from the Environment Agency to British Waterways, but nor were there insuperable barriers to such a transfer. The report also concluded that there was an underlying policy issue to be resolved, which was beyond the scope of the FMPR to address. Essentially, that was whether the institutional arrangements for the waterways should be structured to promote navigation and regeneration benefits, with flood defence and conservation accommodated within the structure, or vice versa. In this respect British Waterways and the Environment Agency offer different advantages.

  I have considered carefully the FMPR report, and information and views provided subsequently by the Environment Agency and British Waterways. This has not been a straightforward decision. I am attracted by the potential regeneration benefits a transfer to British Waterways could bring, and I accept the FMPR report's conclusion that flood defence issues do not pose an insuperable barrier to transfer, given British Waterways' safety record on its own rivers. However, any change needs to be justified by clear and objective evidence. On

  199W
  balance I do not judge there is sufficiently robust evidence on which to justify a transfer. I have therefore decided that current responsibilities should continue.

  The Environment Agency will be set challenging new targets to deliver the improved service on navigation and regeneration being developed through initiatives like "Thames Ahead", working with local authorities and other partners. I look forward to positive results from this exercise, and to renewed goodwill and partnership with British Waterways in serving our important inland waterways.

  BSE
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish all correspondence(a) between her Department and (i) the Institute of Animal Health, (ii) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, (iii) the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, (iv) the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, (v) the Food Standards Agency and (vi) the Department of Health, and (b) between those agencies which are the responsibility of her Department, regarding tests to establish whether BSE was present in sheep in the early 1990s. [10594]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Border Inspection Posts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to record centrally(a) the number of people employed in border inspection posts and (b) where they are deployed. [13275]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: The inspection services at the border inspection post (BIP) are the responsibility of the local authority and it is for the appropriate local authority to deploy inspection staff at the BIP in response to the volume and nature of products imported through the BIP. For this reason the exact number of inspectors engaged in checking imports can vary from day to day. Any centrally held figure would therefore be accurate only on the day it was collected. Central Government have no powers to instruct the local authority over the number of inspectors.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to draw up a National Contingency Plan in relation to foot and mouth disease. [11736]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Contingency plans are held and regularly reviewed by the Regional Operations Directors who have been put in place to deal with the current foot and mouth disease outbreak. The plans are kept under review and up-dated as necessary in the light of the latest disease situation. They are based on the continued adherence to and rigorous enforcement of the existing control strategies, including tight biosecurity, and take the form of working documents that have to be refined in the light of any new developments including up to date epidemiological advice.
  200W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has recently received from Professor Fred Brown regarding new technologies in the diagnosis of foot and mouth disease. [8909]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: The Department last had contact with Professor Brown some months ago when he proposed the use of new portable technology, a portable SmartCycler, in the diagnosis of foot and mouth. This equipment has been tested at Pirbright against the laboratory-based testing system and results compared.

  Early findings indicate that the tests carried out within the laboratory are more accurate as they are able to identify borderline positive samples. This has been crucial in the fight against this outbreak. The technology test itself is quicker than the laboratory by two hours, but in its current form it is not suitable for large scale testing in the field. This is because there are a number of practical considerations which might lead to contamination of samples which are tested in the field. Further work on the validation of the test, the assay procedures and "real time" comparisons with the laboratory system is being carried out. We are always keen to encourage new technology in this area and willing to co-operate in development and validation whenever we have the facility available and it is practical to do so.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received requesting a public inquiry into the origins of the foot and mouth outbreak and the measures taken to control it. [7861]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The Government have received a number of representations on this subject. These have mainly been from parish, district and borough councils.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the average daily fee and commission paid to(a) valuers, (b) slaughtermen and (c) vets for their work in the slaughter of herds owing to FMD between March and October. [12294]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The precise information requested cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. Information on the fee structure is as follows: (a) valuers are paid 1 per cent. of valuation subject to a daily minimum of £500 and daily maximum of £1,500; (b) slaughtermen are paid at or around a headage rate of £2.50 per bovine and £1.00 per sheep, pig or goat; and (c) temporary veterinary inspectors are engaged at a daily rate of £250.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what standard operating procedures based upon previous outbreaks had been established by MAFF to deal with foot and mouth. [15371]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Comprehensive veterinary instructions and procedures have been in existence for some years. These are developed in the light of outbreaks of disease (not only foot and mouth) and are continually reviewed and

  201W
  amended where necessary. In this outbreak, numerous instructions have also been issued in response to the developing disease situation.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure the effective monitoring of progress by local authorities on the implementation of plans to improve air quality. [11733]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Local authorities have a key role to play in improving air quality, and we recognise the importance of monitoring closely the progress that they are making. We have issued guidance to local authorities on preparing air quality action plans, and authorities are required to consult us on all draft plans as they emerge. We will consider these carefully, and offer formal comments as appropriate. Once air quality action plans are in place, we will monitor their effectiveness through our national air quality monitoring network, as well as by overseeing the results of local authorities' own future reviews and assessments of air quality. Where insufficient progress is being made, we have the power under section 85 of the Environment Act 1995 to issue directions to local authorities, requiring them to do more.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish a timetable for regular reviews of the Government's air quality standards. [11732]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The Government's plans for future reviews of air quality standards and objectives were set out in Chapter 6 ("Next Steps") of the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000. The Government's air quality standards are based on the advice of the expert panel on air quality standards (EPAQS), and are reviewed as and when necessary in the light of scientific and other developments in the UK and elsewhere. EPAQS's work programme is regularly revised to take account of emerging developments, including new advice from the World Health Organisation and the European Commission.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to widen the membership of the expert panel on air quality standards and to review its remit; and if she will make a statement. [11731]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The Government recognise the need to widen the membership of the expert panel on air quality standards (EPAQS). We are, for example, taking urgent steps to recruit at least one lay member onto the panel. EPAQS remit will be revised and updated following discussions at the Air Quality forum (a stakeholder group which advises the Government on air quality policies) earlier this year. A copy of the remit and a list of the current members is available via the Department's website. http://www.defra.gov.uk/

  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to identify the long-term effects of nitrogen dioxide emissions on human health. [11730]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The Department of Health has recently issued a call for research proposals which includes a request for a review of the effects of long-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide on health. In addition, the World Health Organisation will be reviewing the health effects of nitrogen dioxide in the next couple of years. The Government will assess the implications of these reviews when they have been completed, and will take full account of them in shaping any policy objectives for nitrogen dioxide that are set after that time.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to promote farmers' markets. [7862]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: We have actively encouraged the development of farmers' markets.

  In 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture hosted a seminar which led to the creation of the National Association of Farmers' Markets (NAFM). The NAFM acts as the `umbrella' body for farmers' markets and plays a key role in protecting and advancing their interests at a national level. We awarded NAFM grant under the Agricultural Development Scheme towards its training, accreditation and marketing programmes. More recently we have provided funding to help NAFM re-launch farmers' markets in the wake of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Farmers Markets may be eligible for funding under the Rural Enterprise Scheme which is part of the England Rural Development Programme.

  Earlier this year we co-sponsored the Local Government Association Guide on Farmers' Markets. The Guide is intended to disseminate good practice for local authorities hosting farmers' markets and provides a range of information, help and advice.

  The Countryside Agency, which we grant aid, is also supporting the development of farmers' markets.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) likelihood of interbreeding of genetically modified fish and wild fish and (b) environmental consequences of such interbreeding, with particular reference to salmon. [8001]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: It is likely that fertile genetically modified (GM) fish released into the environment would interbreed with the local wild population of the same species. The environmental consequences would depend on the individual circumstances.
  203W
  The likelihood of environmental consequences is the rationale behind the European Regulatory regime, which prohibits releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Directive 90/220 requires that anyone wanting to release genetically modified organisms in any country in the EU must have prior approval subject to a detailed risk assessment. Approval cannot be granted unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities that all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment. Each application is considered on a case by case basis taking account of specific circumstances in each individual case; it is not possible to generalise.

  In the case of a proposal to release GM salmon the likelihood of interbreeding with the wild population is one of the factors which would be assessed. It is difficult to envisage approval being granted where the possibility of interbreeding with wild stock exists.

  Sellafield
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the environmental implications of the manufacture of MOX fuel at Sellafield; [9928]

  (2) what conclusions her Department has reached about objections raised by (a) the Irish Government and (b) others to the MOX plant at Sellafield; [9929]

  (3) what (a) risk assessment and (b) additional consideration her Department has given to the risk of suicide terrorist attacks on shipments of plutonium since 11 September; [9931]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Secretary of State for Health and I decided on 3 October that MOX manufacture is justified under the Basic Safety Standards Directive. We took account of all relevant issues up to that date, including environmental and security considerations and the views of the Irish Government and others who responded to five consultation exercises over five years. A copy of our decision is in the Library, including a summary of environmental, security and other main considerations taken into account. Paragraphs 56–64 and 67–70 of the decision document and paragraphs 6–14 and 25–33 of Annexe 1 describe these issues in detail. We sought the advice of agencies responsible for safety and security issues, including the Office for Civil Nuclear Security which, as the decision document makes clear, took account of the terrorist attacks on 11 September.

  Timber Products (Public Sector Procurement)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice the Cabinet Office gives to(a) Government Departments and (b) public sector procurement directors about the purchase of office furniture which has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. [16462]

  Mr. Morley
  Giving advice to Government Departments on environmental procurement matters is the joint responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of Government Commerce.
  204W
  Central Government Departments were formally reminded of the Government's policy to procure timber and timber related products from sustainable and legal sources in a Note dated 2 January 2001 from the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions sent to heads of procurement under cover of a Note from the Office of Government Commerce. In that note attention was drawn to advice on the DETR website—now maintained by DEFRA. Central Government have not given advice on this subject directly to other public sector procurement directors but the Government's advice is widely available and can be adapted or adopted by any other organisation.

  Central Government buyers are advised to specify in orders and contracts that suppliers provide documentary evidence, which has been, or can be, independently verified, that the timber has been lawfully obtained from forests and plantations managed to sustain their biodiversity, productivity and vitality and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and any indigenous or forest dependent people. When verifying the credibility of suppliers' claims buyers are not advised to consider any particular scheme in preference to other schemes. Buyers have been advised, by way of the statement made by the Minister for the Environment to Parliament on 28 July 2000, that the Forest Stewardship Council is an example of a body that sets independent standards for sustainable forestry and a means for verifying the source of timber purchased.

  DEFRA has commissioned a study of central Government's timber procurement requirements with a view to producing further advice to buyers.

  Foxhunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she received the risk assessment of restarting foxhunting, and if she will publish it. [10003]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: The Veterinary Risk Assessment for hunting was submitted in mid-September in the light of the foot and mouth disease classification of counties for autumn movements. Since then, Ministers and officials have monitored the disease picture closely and have been considering the detail of how any relaxation of foot and mouth disease controls on hunting would be implemented. The Veterinary Risk Assessment and our decision based on it were published on 15 November 2001 and have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House.

  Lembit öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what individuals and organisations have been consulted during the compiling of the Veterinary Risk Assessment report on hunting; and if she will make a statement. [12022]

  Alun Michael
  Officials from the Department have met a range of organisations including the Countryside Alliance, the League against Cruel Sports and the Masters of Foxhounds Association regarding the possible relaxation of foot and mouth disease controls over hunting.

  Badgers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the illegal killing of badgers. [16199]

  Mr. Morley
  This Government deplore the illegal killing of badgers. The principal legislation protecting the welfare of badgers is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Under the 1992 Act it is an offence to kill, take or dig for a badger, or attempt to do so, except under licence or in certain particular circumstances, or to injure one or attempt to do so. The maximum penalty for an offence under the 1992 Act is a fine of £5,000 and/or 6 months' imprisonment.

  The level of protection for badgers is unique for an unendangered animal and reflects the concern which is felt by Parliament about the gratuitous acts for cruelty to which badgers have been subjected to all too often in the past.

  Flooding
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department is issuing to householders who face repeated flooding on(a) protecting and (b) insuring their properties; and if she will make a statement. [16452]

  Mr. Morley
  Guidance on protecting properties is available from the Environment Agency's Floodline Service and on the agency's website.

  As regards flood insurance, it is clearly in householders' interests to ensure that their policies provide suitable cover against flooding. The Government maintain close links with the insurance industry to help ensure continued availability of affordable flood cover. Together with the flood defence operating authorities, we are reducing the risk of flooding and are communicating this to the industry. However, it must be recognised that insurance companies need to take a commercial decision as to what risk they will cover and on what terms. Also, the insurance industry is a competitive one and customers may need to shop around to obtain the best deal.

  The agreement among Association of British Insurers (ABI) member companies is that they will continue to provide flood cover, except in exceptional circumstances, for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure, during 2001 and 2002. Cases where there is an alleged breach of this agreement have been referred by DEFRA to the ABI for investigation.

  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the ABI on 5 September to discuss our mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood insurance cover continues to be generally available after December 2002. Further discussions between official have taken place.

  In relation to the concerns expressed by the ABI, the Government are acting to reduce flood risk, through substantial increases in investment in flood and coastal defence (which now totals over £400 million a year). Flood defences are being repaired, renewed, maintained and improved. Flood warning arrangements are continually being improved. The Government have issued strengthened guidance to local planning authorities on
  206W
  control of development in flood risk areas, and are reviewing the financial and institutional arrangements under which the flood defence service is delivered.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional funding she will make available to assist local authorities with the cost of sandbags, water pumps and other items in relation to flooding and flood defences in the next 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [16451]

  Mr. Morley
  The flood defence service is provided by the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities. It is funded by a combination of grant from DEFRA towards approved capital schemes and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions funding delivered through the local government financial mechanisms.

  Total Government funding is set to increase from some £377 million this year to £394 million in 2002–03. The great majority of this funding is used to provide new flood defences, maintain and improve existing defences and watercourses, and provide flood warning schemes, though such funding may also be used to provide additional sandbags and pumping equipment.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received from owners of properties that were flooded last year for the first time and have been designated by insurance companies as at risk; [16568]

  (2) what measures she has taken to assist homeowners whose houses are not on flood plains but who have been flooded in the last year who are required to pay the same insurance premiums as those homeowners who are; [16567]

  (3) if she will encourage insurance companies not to charge excessive premiums to homeowners who possess properties at risk from flooding. [16569]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government maintain close links with the insurance industry to help continued availability of affordable flood cover. Together with the flood defence operating authorities, we are reducing the risk of flooding and are communicating this to the industry. However, it must be recognised that insurance companies need to take a commercial decision as to what risk they will cover and on what terms. Also, the insurance industry is a competitive one and customers may need to shop around to obtain the best deal.

  The agreement among Association of British Insurers (ABI) member companies is that they will continue to provide flood cover, except in exceptional circumstances, for domestic properties and small businesses which they currently insure, during 2001 and 2002. Cases where there is an alleged breach of this agreement have been referred by DEFRA to the ABI for investigation.

  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the ABI on 5 September to discuss our mutual aim of ensuring that affordable flood insurance cover continues to be generally available after December 2002. Further discussions between officials have taken place.

  In relation to the concerns expressed by the ABI, the Government are acting to reduce flood risk, through substantial increases in investment in flood and coastal defence (which now totals over £400 million a year).

  207W
  Flood defences are being repaired, renewed, maintained and improved. Flood warning arrangements are continually being improved. The Government have issued strengthened guidance to local planning authorities on control of development in flood risk areas, and are reviewing the financial and institutional arrangements under which the flood defence service is delivered.

  Pay Dispute
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the state of industrial relations at her Department's office in Worcester; and if she will make a statement. [15631]

  Mr. Morley
  Despite the current pay dispute involving the Public and Commercial Services Union, we are continuing to maintain working relations with them and other DEFRA unions.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely implications of industrial action at her Department's office in Worcester for the efficient delivery of services by that office; and if she will make a statement. [15634]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the industrial action carried out by staff employed at her Department's regional offices at(a) Crewe, (b) Nottingham and (c) Bristol; and what assessment she has made of the industrial action's effect on the (i) despatch and (ii) processing of (A) agricultural claim forms and (B) payments for farmers. [15811]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA Ministers receive regular reports on the impacts on the Department and we are determined to manage the consequences responsibly, taking account of the needs of our customers the taxpayer and the long-term working relations in the Department. Our aim is to resolve the current dispute as quickly as possible.

  Local Access Forums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in establishing local access forums; and if she will make a statement. [13867]

  Alun Michael
  I am pleased to say that we are making significant progress. On 31 July I published a consultation document on proposals for regulations to establish local access forums under Section 94(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The consultation closed on 23 October. We received around 300 responses, and these will be considered with care when drafting the regulations. I expect the regulations to come into force early next year.

  Livestock Farming
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the future of livestock farming in the UK. [13939]
  208W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: DEFRA's objectives are to create a livestock production sector which is sustainable, competitive, responsive to consumer demands and founded on high animal health and welfare standards.

  To ensure sustainability we need to have regard to environmental limitations and market limitations. We continue to argue the case for decoupling EC beef and sheep payments from production to enable producers to align their livestock numbers to the carrying capacity of their land and to the likely markets for their produce.

  Better marketing is needed to shorten the supply chain between producer and consumer. This should enable producers to be both more competitive and to respond to consumer tastes.

  DEFRA is determined to develop a coherent strategy for the identification and tracing of animals to enable diseases to be tackled more effectively and to ensure consumer confidence in animal products. We are also launching the National Scrapie Plan, which is a long-term programme for breeding genetic resistance to scrapie and BSE into the national sheep flock.

  Hare Coursing
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding illegal hare coursing; and if she will make a statement. [14309]

  Alun Michael
  A number of hon. Members have commented on the problem of illegal hare coursing following the Adjournment Debate initiated by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 727–34. In responding to that debate I set out the Government's position on illegal hare coursing.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the special advisers employed by her Department and their relevant qualifications and experience. [15367]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed Sheila Watson and Nicci Collins as her special advisers under the terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for special advisers. Details of the career history of individuals are not disclosed, under exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

  Departmental Estate
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) buildings and (b) lands owned by her Department. [15357]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Details of the buildings and land owned by the Department have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Open Day
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her head office intends holding a public open day. [15356]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The Department has a good record of heritage involvement and has opened the doors of Nobel House, its Grade 2* listed headquarters on Millbank, for the Open House event over the past few years. This has been favourably received by about 2,500 visitors, for whom officials have laid on guided tours, exhibitions and a brochure. This takes considerable pre-planning and unfortunately we could not open the building in September 2001 because of the pressures of foot and mouth disease. We intend to open Nobel House again in the future.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the components and weightings are of the economic tests applied to proposals for(a) coastal protection and (b) flood prevention. [16608]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides funding for coast protection and flood alleviation capital works that meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. To ensure that value is obtained for taxpayers' money the economic criteria for all works are that (a) the benefits outweigh the costs and (b) the most economically efficient option, commensurate with achieving an appropriate level of protection, is identified. The most recent guidance for operating authorities on the aspects to be covered in the economic appraisal of both coast protection and flood alleviation schemes was published in 1999.

  Kew Gardens
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the report of the Quinquennial Review of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has been completed. [16770]

  Alun Michael
  The review team have completed Stage I of the Quinquennial Review of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. This deals with strategic options. I am today depositing a copy of their report in the parliamentary Libraries.

  The Government welcome the work of the review team and the scientific visiting group. We shall be replying to the recommendations of both exercises in due course with a formal response and action plan agreed jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

  Stage II of the Quinquennial Review is currently in hand.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/
  210W
  photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6942]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 81–82W.

  Resource Productivity
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will publish its report on resource productivity; and if he will make a statement. [16700]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Resource productivity: making more with less" to Government is being published today. I welcome the report, which will make an important contribution to delivering our goal of sustainable development. The report focuses on how to meet our objectives on economic growth without unacceptable environmental impacts.

  Key areas identified in the report for further action include Government procurement; a new approach to sustainable development and resource productivity in small businesses; targeted support for resource productive innovation; and an assessment of long-term indicative targets.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will lead on taking forward the implementation and dissemination of the report, in collaboration with colleagues on the ENV(G) Cabinet sub-committee.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. It is also available on the Cabinet website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made regarding the extension of the east coast main line franchise. [13565]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Negotiations between the Strategic Rail Authority and GNER are continuing. Discussions for extending franchises will focus on better rolling stock, refurbished stations and new services.

  Rent Restructuring
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to announce his proposals for rent restructuring; and if he will make a statement. [13566]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister of State responsible for local government and the regions announced our proposals for rent restructuring in the December 2000 policy statement, "The Way Forward
  211W
  for Housing". We expect to announce shortly how the housing revenue account subsidy system is to change to reflect those proposals.

  Inner-city Regeneration
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage regeneration in the inner cities. [13567]

  Ms Keeble
  We are working closely with 24 partner towns and cities around the country to take forward the urban regeneration agenda. My Department also has a number of programmes including the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, New Deal for Communities and Neighbourhood and Street Warden schemes through which we are spending over £1.9 billion in deprived areas over the next three years.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to control the nuisance of aircraft noise. [13568]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's policy is to address the nuisance of aircraft noise by promoting improved standards for noise at source, through ICAO and other bodies; by encouraging good practice in noise control at airports through local consultation; and where appropriate by directly regulating operational noise controls.

  Local Government Settlement
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will use financial floors and ceilings in determining the local government settlement for 2002–03. [13569]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As I announced to the House on 20 July, we will be applying floors and ceilings to grant increases for authorities with education and social services responsibilities, and to police and fire authorities in the 2002–03 local government finance settlement. We are also considering how best to improve predictability and stability for shire districts in the 2002–03 settlement. We will announce the details of our proposals to the House at the start of the consultation on the provisional settlement.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rail infrastructure improvement targets Railtrack has met since privatisation. [13571]

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rail infrastructure improvement targets Railtrack has met since privatisation. [13579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No infrastructure improvement targets were set at the time of privatisation. Since 1998 the Rail Regulator has set a range of targets for Railtrack covering track quality, broken rails and overall performance. Of these, the company has met that relating to broken rails for 2000–01 and a small proportion of those covering track quality and operational performance.
  212W
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) on which dates, up to one month prior to 5 October, he received advice from the Treasury indicating funds were not likely to be approved to maintain the(a) viability and (b) liquidity of Railtrack plc; [16227]

  (2) if he will list the dates up to one month prior to 5 October when he received advice from the Treasury, pursuant to his statement in the House of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 724. [16226]

  Mr. Byers
  As I made clear in my Statement to the House on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 725, it was my decision, on behalf of the Government, on 5 October to refuse further funding for Railtrack plc, over and above the Regulated settlement and the 2 April Agreement. Treasury was kept fully informed of Railtrack' s requests for unlimited funding.

  Rail Network (Funding)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on future funding of the rail network. [13573]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on future funding of the rail network. [13577]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government, through their 10 Year Plan, remain committed to delivering a better, safer and more reliable railway network for the 21st century, and are prepared to spend over £30 billion over the next 10 years to achieve substantial improvements.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the planning procedures for erecting telecommunications masts in residential areas and near schools. [13574]

  Ms Keeble
  Mobile phone mast development in residential areas and near schools is subject to the normal telecommunications planning arrangements in place throughout England.

  Our recently published Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 "Telecommunications" advises that before an operator submits an application for planning permission or prior approval for a mast near a school or college they should discuss the proposed development with the relevant body of the school or college.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Wirral)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the standard spending assessment for the Wirral. [13575]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are currently determining the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for 2002–03. We will announce the resulting figures for all English local authorities at the time of the consultation on the provisional settlement, which will commence in late November or early December, as is normal.

  Elected Mayors
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the adoption of local government constitutions involving elected mayors. [13576]

  Dr. Whitehead
  To date, referendums in six local authorities, including Doncaster, have supported the introduction of an elected mayor, and mayoral elections in those local authorities will be held in May 2002.

  We have also received proposals from five other councils that include the holding of referendums on a range of dates between now and the beginning of February 2002.

  Glas Cymru
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of Glas Cymru as a model for the new Railtrack. [13578]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have indicated that we will be making a proposal to the administrator for a company limited by guarantee to take over Railtrack's role, but the Secretary of State will of course consider any proposal put to him by the Administrator to transfer the railway assets out of administration.

  We are of course aware that Glas Cymru is based on the company limited by guarantee model, as are a large number of housing associations throughout the country. But our proposal will not be based on any one company model.

  E-Government
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to assist local authorities to deliver e-Government. [13580]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities are making good progress towards meeting e-Government targets with the help of £350 million from the Local Government Online Programme. £24 million of this has been allocated this year to fund 24 of the 25 pathfinder projects; I expect to release a further amount shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make an announcement on the reform of local government finance. [13581]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Local Government White Paper due to be published later this year will set our financial reforms in context of the wider modernisation agenda and will include a Daughter Document detailing our financial proposals.

  Private Sector Houses (Surplus)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action his Department proposes to take to assist local authorities with large numbers of unwanted and surplus private sector houses. [13583]
  214W
  Ms Keeble
  We recognise the problems created by abandoned housing in low-demand areas. There are no easy answers. The causes of market decline vary between authorities and so will the solutions. Local authorities already have a range of tools that they can use to deal with surplus housing. Other measures, such as licensing of private landlords and our private sector renewal reforms, are in the pipeline.

  Bicycle Transportation
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives light rail operators on the circumstances under which passengers may transport cycles. [13584]

  Ms Keeble
  We offer no specific guidance to operators on the carriage of cycles on LRT systems. However, the National Cycling Strategy, which we support, suggests that all new LRT projects should include cycle carriage. Advice in "Cycle-friendly Infrastructure, Guidelines for Planning and Design" also advocates the carriage of bicycles on LRT. However, this is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the operator.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes to local government structures he plans as part of the introduction of regional assemblies. [13585]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we intend to publish a Regional Governance White Paper, and this will set out how we plan to take forward our Manifesto commitment that:"provision should be made for directly elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established".

  North Kent Rail Services
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase passenger capacity on North Kent rail services; and what recent representations he has received on this issue. [13586]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has no immediate plans to increase passenger capacity on North Kent rail services. However, this could be achieved by introducing 12-car operation as part of the Thameslink 2000 project and as a result of possible negotiations to extend the current Connex South Eastern franchise. I am not aware of any recent representations on this issue other than those made by my hon. Friend.

  Local Communities (Partnerships)
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to encourage partnerships in local communities. [13587]
  215W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government expect county, district and parish councils to work in partnership with each other, with local communities, and other public, private and voluntary sector organisations to provide the best quality services for local people.

  We are taking a number of steps to foster this working, including the promotion of 'local strategic partnerships' to bring these groups together.

  Under the duty of Best Value, we also expect local councils to explore new ways of delivering public services, and that is why we have just launched a new task force on strategic service delivery further to encourage partnership working with the private sector.

  I understand that there is effective joint working between the public, private and community and voluntary sectors in Dorset and I commend my hon. Friend the member for South Dorset (Jim Knight).

  Mobile Phones (Accidents)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what evidence he has collated on the number of accidents caused by motorists using mobile phones while driving. [13588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is clear evidence of an increased risk of an accident when using any type of mobile phone while driving. Detailed investigation is needed to establish the cause of any accident. Two research projects currently under way will help to establish the likely numbers of road traffic accidents involving mobile phones.

  Women in Government
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage women to put themselves forward for election to each level of Government. [13589]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have introduced the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill to enable political parties to use positive measures to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected.

  We are also reforming Government to make it a more attractive option to all people of all backgrounds, including women, through improving the hours and working environments at all levels of government.

  However, political parties have a vital role to play in encouraging women to come forward, and I hope that the work that the Government are doing in this area acts as a spur to parties wishing to achieve a greater gender balance in their representatives.

  Ten-year Transport Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which projects in the 10-year transport plan he estimates(a) will and (b) will not be open by 2010. [13590]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-year plan is an investment strategy aimed at providing improvements to transport across the board. There is no definitive list of projects. These will emerge as decisions are taken in the light of 216W
  reports from the multi-modal studies, by local authorities and the Mayor of London, and by the SRA and the rail industry.

  Concessionary Fares
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the scope of the current legislation covering concessionary fares in England and Wales. [13582]

  Ms Keeble
  The Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill will extend local authority concessionary travel schemes to men aged 60–64 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 14 November 2001 by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight,Official Report, column 850, on concessionary coach fares, if he will set out when public financial support for concessionary fares for pensioners on (a) buses and (b) coaches (i) became permissible, (ii) became mandatory and (iii) began to be implemented or will begin to be implemented, (A) for within-county travel and (B) for out-of-county travel. [16464]

  Ms Keeble
  Concessionary travel on buses and coaches at county level has been permitted since 1968. It was possible for authorities to arrange for the concession to apply outside the county by arrangement with adjoining local authorities. The statutory minimum standard that commenced in June 2001 ensures at least half-fare travel for pensioners on local buses. It does not apply at county level outside the metropolitan areas, although there is no reason why local authorities should not join together to run a county scheme, or a scheme beyond the county boundary, if they wish.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of road traffic accidents occurred on or near to the calibration lines of speed cameras in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [11657]

  Mr. Jamieson
  That information does not form part of the accident record. Monitoring of the areas taking part in the trial of a new funding system for speed and traffic signal enforcement cameras has shown a significant decrease in the number of collisions and casualties at the camera sites. A site is considered to be the stretch of road within a half a kilometre of the camera.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what percentage of(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries in road traffic accidents occur to passengers where they and the car driver are under 21 years. [15015]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In Great Britain in 2000 there were a total of 3,409 deaths in road accidents. Four per cent. of these fatalities were aged under 21 and a passenger in a car with a driver who was also under 21. There were 38,155 seriously injured casualties, of whom 3 per cent. were passengers where they and the car driver were under 21 years of age.

  M25 Motorway
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will change the variable speed limit system in operation on the M25 motorway to permit the raising of speed limits above 70 mph in non-rush hour periods and lighter traffic. [12327]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M25 Controlled Motorway scheme is experimental and still subject to evaluation: there are no plans to modify the scheme at this time.

  Social Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) council and (b) registered social landlord properties, and what percentage of all properties in each case, in each region in England and Wales will have target rents above their actual rent at the end of the 10 year transition period, assuming that target rents rise in line with retail prices index over the same period. [14479]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the social rent reforms, we are protecting tenants by limiting actual rent changes to no more than £2 per week in any one year above the normal increase for inflation, even where this means it takes more than 10 years for actual rents to reach the target levels given by the reforms. Information on actual and target rents under the reforms is currently not available. Social landlords will only have completed their property valuations and calculated their target rents under the reforms around the turn of this calendar year.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) council and (b) RSL properties, and what proportion of the total stock in each case, in each region in England and Wales will see (i) a reduction in their target rent as against their current rent, (ii) an increase in their target rent as against their current rents of under £10, (iii) an increase in their target rents as against their current rents of £10-£20, (iv) an increase in their target rents as against their current actual rents of £20-£30, (v) an increase in their target rents as against their current rents of £30-£50 and (vi) above £50 under the Government's rent restructuring proposals. [14478]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is currently not available. Social landlords will only have completed their property valuations and calculated their target rents under the reforms around the end of this calendar year.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the percentage of(a) council and (b) RSL tenants in London whose rents will rise as a consequence of the introduction of the target rents set as a consequence of the introduction of the rent restructuring proposals. [14521]

  Ms Keeble
  Our initial estimates were based on the English House Condition Survey database and information from landlords' statistical returns. At a national level, in April 2000 terms, they suggested the restructuring formula leads to increases in rents for around 53 per cent. of council tenants and 52 per cent. of RSL 218W
  tenants. Equivalent figures have not been produced at the level of individual regions to avoid problems from small sample sizes.

  Compulsory Training Directive (Minibus Drivers)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact the European Directive on Compulsory Training for LGV and PCV drivers will have on voluntary minibus drivers required to hold a D1 driving licence. [14939]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have sought to assess the impact by seeking the views of interested parties on the draft Directive, including the exemptions it proposed to the compulsory training requirement. Copies of the Consultation Paper were placed in the House Libraries. As discussions have progressed, we have held meetings with groups with particular interests in minibus drivers, such as the Community Transport Association and the Confederation of Passenger Transport.

  Persons driving minibuses as volunteers may usually do so on the basis of holding a car driving licence. Under European driving licence laws they are exempt from the normal requirement to hold the higher standard vocational driving licence, provided they can satisfy the exemption conditions which generally relate to age and experience.

  Discussions on the draft Directive have established that drivers who are not required to hold a vocational driving licence will not be required to undertake the compulsory training requirement.

  Affordable Homes (London)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the number of affordable homes achieved via(a) section 106 agreements and (b) unilateral undertakings by London boroughs between April 2000 and April 2001. [14951]

  Ms Keeble
  Statistical data recently supplied by the London boroughs with their housing strategy submissions indicate that 1,010 affordable homes (completions) were provided through Section 106 agreements in London for April 2000–April 2001. However, these figures are provisional and require further validation and may include housing units achieved by way of unilateral undertakings.

  In addition, we have commissioned detailed research into levels of affordable housing in London provided by Section 106 obligations.

  Fishing Vessels
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fishing vessels of over 12 metres have had an MCA sea worthiness test in each year for the last 10 years for which figures are available. [15663]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of fishing vessels over 12 metres in registered length that have undergone a survey and been issued with a UK Fishing Vessel Safety Certificate in the last 10 years is as follows.
  219W

  Year

  Number of surveys

  1990–91

  508

  1991–92

  581

  1992–93

  550

  1993–94

  564

  1994–95

  395

  1995–96

  361

  1996–97

  399

  1997–98

  376

  1998–99

  274

  1999–2000

  303

  2000–01

  358

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fishing vessels of over 12 metres length are registered which are liable for(a) a mandatory MCA test and (b) a sea worthiness certificate. [15662]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are 1,236 fishing vessels over 12 metres in length registered in the UK. All these vessels are issued with a sea worthiness certificate in the form of a UK Fishing Vessel Safety Certificate and are subject to the mandatory tests associated with the certificate as appropriate to the individual vessels.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fishing vessels of over 12 metres length have failed to pass their MCA sea worthiness test in each year for the past 10 years for which records are available. [15661]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In practical terms no fishing vessel over 12 metres in registered length fails its sea worthiness test when presented for survey. Vessels presented for survey are issued with a list of defects that are rectified before the Fishing Vessel Safety Certificate is issued.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to prepare for the European Commission's draft directive target of 2 per cent. road fuel provision by biofuel by 2005. [15615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The draft Directive on the "Promotion of biofuels for transport" has yet to be discussed by member states, and it is premature to consider its implementation. The Government have already announced that biodiesel will attract a fuel duty rate of 20 pence per litre below the rate for ultra low sulphur diesel, to be introduced in Budget 2002. Bioethanol is one of the fuels to which the Government are offering support for research through piloting as part of the Green Fuels Challenge programme.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria he has used to assess the environmental benefits of(a) wheat grain and (b) cellulosic biomass as source material for bioethanol production. [15308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government assess the environmental benefits of fuels including bioethanol produced from various feedstocks on a lifecycle basis. This includes consideration of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts such as noise, waste, biodegradability and biodiversity. Bioethanol is one of the fuels to which the Government are offering 220W
  support for research, through piloting, as part of the Green Fuels Challenge programme in order to foster the development of lower-carbon bioethanol.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what recent comparison he has made of the relative greenhouse gas emissions of(a) biodiesel, (b) bioethanol, (c) compressed natural gas and (d) liquid petroleum gas. [15614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government launched the Green Fuels Challenge in November 2000, consulting industry and environmental groups on the possible environmental and health and safety aspects of the range of alternative fuels, including biodiesel, bioethanol, natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. The outcome of the first stage of the Challenge was announced in the 2001 Budget. The criteria used for the consultation and a summary of the Green Fuels Challenge preliminary results are available on DTLR's and DEFRA's websites.

  London Underground
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many stations on the London Underground will be refurbished as part of his Department's investment plans for the tube; [15565]

  (2) how many miles of new track will be laid on the London Underground as part of his Department's investment plans for the tube [15564]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's modernisation plans for the London Underground will deliver at least £13 billion investment over the next 15 years. Bidders have said that more than 50 stations will be modernised in the first 7½ year period.

  School Buses
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities in England have indicated that they have dropped the three for two rule regarding the seating of pupils under 14 years of age on scheduled bus services. [15798]

  Ms Keeble
  Seating arrangements on scheduled bus services, other than contract services for a local authority, are a matter for the operator subject to the relevant regulations and not for the local authority.

  I have no information on what arrangements are in place for bus services provided and contracted to local education authorities. This is a matter for local authorities and operators.

  Planning Reform
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the Green Paper on planning reform; and whether the Green Paper will consult on a change to the use classes order system of planning regulation. [16019]

  Ms Keeble
  I expect to publish the Green Paper by the end of the year. A separate consultation document will be issued in the new year relating to the use class order.
  221W
  These documents form part of a suite of consultation papers proposing comprehensive reform of the planning system.

  Cornish
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government will complete their assessment of the case for specifying the Cornish language within the European Charter for regional or minority languages. [15861]

  Ms Keeble
  I can assure the hon. Member that Government's assessment of their position on Cornish in relation to the Charter is being given the most careful consideration. We share his interest in a timely conclusion to this work and have said we will do this as quickly as possible. This remains our aim.

  Free Bus Passes (London)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the provision of free bus passes for pensioners in London. [16173]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the Transport Act 2000, the statutory minimum requirement for local authority concessionary fare schemes guarantees that pensioners and disabled people are entitled to half fares on local bus services, with a free bus pass. The London boroughs, however, have chosen to provide a more generous free travel scheme with free travel for their resident pensioners and disabled people.

  Employment (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funding he has provided(a) to encourage employment opportunities and (b) to regenerate industrial estates in the Blackpool, North and Fleetwood constituency in the last three years. [16058]

  Ms Keeble
  The constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood has benefited from the award of £20 million funding in round two of the Single Regeneration Budget. The £2 million Business and Technology Park in the Moor Park area of Bispham was part funded by £600,000 from the SRB and has attracted £1.4 million of private sector investment. Its aim is to encourage inward investment and generate permanent jobs.

  Rents
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 616W, on rent levels, what information he has collated on the impact of his proposals on the average level of rents in inner London boroughs. [16197]

  Ms Keeble
  Initial results from the case study we commissioned in West London suggest that between 2000–01 and 2011–12 the average level of weekly rent will rise in real terms from £61 to £72 for council tenants in LB Hammersmith and Fulham and from £62 to £81 for tenants of Notting Hill Housing Trust.
  222W
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effect of rent restructuring on constituencies with high housing prices. [13570]

  Ms Keeble
  We have reviewed our approach to the introduction of the rent reforms on new developments. We have concluded that it could lead to some anomalies between the rents on new and existing stock. We have therefore decided that restructured rents on new developments should be phased in alongside restructuring on the remainder of a landlord's stock.

  We recognise that there are potential problems associated with the small number of existing properties which would have very high rents under the reforms and are considering proposals for tackling them.

  Older People (Discrimination)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action his Department has taken to tackle discrimination against older people. [16327]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government are determined to tackle discrimination against older people and will continue to act to combat it wherever it is found.

  Our long-term integrated transport strategy is helping older people by delivering more accessible public transport, ensuring half price local bus fares for pensioners, and providing support for a wide range of flexible, community transport projects. We are also taking forward the recommendations contained in our audit of older people's transport requirements.

  Home Ownership (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of home ownership in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years. [16255]

  Ms Keeble
  The level of home ownership in the Buckingham Constituency (which is the same area as covered by Aylesbury Vale district council) over the last five years is detailed in the table.

  Year

  Total number of dwellings in area

  Total number of private sector dwellings

  2001

  64,545

  54,760

  2000

  63,687

  53,648

  1999

  63,229

  52,885

  1998

  62,516

  52,203

  1997

  61,225

  50,772

  Monocular Drivers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department maintains records on the safety record of monocular drivers. [15772]
  223W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions does not maintain records on the safety record of monocular drivers.

  Employers' Insurance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statutory provisions govern the rights of employees to information on the employers liability compulsory insurance scheme. [15961]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no statutory provisions governing the rights of employees to information under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 ("the 1969 Act"). So far as the insurance that an employer takes out to comply with the 1969 Act is concerned, regulation 5 of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998 made under the 1969 Act requires the employer to display one or more copies of the certificate of insurance at each place of business at which he employs any relevant employee of the class or description to which the certificate relates.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statutory provisions govern the commercial confidentiality of information held by companies on employers' insurance liabilities. [15963]

  Dr. Whitehead
  So far as I am aware, there are no statutory provisions specifically governing the commercial confidentiality of information held by companies on employers' insurance liabilities. Companies must, however, comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of personal and sensitive personal data which may be relevant to insurance liabilities and may be bound by contractual or other duties of confidentiality restricting disclosure.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many companies were prosecuted in the last five years for failing to display an ELCI certificate in the workplace. [15962]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no known cases where a company has been prosecuted for not displaying an ELCI certificate. However, since April 1996 there have been 24 prosecutions by HSE of companies for failure to hold ELCI cover. When such failure occurs, it follows that the company has also failed to display a valid ELCI certificate.

  Apart from these cases there has been no known instance where an employer has failed to display an ELCI certificate after an inspector has requested him/her to do so.

  There are a further five prosecution cases awaiting court dates.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statutory provisions govern the duty of employers to display an ELCI certificate in the workplace. [15955]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Regulation 5 of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998. This requires an employer who has been issued with an ELCI certificate to display one or more copies of it at each place 224W
  of business at which he employs any relevant employee of the class or description to which the certificate relates. Section 4 of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 provides for a person who fails to comply with a requirement to display copies of the certificate of insurance to be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000).

  Disabled Passengers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on what his Department is doing to ensure that the UK transport network is accessible to those with(a) mobility problems and (b) other disabilities. [16426]

  Ms Keeble
  We are committed to providing an accessible public transport system in which people with a wide range of disabilities will have the same opportunities to travel as everyone else. Accessibility regulations for new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Part III of the Act requires public transport infrastructure to be accessible to disabled people. From 2004 this will include the removal of physical barriers to access.

  The 10 Year Transport Plan introduced a new commitment to ensuring that access for disabled people is a condition of all new public investment in transport.

  Traveline
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the promotion and use of the Traveline website. [16428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traveline currently is primarily a telephone service offering route and timetable information on all forms of public transport. A website is being developed to supplement the telephone service. The website can be seen at www.traveline.org.uk. and links to all currently available public transport journey planners in the UK. During 2002, journey planners for more regions will become available and will be linked from the site. As coverage of these services becomes more comprehensive the national Traveline website will be given more active promotion.

  Camping (Research)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions what was the cost to public funds of the research project conducted by Heriot-Watt University, the University of Bristol and the University of Cardiff into the implementation of Government guidance on managing unauthorised camping. [16339]

  Ms Keeble
  The cost of the research was £80,519.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expenditure in each financial

  225W
  year for the planned lifetime of each initiative (A) nationally and (B) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [16427]

  Ms Keeble
  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions programmes contribute to the regeneration of all deprived neighbourhoods by

  £ million1

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02 estimate

  2002–03 plans

  Coalfields

  —

  2

  15

  26

  15

  Community chest

  —

  —

  —

  10

  15

  Community empowerment fund

  —

  —

  —

  12

  12

  European regional development fund areas

  229

  278

  246

  255

  254

  Neighbourhood management

  —

  —

  —

  16

  23

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  200

  300

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  New Deal for Communities

  —

  4

  35

  94

  350

  Single Regeneration Budget

  561

  692

  725

  851

  767

  1 Rounded

  The Government Office for the North East is collecting information on regeneration funding within Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency and I will write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  The objectives of the national DTLR regeneration initiatives are as follows:

  Coalfields
  To bring about the physical, social, economic and environmental regeneration of Coalfields. Support for the Coalfield Regeneration Trust covers the period 1999–2000 to 2005–06.

  Community Chest
  To support community involvement and activity in deprived neighbourhoods for up to three years.

  Community Empowerment Fund
  To support community and voluntary sector involvement in Local Strategic Partnerships for up to three years.

  European Regional Development Fund Areas
  To tackle economic regeneration by promoting the development of those regions—lagging behind the rest of the European Union, redeveloping regions seriously affected by industrial decline; and supporting the adjustment of rural and urban areas facing new economic challenges. DTLR share of the ERDF programme covers the period 2000–06.

  Neighbourhood Management
  To help deprived communities and local services improve local outcomes, by improving and joining up local services, and making them more responsive to local needs. Support is provided up to seven years.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  To enable the 88 most deprived authorities to improve services, narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country. Subject to review in SR2002.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Using Wardens to tackle the problems of our poorest neighbourhoods. Subject to review in SR2002.

  New Deal for Communities
  To tackle multiple deprivation in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country, taking forwards the Government's commitment to combat social exclusion in the context of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Action Plan. The lifetime of schemes is up to 10 years.
  226W
  helping to improve the quality of life of local people by reducing the gap between deprived and other areas and between different groups. Levels of funding for the initiatives listed by the Cabinet Office Regional Co-ordination Unit as being the responsibility of this Department are as follows:

  Single Regeneration Budget
  To enhance the quality of life of local people in areas of need by reducing the gap between deprived and other areas, and between different groups. Schemes under each round have a lifetime up to seven years.

  Urban Regeneration Companies
  To lead and co-ordinate redevelopment and new investment in declining urban areas. URCs are new independent companies established by the relevant local authority, Regional Development Agency, English Partnerships (if appropriate), the private sector and other key partners. The lifetime for each URC is for the local partners to decide. Resources or powers are those that the local partners themselves are willing to commit.

  Road Surfaces
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the relative effectiveness of reducing noise levels of(a) porous asphalt and (b) this surface coating road surfaces. [16597]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department has researched the relative effectiveness of porous asphalt in reducing traffic noise levels from those generated by a conventional motorway asphalt surface for nearly 20 years. The specification for porous asphalt was developed using research into ways of increasing its durability, which was inevitably reduced by its porosity. One of the issues emerging from the longer-term research into porous asphalt has been the tendency for its performance to reduce as the pores become clogged.

  Thin surface coating road surfaces have been researched since these surfacings first became available in the early 1990s. A wide range of proprietary materials covered by this description has been subjected to a range of tests developed by the British Board of Agreement under the Highway Authorities Product Approval Scheme. The test of relative acoustic performance included within this scheme was developed from the procedure used in the research programme.

  NAOMI Traffic Flow Model
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the
  227W
  projects for which the Highways Agency's NAOMI traffic flow model has been used in the last six months. [16596]

  Mr. Byers
  During the last six months, the NAOMI traffic model has been used to predict traffic flows for the following projects:

  The ORBIT multi-modal study, which covers the M25 corridor

  Proposals for service areas on the M25, M4 and M40.

  Additionally, during the last six months information from the NAOMI model has provided input to developing the traffic forecasts for the following projects:

  The Reading Area Transportation Study

  A simulation model of the M25 junctions 10 to 16

  Research into trip movements at motorway service areas

  A proposed motorway service area on the M27 at Meon Valley

  An investigation of M25 Junction 13 and Glantry roundabout

  Highways Agency development control

  An investigation of development opportunities in Thames Gateway.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the NAOMI traffic flow model was introduced by the Highways Agency; and what assessment has been made of its reliability and accuracy. [16595]

  Mr. Byers
  The NAOMI (New Assessment of Motorway Improvements) traffic flow model was introduced originally in 1995 and has been subject to several revisions and updates. The current version has been in use since September 2001. The reliability and accuracy of the model has been assessed using procedures contained in volume 12a of my Department's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and passed as being fit for purpose as a regional scale model.

  Public Transport (Wales)
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales to achieve an integrated public transport system for Wales. [13553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport met the Minister for the Environment of the National Assembly, Sue Essex, in July this year. At that meeting various items relating to achieving an integrated public transport system were discussed. Officials are in regular contact with the Assembly regarding developments which may affect devolved policy.

  Rochdale District Council
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the funding of Rochford district council. [13572]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This financial year, Rochford district council received a 3.9 per cent. increase in Government support. The Spending Review provided for continued good increases in grant for all authorities in the next two years. We will be announcing our proposals for funding for local government in 2002–03 at around the end of this month.

  Turner and Newall Plc
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what investigations his Department has carried out into Turner and Newall plc in relation to employees' liability insurance cover since 1971; and if he will make a statement. [15958]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None.

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to issue instructions to exempt(a) teachers, (b) fire fighters, (c) police officers and (d) nurses from payment of the congestion charges in London. [15018]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have no plans to issue instructions to exempt the categories of road users mentioned by the hon. Member from the payment of congestion charges in London. It will be open to the Mayor of London to grant concessions on exemptions to his scheme if he judges it appropriate to do so.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Service Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost in 2000–01 was of the inclusion of the Lexicon Portal in the Court Service website. [14979]

  Mr. Wills
  The cost in 2000–01 for the inclusion of the Lexicon Portal in the Court Service website totalled £80,700.

  Court Building Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost to public funds was in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the court building programme. [14919]

  Mr. Wills
  The cost of the 2000–01 court building programme was £8,519,779. The cost of the 2001–02 court building programme is anticipated to be £12,146,000.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost is in 2001–02 of the Complaints Unit set up by the Public Trust Office. [14992]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office was created as a new executive agency on 1 April 2001, and has assumed the responsibilities of the Public Trust Office for looking after the financial affairs of people suffering from mental incapacity. The estimated administration costs of the Complaints Unit at the Public Guardianship Office will be £286,000 in 2001–02, including accommodation and common services costs.

  "Funds in Court: Unclaimed Balances"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on his Department's response to the National Audit Office report "Funds in Court: Unclaimed Balances". [14929]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Audit Office report was followed by a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee. The Government gave their response to the report of the Public Accounts Committee in a Treasury minute dated 25 April 2001 (CM 5127).

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the cost to public funds of the statutory instruments introduced in 1999–2000; and if he will list them. [15128]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A list of the statutory instruments has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It includes those signed by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and laid before Parliament in the years 1999 and 2000, and also Orders in Council for which the Lord Chancellor's Department was responsible. A list of Northern Ireland statutory rules signed by or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor is also included.

  The exercise by the Lord Chancellor of a power granted to him in primary legislation to make rules, regulations or other statutory instruments is often a necessary step for the expenditure of public funds, but is not in itself a sufficient step. It is seldom if ever possible to say that the expenditure of any particular sum is attributable to, and only to, a particular statutory instrument.

  PFI
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will make a statement on the expected savings to public funds from the Private Finance Initiative contracts signed by his Department in 2000–01; [15036]

  (2) what Private Finance Initiative contracts have been signed by his Department in the current financial year. [14924]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not signed any Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts in either of these years. The Department does, however, provide financial support and other assistance to local authority PFI projects for magistrates courts buildings. The contract for the city of Manchester magistrates court. which was signed by Manchester city council in March 2001, is expected to save £3.25 million at today's prices over the 25 year contract. The contract for Derbyshire magistrates courts, which was signed in August 2001 by Derby city council and Derbyshire county council, is expected to save £10.2 million over the 25 year contract, again at today's prices.

  Libra Project
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost is in 2001–02 of the Libra project. [15038]
  230W
  Mr. Wills
  The estimated costs of the Libra project in 2001–02 amount to £26.5 million. This is made up of internal costs, payments to ICL for the rollout of the first phase of the project and payments by the Magistrates Courts Service for the ongoing usage of Libra.

  Royal Courts of Justice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress of and cost saving from the public-private partnership to procure a building adjacent to the new court complex and the Royal Courts of Justice for the location of headquarters staff. [14897]

  Mr. Wills
  We have no public-private partnership to procure a building at or adjacent to the Royal Courts of Justice for headquarters staff.

  Northern Ireland Court Service (IT Provision)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the savings achieved by the Northern Ireland Court Service's public-private partnership agreement with ICL for the provision of IS/IT services. [14898]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Information Services and Information Technology Agreement between the Northern Ireland Court Service and ICL is a 10 year contract with the main savings and benefits, as identified in the business case, realised through the delivery of new operational systems. Specifically these are the Enforcement of Judgments System and the Integrated Court Operation System due for delivery in late 2001 and 2005 respectively.

  Savings since the signing of the contract, at current average costs, have totalled £274,000 with further savings to be achieved on the delivery of the Integrated Court Operations System. The contract has delivered a wide range of non-financial efficiencies with specific emphasis on supporting the Government's modernisation programme including a replacement ICT infrastructure, a corporate desktop and an intranet service.

  J. W. Roberts Ltd.
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of Mr. Justice Hart's reasons for accepting the petition of J. W. Roberts Ltd. in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Companies Court (in the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986) heard on 1 October; [15960]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the transcript of the hearing and decision of the petition of J. W. Roberts Ltd. in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court heard on 1 October by Mr. Justice Hart. [15956]

  Mr. Wills
  A transcript of the hearing of and decision on the petition of J. W. Roberts Ltd., one of the 133 cases heard by Mr. Justice Hart, on 1 October, will not be placed in the Library as this is not normal procedure. Transcripts of court proceedings, or parts of proceedings, are not routinely arranged unless requested by a superior court for the consideration of an appeal. However, the parties to the action, or any interested party, with the judge's consent, can order it. The judge has given his consent and it is now open to anyone to place an order
  231W
  for a transcript with the court reporters responsible for taking the verbatim record of the case. There is a charge for this service, although in cases of financial hardship this may be met from public funds. The order may be placed with the Court Reporting Unit, Royal Court Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL. Before deciding whether to place an order for the transcript an estimate of the cost should be requested, as this may be considerable.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library the list of the companies Turner and Newall put into administration as a result of the hearing and decision on the petition of J. W. Roberts Ltd. in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division Companies Court heard on 1 October. [15964]

  Mr. Wills
  A list of the companies in the T and N Group in respect of which the administration orders were made on 1 October 2001 will not be placed in the Library. A central index of companies in administration is held on computer in the High Court of Justice. This index is available to anybody to search on payment of a fee of £5 for 15 minutes.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date J. W. Roberts petitioners and Turner and Newall plc first filed its application for administration under the Insolvency Act 1986. [15957]

  Mr. Wills
  The petition was presented on 1 October 2001.

  Community Legal Service
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) public, (b) private, (c) charity and (d) non-governmental organisations are involved in community legal service partnerships in the (i) borough of Middlesbrough and the (ii) Redcar and Cleveland areas. [16446]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The borough of Middlesbrough is covered by the Middlesbrough Community Legal Service Partnership which includes representatives from Middlesbrough borough council, the Benefits Agency, Teesside Magistrates Court, 21 local law firms and 24 non-governmental and charitable organisations, including Middlesbrough Citizens Advice Bureau.

  Redcar and Cleveland borough council is covered by the Redcar and Cleveland Community Legal Service Partnership which includes representatives from Redcar and Cleveland borough council, the Benefits Agency, 16 local law firms, and eight non-governmental and charitable organisations, including Redcar and Cleveland Citizens Advice Bureau.

  Public Defenders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to develop the concept of public defenders throughout the UK. [16444]

  Mr. Wills
  Public defender offices are being piloted by the Legal Services Commission in the first phase of a four-year pilot which began in May 2001. Offices have already opened in Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Swansea and Birmingham. The 5th and 6th offices will be opened 232W
  before April 2002. During and at the end of the four-year start-up period the Government will review the service and make decisions on its future development. The Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office are responsible for the administration of justice in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in completing the review to(a) repeal and (b) amend (i) primary and (ii) secondary legislation under section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; how many statutory bars have been scrutinised during this review; if he will list the titles of (A) primary and (B) secondary legislation which are to be repealed or amended under section 75 of the Act; when the review began; and if he will make a statement. [14747]

  Mr. Wills
  Over 300 separate pieces of legislation containing these statutory bars have been identified and are in the process of being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments to establish which provisions may be repealed or amended. I will make a further report to the House when the review has been completed. Given the complexity of the legislation under review, however, it may be some time before a full statement can be given.

  Scottish Executive
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13822]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will provide a substantive reply to the letter of 31 July about public procurement from the hon. Member for Christchurch; and what is the explanation for the delay. [16463]

  Mr. Leslie
  The hon. Member's letter of 31 July, which refers to what advice the Cabinet Office gives to Government Departments and public sector procurement directors about the desirability of purchasing office furniture which has been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and it will be replying directly to the hon. Member shortly.

  The delay occurred due to an administrative error in the allocation of this case to the correct Government Department.

  Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appointments he has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in his gift. [15477]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office's internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies" will be published around the end of the year.

  Between 7 June and 31 October 2001, the Deputy Prime Minister has made 10 such appointments. The total number of appointments in these bodies for which the Department is responsible is 269.

  Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women is responsible for appointments to two public bodies within the Cabinet Office. Between 7 June and 31 October 2001, she has made two appointments out of a total of 31 in these bodies.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many special advisers leaving the Government since May 1997 have made applications before taking employment elsewhere to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and if he will make a statement. [14703]

  Mr. Leslie
  Special advisers are subject to the Business Appointment Rules set out in the "Civil Service Management Code" and departmental staff handbooks. They are required to make an application to their employing Department for permission to take up outside 234W
  appointments under the criteria set out in the rules. Departmental Permanent Secretaries, who may consult the Cabinet Office or the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, take the decisions on applications from special advisers. Applications from the most senior staff are referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Information on the number of applications made by special advisers to Permanent Secretaries is not held centrally.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2001,Official Report, ref. 13819, what is the Official Report reference and column number. [16204]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Official Report reference and column number to the pursuant answer of 14 November 2001, ref. 13819 is Official Report, column 783W.

  Equal Pay
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he has taken to promote the code of practice on equal pay in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector. [15729]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Code of Practice on Equal Pay was published in 1997 by the Equal Opportunities Commission. With Government support, the Commission has publicised the Code of Practice in both the public and the private sectors. Since then the pay gap has narrowed from 20 per cent. to 18 per cent. We have provided an extra £100,000 in funding for the Equal Opportunities Commission to support work with employers on building the capacity for them to do pay reviews, including developing software to help employers with computerised pay systems.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Findings from the Youth Justice Plans 2001–02"
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the Youth Justice Board's report, "Findings from the Youth Justice Plans 2001–02". [17027]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board's report "Findings from the Youth Justice Plans 2001–02" was published in August and copies have been placed in the Library. The Youth Justice Board was established in September 1998 to spearhead the reforms to the youth justice system. 154 multi-agency Youth Offending Teams (YOT) have been in operation across England and Wales since 1 April 2000, carrying out the reforms locally. Summaries of progress reports submitted by each individual YOT form the basis of this report. It shows the substantial achievements to date including: the transition to multi-agency working; meeting the Pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence of persistent offenders; successful implementation of a range of new sentences supported by programmes designed to tackle individuals' offending behaviour, and innovative crime prevention measures in deprived areas.

  World Cup (Licensing Hours)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief constables on proposals by the Magistrates Association that public houses should be allowed to serve alcohol from 6 am to coincide with World Cup matches played by England in different time-zones. [13407]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The Magistrates' Association have made no such proposals. Normal licensing law will apply during the period of the World Cup in 2002. Extensions of permitted licensing hours may be granted by licensing justices but only after taking account of the views of the chief officer of police for the area concerned.

  Anthrax
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on precautions to be taken by(a) Government Departments and (b) the public in relation to the threat of anthrax attack. [13410]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office is working very closely with the Department of Health on precautionary guidance that should be followed in relation to biological and chemical threats received by post including anthrax. The Home Office initially provided updated guidance in the form of a supplement to 'Bombs: Protecting People and Property' which was made available via the Home Office website. Departmental Security Officers in Government Departments have been issued with appropriate guidance by the Cabinet Office Security Division.

  Using the Home Office guidance as a starting point, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) were asked to prepare expanded guidance for members of the public, employers and workers on: general mail handling; identification of a suspect package; steps that should be taken if a suspect package is received or if somebody comes into contact
  236W
  with a biological or chemical substance and what to do if you are an employer. This information is now available on the website of the News Co-ordination Centre http://www.co-ordination.gov.uk (part of the Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Secretariat) and the HSE's own website. The guidance is also linked to other Government websites. The guidance will be kept under constant review in the light of developments worldwide.

  Non-lethal Weapons
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has undertaken on non-lethal weapons for use by the police in incidents involving(a) firearms and (b) other weapons as alternatives to firearms. [13260]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office, in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Northern Ireland Office, is currently reviewing, as a matter of priority, the range of "less lethal" technologies that might be appropriate for use by the police in situations of public disorder as alternatives to the baton round or, where the police are faced with an armed assailant, as an alternative to the use of firearms. In April we published a full account of the less lethal technologies available setting out the different kinds of equipment under examination. These include certain impact devices, long range chemical delivery devices, water cannon, electrical devices, disorientation devices, malodorants, and tranquillisers. Phase II of this work prioritising these less lethal technologies is nearing completion, and the results will be published shortly. Those alternatives selected for immediate further research will be subject to further testing and independent medical evaluation.

  Where, however, the police are faced with a situation where there is an immediate threat to life from a person with a firearm, firearms officers will be deployed to the scene and a firearms response will remain a primary option, in line with existing ACPO guidance.

  Trial Drugs Policy (Brixton)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the trial drugs policy in Brixton; and what plans there are to adopt a similar approach in other parts of the UK. [16439]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 500W.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the quality of(a) care and (b) treatment being offered to (i) mentally and (ii) personality disordered prisoners held in young offender institutions; and if he will make a statement. [16342]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prison Service establishments, including young offender institutions, and the health authorities in which they are situated, have been jointly assessing prisoners' health needs, including their mental health needs, and identifying appropriate services to meet them and effective means of delivery. This process, which had been very largely completed by the end of March
  237W
  2001, was designed to lead to improvements in service provision, through the implementation of individual prison health plans, commencing from April 2001.

  The Department of Health's National Service Framework for Mental Health (1999) and the National Health Service (NHS) Plan (2000) make provision for improving mental health services to prisoners, in particular the development of community mental health teams working in prisons. Delivery of these commitments will require prisons and their local health partners to conduct specific mental health needs assessments and identify the services that will need to be put in place to meet any deficits.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for mandatory drug testing at each young offender institution. [16343]

  Beverley Hughes
  The random mandatory drug testing targets for each male young offender institution and juvenile establishment are listed in the table.

  Percentage

  Establishment

  Mandatory drug testing target

  Ashfield

  —

  Aylesbury

  12

  Brinsford

  19

  Castington

  13

  Deerbolt

  7.5

  Dover

  12.1

  Feltham

  22

  Glen Parva

  15

  Numbers of suicides in young offender institutions by financial year

  Establishment

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total

  Aylesbury

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  7

  Brinsford

  1

  —

  —

  4

  2

  1

  8

  Castington

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Dover

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Feltham

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  Glen Parva

  3

  —

  2

  1

  2

  —

  8

  Hindley

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  5

  Northallerton

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Onley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Portland

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Reading

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Swiffen Hall

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Wetherby

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Total

  12

  7

  7

  13

  10

  4

  53

  1 To date

  Numbers of self harm incidents in young offenders institutions by financial year

  Establishment

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total

  Ashfield

  —

  20

  156

  77

  253

  Aylesbury

  4

  121

  84

  5

  214

  Brinsford

  37

  43

  43

  14

  139

  Castington

  34

  67

  89

  46

  238

  Deerbolt

  4

  3

  11

  1

  20

  Dover

  4

  2

  —

  1

  7

  Feltham

  64

  30

  38

  13

  145

  Glen Parva

  56

  67

  78

  24

  233

  Hatfield

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Hindley

  12

  7

  3

  5

  27

  Huntercombe

  2

  5

  8

  3

  19

  Lancaster Farms

  29

  26

  20

  9

  87

  Northallerton

  25

  27

  43

  14

  111

  Onley

  —

  —

  5

  24

  29

  238W

  Percentage

  Establishment

  Mandatory drug testing target

  Hatfield

  10.5

  Hindley

  14

  Huntercombe

  14

  Lancaster Farms

  6

  Northallerton

  12

  Onley

  5

  Portland

  8.5

  Reading

  18.5

  Stoke Heath

  8

  Swinfen Hall

  7.5

  Thorn Cross

  15

  Werrington

  10

  Wetherby

  8

  Ashfield young offender institution is a private sector establishment. Financial penalties are incurred for each guilty adjudication following a positive random mandatory drug test.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides and (b) incidents of self-harm have taken place at each young offender institution in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01 and (f) 2001–02 to date. [16341]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available figures for each male young offender institution and juvenile establishment are listed in the tables. I regret that figures on self-harm are not available for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 as data were not recorded centrally until January 1998.
  239W

  Numbers of self harm incidents in young offenders institutions by financial year

  Establishment

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total

  Portland

  7

  15

  29

  13

  65

  Reading

  36

  12

  2

  13

  71

  Stoke Heath

  23

  12

  19

  11

  72

  Swiffen Hall

  9

  7

  12

  4

  32

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Werrington

  5

  2

  2

  —

  17

  Wetherby

  3

  3

  10

  9

  25

  Total

  356

  470

  653

  286

  1,808

  1 To date

  Drug Addiction Statistics
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) registered addicts and (b) non-registered addicts of (i) cocaine and (ii) heroin there were in the UK in each of the last 10 years. [15538]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The term 'registered addict' has no generally agreed definition in the United Kingdom.

  The Home Office previously collected and published information relating to individuals notified to the Addicts Index. Since the Addicts Index closed at the end of April 1997, there are no current figures from that source. However, the Department of Health publishes information on the number of persons presenting to drug misuse services for treatment in Great Britain who are reported to the Drug Misuse Databases; this includes persons with a main drug of misuse of heroin or cocaine. Figures are only available for the period April-September 1993 onwards, and are given in Table 1.

  The number of addicts (including those not in treatment) is unknown. Traditionally, a multiplier method was used based on the Addicts Index. However, a more robust approach has been developed recently by a group of researchers. The findings are given in Table 2.

  Table 2—Summary of 1996 United Kingdom prevalence estimates for drug use based on multiplier methods and household survey data

  Method

  Form of drug use

  Estimate

  Multiple indicator method

  Problematic drug users

  268,253

  Treatment demographic method

  Problematic opiate users

  162,544

  Treatment coverage method

  Problematic opiate users

  243,820

  HIV multiplier

  Injecting drug users

  161,200

  Mortality multiplier

  Drug users at risk of overdose related death

  161,133

  Household Survey data

  Opiates+ users

  251,000

  Household Survey data

  Injecting drug users

  168,905

  Government estimate

  Severely dependent drug misusers

  100,000–200,000

  Source:

  Table 5, Frischer M, Hickman M, Kraus L, Mariani F, and Wiessing L. (2001). 'A comparison of different methods for estimating the prevalence of problematic drug misuse in Great Britain'. Addiction, 96, 1465–1476.

  Organised Crime (Russia)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ensure regular Russian authority co-operation in helping to track Russian organised crime in the United Kingdom. [14726]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been close co-operation between law enforcement authorities in the United Kingdom and Russia in recent years, which has been valuable to both parties. The United Kingdom has two
  240W
  Although there are estimates for problematic opiate use (which is mostly heroin-related), no information is presented for cocaine.

  Table 1—Number of persons presenting for treatment at drug agencies, with heroin or cocaine reported as the main drug, during six-month periods ending 30 September 1993 to 30 September 2000, in Great Britain

  Main drug of misuse

  Six-month period ending

  Heroin

  Cocaine

  30 September 1993

  8,643

  512

  31 March 1994

  9,746

  737

  30 September 1994

  11,191

  783

  31 March 1995

  12,282

  903

  30 September 1995

  13,400

  1,074

  31 March 1996

  14,488

  1,015

  30 September 1996

  16,621

  894

  31 March 1997

  18,285

  1,053

  30 September 1997

  14,749

  959

  31 March 1998

  16,390

  1,178

  30 September 1998

  18,994

  1,709

  31 March 1999

  20,027

  1,693

  30 September 1999

  21,389

  2,153

  31 March 2000

  23,824

  2,121

  30 September 2000

  24,759

  2,116

  Source:

  Department of Health series of Statistical Bulletins; the most recent is "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for six months ending September 2000".

  bilateral agreements with Russia, both inter-agency and intergovernmental. We have a joint fiscal, crime and drugs liaison officer based in Moscow who works closely with his counterparts in Russian law enforcement agencies. Senior United Kingdom law enforcement officials regularly visit to maintain links at the highest level. Both Russia and the United Kingdom are members of the G8 Lyon Group, which focuses on transnational serious and organised crime. The United Kingdom will continue to work closely with Russia through bilateral and

  241W
  European initiatives to combat serious and organised crime originating in Russia and reduce its impact on the United Kingdom.

  Crime Prevention Schemes (North-west)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities in the north-west of England have not received funding for both CCTV and street warden schemes. [13648]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) initiative is funding public area CCTV schemes to a potential value of £170 million across England and Wales. Bids have been assessed, using pre-formulated guidelines, to ensure they: meet national and local crime reduction priorities; are technically sound; have links to a wider package of crime reduction measures, and provide value for money. The table lists those local authority areas that submitted (as part of local crime and disorder reduction partnerships) unsuccessful bids. Some of these authorities also submitted successful bids.

  The Street Warden Programme, funded by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) and run through the Neighbourhood and Street Wardens Programme (a joint Home Office/DTLR unit based in DTLR), is to provide £25 million towards a pilot programme of Street Wardens schemes across England. The programme is funded solely by DTLR. The table lists those local authority areas that submitted (or from which another body such as a Housing Association submitted) unsuccessful bids. Again some of these authorities also submitted successful bids.

  CCTV bids

  Street wardens bids

  Local authority

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Allerdale

  *

  *

  Blackburn and Darwen

  *

  *

  Blackpool

  *

  *

  Bolton

  *

  *

  *

  Burnley

  *

  Carlisle

  *

  *

  *

  Cheshire

  *

  Chester

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Copeland

  *

  *

  *

  Crewe and Nantwich

  *

  *

  Cumbria

  *

  Eden

  *

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  *

  Fylde

  *

  *

  Halton

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Hyndburn

  *

  Knowsley

  *

  *

  *

  Lancashire

  *

  Liverpool

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Macclesfield

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Manchester

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Oldham

  *

  *

  *

  Pendle and Burnley

  *

  Rochdale

  *

  *

  *

  Rossendale

  *

  Salford

  *

  *

  Sefton

  *

  *

  *

  South Ribble

  *

  *

  St. Helens

  *

  242W

  CCTV bids

  Street wardens bids

  Local authority

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Stockport

  *

  Tameside

  *

  *

  Trafford

  *

  Vale Royal

  *

  *

  Warrington

  *

  West Lancashire

  *

  Wigan

  *

  *

  *

  Wirral

  *

  Dr. Ali Dizaei
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone conversations of Dr. Ali Dizaei, legal adviser to the National Black Police Association, were(a) recorded and (b) transcribed by the investigation team; and what proportion contained legally privileged information. [13706]

  Mr. Denham
  I would refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 9 November, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if surveillance of Dr. Ali Dizaei included the recording of his telephone calls with members of the media. [13711]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 9 November, which indicates that the Metropolitan police have confirmed that the practice in relation to calls made by Superintendent Dizaei was that all calls made by him on the Metropolitan police service telephone network were recorded.

  Sex Offenders (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted sex offenders are resident in the Buckingham constituency. [14206]

  Beverley Hughes
  Until recently data on the number of registered sex offenders were collated bi-annually on a national basis from the police national computer (PNC). The most recent national statistics concerning sex offender registration are shown in the table. However, this arrangement has been overtaken by guidance issued by the Home Office in respect of the statutory provisions in Section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The guidance requires information about the number of registered sex offenders in each police area to be published. This will take place from April 2002 and local systems are being put in place to deliver it. Until these systems are in place such information could only be obtained by a specific exercise by the particular police force concerned which would lead to disproportionate costs.

  After April 2002 such figures will be available for each police authority area. However, this will not necessarily be the same as the Parliamentary constituency.
  243W

  Sex offenders act 1997—Statistics1

  September 2000

  March 2001

  Increase

  Percentage change

  Number of offenders with a requirement to register

  13,809

  15,148

  1,339

  +9.7

  Number registered

  13,474

  14,813

  1,379

  +10.3

  Number not registered2

  375 (2.7%)

  335 (2.2%)

  -40

  -10.6

  Compliance rate (percentage)

  97.28

  97.78

  0.5

  +0.5

  1 Statistics compiled by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) from a PNC

  2 Percentages given in brackets are a fraction of the number of offenders with a registration document

  Heroin
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the percentage of heroin imported into Britain that originates from(a) Taliban controlled Afghanistan, (b) Northern Alliance controlled Afghanistan, (c) Burma and (d) other countries. [13723]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In the years prior to the ban on opium production introduced by the Taliban in July 2000 about 95 per cent. of Afghanistan's annual opium production originated in Taliban controlled areas. We estimate that over 90 per cent. of heroin which was imported to the United Kingdom was made from opium produced in Afghanistan. The amounts originating from opium produced in other parts of the world in the same years was very small.

  CCTV (Dudley)
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV on the level of crime in Dudley town centre and Sedgley. [13969]

  Mr. Denham
  Police operational experience and various other research studies show that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  Under round one of the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative, the Home Office funded a CCTV scheme in Sedgley town centre costing £25,450 and one in Stafford Street Car Park, Dudley town centre, costing £46,342. These came into operation in December 2000 and January 2001 respectively.

  The Home Office has made no formal evaluation of the effectiveness of CCTV in either of these areas. However analysis by the local police suggests that CCTV has contributed to the reduction in recorded crime of 13.6 per cent. in Dudley and 22.8 per cent. in Sedgley between June 2000 and June 2001. There will be a more detailed review of the effectiveness of the Home Office funded schemes after the first full year of operation.

  Salah Idris
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of Salah Idris in security companies engaged at sensitive sites in the United Kingdom. [13678]

  Mr. Denham
  This issue was raised in another place on 9 October 2000 and 3 May this year. The position remains unchanged.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he estimates has been payable under the firearms compensation scheme. [13930]

  Mr. Denham
  There were 72,000 claims received from 55,000 individuals who handed in 162,198 handguns and 700 tonnes of ammunition under the terms of the firearms compensation scheme.

  Compensation payments currently stand at just over £90 million.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will take to ensure that lessons can be learned from incidents involving the police use of firearms. [17028]

  Mr. Denham
  Under section 79 (1) of the Police Act 1996 I have requested the Police Complaints Authority to report to me on the lessons to be learned from recent incidents. The terms of reference of that review will be:To consider the lessons to he learned from investigations supervised by the Police Complaints Authority since January 1998 into incidents in which shootings by police occurred and which resulted in death or injury, with particular regard to:
  The planning, control and conduct of those operations;
  The way in which the concerns of the bereaved families were addressed, and how they were kept informed of the progress of the investigation;
  The training and skill needs of police officers involved in such operations, particularly at command level.

  The Police Complaints Authority have already begun work on this review, and I have asked them to report within six months. The report will be laid before Parliament and published.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he collates on the time for applications for firearms and shotgun licences to be processed, from the time they are submitted to the time they are approved and returned to the applicant by firearms departments of police forces. [13457]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office statistical bulletin on firearm certificates provides information on the overall number of certificates on issue or refused. There is no routine collection of statistics on processing times. The collection of such management information is a matter for individual chief officers of police who are responsible for administering the certification process.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he issues on the number of people employed in firearms departments of police forces; and what steps he takes to ensure that these are complied with. [13458]
  245W
  Mr. Denham
  None. It is for individual chief officers of police to determine how particular departments should be staffed.

  Under the provision of the Local Government Act 1999 all forces are required to carry out a five year rolling programme of best value reviews of all areas of business. The outcome is examined by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in accordance with their inspection protocols and the results made available through the appropriate police authority.

  Departmental Events
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) national and (b) international awareness events his Department has participated in since June 1997 in the form of (i) sponsorship, (ii) departmental attendance, (iii) similar departmental activities and (iv) a message of support. [5045]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Home Office Ministers and officials participate in a wide range of national and international events in support of Home Office policies, both in the United Kingdom and internationally. Our aim is to build a safe, just and tolerant society and the Home Office is involved in a wide range of initiatives to support this. To set out a full list of all these events would incur disproportionate cost, so I am providing an overview of Home Office activity to show how we are seeking to achieve this aim.

  Examples of Home Office initiatives include participation by Ministers and officials in crime reduction initiatives and conferences, such as the Neighbourhood Watch annual conference; participation in criminal justice and policing conferences, such as the annual conferences of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation. The Home Office, in conjunction with community and voluntary sector organisations, is also leading the way to promote active communities in the United Kingdom. The Home Office has sponsored and attended a range of voluntary sector activities, such as the annual Philip Lawrence Awards, and the launch of Parents' Week in October 2001. An important area is promoting race equality and ministerial colleagues and I have supported and attended a number of conferences and events to underline the Government's commitment to racial equality and effective race relations. The Home Office also supported the 1997 European Year against Racism and the United Nations' World Conference on Racism in 2001.

  On the international front, Home Office Ministers and officials regularly attend European Union Councils, working groups and other activities in the conduct of justice and home affairs business and promoted a range of events during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union in 1998. Officials and police representatives are also engaged in a wide range of co-operation and training with other countries.

  A key objective for the United Kingdom is to ensure that the accession of new member states to the European Union does not adversely affect the safety of our citizens. The Home Office is involved in "Twinning", a European Union-funded programme which enables experts from current and future European Union member states to work
  246W
  in partnership, sharing expertise and implementing the candidates' new European Union-compliant legislation. For example last year we successfully implemented a project to improve the quality of Poland's management of its eastern border and the effectiveness of its police force. Experts from the United Kingdom Forensic Science Service, National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad worked with Dutch, French and German colleagues to deliver training and advice that will have a real and lasting effect.

  The Home Office has led projects in the Czech Republic to improve relations with the Roma community and to help their authorities combat organised and financial crime. In conjunction with our law enforcement agencies, we are also leading projects in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Lithuania.

  In a major step towards stemming the flow of illegal immigrants to Europe, the first team of European Union immigration experts has started work in Sarajevo. The team, the majority British immigration officials, will work alongside colleagues from the Bosnian State Border Service, providing on-the-job training and advice.

  In July 2000, the anti-drugs twinning project between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria (European Union Phare sponsored) was launched in Sofia and was attended by Home Office officials.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to tackle debit and credit card fraud. [15124]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government take the problem of card fraud very seriously and are currently working closely with the finance and retail sectors and the police to establish and promote best practice in protecting cards and introduce ways of preventing this type of fraud.

  One major initiative is the planned introduction of microchips into payment cards to help authentication and the introduction of cardholder verification system using a Personal Identification Number (PIN) code in place of signatures to confirm the user is genuine. This commitment to phase in Chip and PIN was given at the third Home Office seminar on reducing cheque and credit card fraud in July. The banking industry anticipates that the phasing in of Chip and PIN technology by the end of 2004 will eliminate more than 80 per cent. of plastic card fraud.

  Another initiative currently being considered is the setting up of a pilot dedicated joint police and industry national cheque and plastic card fraud squad.

  In addition to this a working group of police and officials has been set up to consider ways of improving the response to all types of fraud.

  Data Retention
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Horrocks report on data retention; and when it will be published. [13645]
  247W
  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 849W.

  Women Prisoners (Pregnancies)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many women prisoners had a termination to a pregnancy during 2000; [15672]

  (2) how many women prisoners had (a) stillborn babies and (b) miscarriages in each year since 1990. [15673]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information about stillbirths and miscarriages is not available. In 1998–99, the last year for which the relevant data were collected centrally, 17 women prisoners were reported as having been referred for a termination.

  Metropolitan Police (Without Prejudice Payments)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Metropolitan police paid out, in the latest year for which figures are available, by way of without prejudice payments to individuals who had lodged a complaint against the force; how many individuals received payment; what was the highest payment made; and what was the average payment made. [15188]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The Commissioner informs me that in 2000–01 £2,318,000 was paid by the Metropolitan Police Service as payments without prejudice in response to 220 civil actions or threatened actions against alleged police malpractice. As an action may involve more than one individual it is not possible to give the exact number of individuals that received payment. The highest payment was £200,000 and the average payment was £13,962.

  Under-age Drinking/Antisocial Behaviour
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the(a) Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 and (b) Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 on (i) under-age drinking and (ii) antisocial behaviour; and if he will make a statement. [15330]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 gives the police important powers to confiscate alcohol from under-age drinkers in public places. The view of the Association of Chief Police Officers is that these powers have proved to be effective in helping the police to combat disorder and nuisance arising from alcohol consumption by young people in public places. The law was further strengthened by the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which tightened the position relating to the sale and purchase of alcohol to or on behalf of persons under 18.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 includes important new provisions relating to under-age drinking. It will place a duty on retailers to take positive steps to ensure that customers are 18 or over, and it will give the police and trading standards officers the power to undertake test purchasing, using minors, to enforce the
  248W
  law against the sale of alcohol to under 18s. We expect these provisions, which we are planning to bring into effect on 1 December 2001, to go further in restricting young people's access to alcohol, which so often leads on to antisocial behaviour.

  In addition, sections 12 to 16 of the 2001 Act, which came into effect on 1 September, provide local authorities with an adoptive power to designate public places where it will become an offence to continue to drink alcohol after being warned by a police officer not to do so. This adoptive power replaces, and builds on, the model Home Office byelaw which was adopted by 113 local authorities to restrict antisocial drinking in public places.

  Drug Dealers (Seized Assets)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value was of the assets seized from convicted drug dealers in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [15838]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The receipts realised from confiscation orders in England and Wales made in respect of legislation for drug trafficking offences under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 for the last five years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1995–96

  5,343,000

  1996–97

  7,415,000

  1997–98

  9,458,000

  1998–99

  10,476,000

  1999–2000

  9,333,000

  Traffic Penalties
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultation on road traffic penalties. [14326]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 728W.

  Atomic Energy Police Force
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers in the atomic energy constabulary are licensed to use firearms; and what conditions apply to their use of firearms beyond licensed nuclear facilities. [14689]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UKAEA Constabulary (UKAEAC) currently has 365 authorised firearms officers. UKAEAC adheres to national standards in the performance of its duties in relation to the carriage and use of firearms both on and off licensed nuclear facilities. Such standards are set out in the UKAEAC instruction manual on the use of firearms which complies fully with guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales, and Scotland.

HEALTH

  IT Management
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on IT management in the NHS Executive in each of the last five financial years. [9403]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The policy directorates of the national health service executive all had some interest in information technology management either for central data collection and processing or to support policy initiatives. The overall information management and technology policy was co-ordinated by the information policy unit and before that the information management group. The total expenditure however across the whole NHS executive was not separately collected.

  Perinatal Services
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care perinatal beds there were in each health authority, in each of the past 10 years. [9767]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the overall number of critical care beds is available in the Library and is available on the Department's website: www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity. Data on the number of perinatal intensive care beds are not collected.

  Radiotherapy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1241W, how many hospitals have received new radiotherapy equipment in the last two years paid for out of direct NHS funds. [11062]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Information held centrally identifies 19 national health service trusts that have taken delivery of radiotherapy equipment (linear accelerators and simulators) over the past two years excluding those linear accelerators funded by the New Opportunities Fund. NHS trusts may purchase equipment through the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency; however it is not mandatory for NHS trusts to use NHS PASA and the relevant purchasing information in these instances would not be captured. In addition to this, some NHS trusts will have purchased other radiotherapy equipment for which comprehensive information is not available centrally.

  Between 2000 and 2003 the Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund will fund at least 40 treatment planning systems and 24 simulators for radiotherapy provision.

  Cancer
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the difference in cancer survival rates between the UK and other European countries; and if he will make a statement. [10748]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The NHS Cancer Plan detailed that while other developed countries have broadly similar incidence of cancer, there is evidence to suggest that, for many cancers, survival
  250W
  rates for patients diagnosed a decade ago are lower in this country than in comparable European countries. The actions set out in the plan will mean that England will have the fastest improvement in cancer services across Europe over the next five years and eventually a reduction in the death rate from cancer among people aged under 75 years by at least 20 per cent. by 2010.

  Dental Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of those aged 18 years and over were registered with a general dental service dentist in(a) each health authority and (b) in total in England for the last two years for which figures are available. [13618]

  Ms Blears
  The percentage of the population aged 18 years and over registered with a general dental service dentist is given in the table for September 2000 and September 2001 by health authority in England. Registrations last for 15 months from the month in which a patient attends. They are renewed when a patient returns to the dentist. Patients attending occasionally are included only for 15 months after attendance.

  Number of adult registrations as a percentage of adult population1 at 30 September 2000 and 30 September 2001—England

  Percentage

  30 September

  Health Authority within region

  2001

  2000

  England

  43.7

  43.7

  Northern and Yorkshire

  49.4

  49.3

  Bradford

  48.3

  48.9

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  52.8

  52.8

  County Durham and Darlington

  47.9

  48.0

  East Riding and Hull

  42.4

  41.9

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  52.4

  51.1

  Leeds

  47.2

  47.8

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  48.9

  50.2

  North Cumbria

  47.2

  46.0

  North Yorkshire

  49.5

  49.3

  Northumberland

  49.5

  48.8

  Sunderland

  48.5

  47.3

  Tees

  57.7

  57.0

  Wakefield

  50.8

  51.5

  Trent

  49.3

  48.8

  Barnsley

  50.7

  50.6

  Doncaster

  55.9

  55.0

  Leicestershire

  46.0

  43.8

  Lincolnshire

  50.4

  49.5

  North Derbyshire

  41.0

  40.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  55.8

  54.8

  Nottingham

  52.3

  53.1

  Rotherham

  47.9

  47.1

  Sheffield

  52.9

  53.6

  Southern Derbyshire

  44.8

  45.4

  South Humber

  49.6

  48.9

  West Midlands

  42.8

  42.8

  Birmingham

  46.3

  46.7

  Coventry

  45.6

  44.5

  Dudley

  46.1

  46.1

  Herefordshire

  47.7

  49.3

  North Staffordshire

  39.1

  38.0

  Sandwell

  51.5

  51.2

  Shropshire

  34.2

  35.6

  Solihull

  34.1

  35.0

  South Staffordshire

  40.3

  40.9

  Walsall

  42.1

  42.7

  Warwickshire

  39.1

  37.2

  Wolverhampton

  47.8

  48.0

  Worcestershire

  45.1

  45.0

  251W

  Number of adult registrations as a percentage of adult population1 at 30 September 2000 and 30 September 2001—England

  Percentage

  30 September

  Health Authority within region

  2001

  2000

  North West

  48.5

  49.0

  Bury and Rochdale

  45.8

  45.5

  East Lancashire

  41.2

  46.3

  Liverpool

  47.1

  47.6

  Manchester

  51.0

  51.8

  Morecambe Bay

  48.4

  47.4

  North Cheshire

  48.0

  48.2

  North West Lancashire

  49.1

  50.3

  Salford and Trafford

  47.4

  49.3

  Sefton

  53.2

  53.5

  South Cheshire

  47.9

  46.5

  South Lancashire

  42.4

  40.3

  St Helens and Knowsley

  47.2

  46.8

  Stockport

  55.7

  57.1

  West Pennine

  48.2

  48.7

  Wigan and Bolton

  51.2

  51.5

  Wirral

  56.4

  55.7

  Eastern

  45.1

  45.0

  Bedfordshire

  37.9

  38.4

  Cambridgeshire

  40.7

  39.6

  Hertfordshire

  46.2

  46.4

  Norfolk

  48.1

  46.7

  North Essex

  46.3

  46.9

  South Essex

  41.1

  41.5

  Suffolk

  52.8

  53.0

  London

  38.0

  38.2

  Barking and Havering

  38.8

  38.8

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  35.6

  35.0

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  32.8

  32.6

  Brent and Harrow

  44.0

  44.1

  Camden and Islington

  45.6

  46.6

  Croydon

  38.2

  39.1

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  40.0

  38.8

  East London and The City

  50.0

  50.5

  Hillingdon

  31.8

  33.1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  28.7

  30.5

  Kingston and Richmond

  26.7

  28.0

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  39.9

  40.0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  38.7

  38.9

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  42.9

  43.1

  South East

  38.1

  38.3

  Berkshire

  29.1

  31.9

  Buckinghamshire

  29.7

  30.3

  East Kent

  38.9

  38.2

  East Surrey

  35.0

  35.6

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  44.1

  44.4

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  39.4

  40.0

  North and Mid Hampshire

  40.9

  40.5

  Northamptonshire

  51.1

  51.2

  Oxfordshire

  31.4

  30.0

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  44.5

  45.2

  West Kent

  36.6

  35.3

  West Surrey

  35.6

  36.2

  West Sussex

  41.5

  40.8

  South and West

  42.5

  42.6

  Avon

  45.0

  44.7

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  38.2

  37.0

  Dorset

  48.5

  49.5

  Gloucestershire

  28.2

  29.9

  North and East Devon

  49.1

  48.8

  Somerset

  46.7

  48.6

  South and West Devon

  44.1

  42.6

  Wiltshire

  37.6

  37.6

  1 Population figures used are Office for National Statistics 2000 mid-year population estimates.

  252W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to increase the number of (i) dental practices and (ii) dentists in(a) Berkshire and (b) Slough; [14319]

  (2) how many NHS dentists there were in the Berkshire constituencies in (a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [14318]

  Ms Blears
  The number of general dental service dentists in Berkshire health authority is shown in the table at 30 September for the years(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (b) 2001. The figures cover dentists whose main work is in the Berkshire health authority area. Data by constituency are not available centrally.

  September

  Number of GDS dentists

  1992

  251

  1997

  280

  2001

  313

  The number of general dental service dentists in the Berkshire health authority area has increased by 33 in the four years between September 1997 and September 2001. There were 125 general dental service practices in Berkshire on 30 September 2001 of which 45 were in Slough.

  Berkshire health authority has developed an action plan for improving access to national health service dentistry in the county. The plan included proposals to encourage local dental practitioners to apply for additional dental care development funding. The health authority is also working with practitioners wishing to develop new or additional surgeries.

  A personal dental service pilot is due to open in Slough shortly.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people are registered for NHS dental care(a) in England and (b) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland East, constituency. [16207]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: 60 per cent. of the population in Tees Health Authority were registered with a general dental service dentist at the end of September 2001. The proportion in England was 47 per cent. Information is not available at constituency level.

  Ambulance Services
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the proposed merger of Hampshire and Surrey ambulance services; [13687]

  (2) what representations he has received from community health councils about the proposed merger of Hampshire and Surrey ambulance services; [13688]

  (3) if he will list the organisations other than community health councils which have made representations (a) in favour and (b) against the proposed merger of Hampshire and Surrey ambulance services. [13689]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: There has been a public consultation on proposals to establish new ambulance trusts in the south-east region including one to establish a new trust serving Hampshire and Surrey.
  253W
  The period of consultation ended on 7 September. There has been a large response to the proposals.

  With regard to the proposals for Hampshire and Surrey, all 10 community health councils covering the area wrote jointly expressing their opposition to the proposals. Several also wrote individual letters of opposition.

  A total of 34 organisations and individuals responded specifically to the proposals for Hampshire and Surrey, in addition to the CHCs. Of these, eight supported the proposals, 22 opposed them and four set out reservations, without opposing them. Copies of all written responses to the consultation will be placed in the Library.

  Ministers are currently considering the responses. A decision on the review will be made taking account of the comments received.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the recent consultation on the future of Hampshire ambulance service. [15221]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide Government funding for the provision of air ambulance services in(a) rural areas across the United Kingdom and (b) Lincolnshire. [15600]

  Ms Blears
  Air ambulances can have a role in delivering emergency care in rural areas and where road access is a problem. However, in 1995, the Department commissioned Sheffield university to report on air ambulances. The report failed to show clinical or cost benefits which would justify national health service investment. Currently, no air ambulance service receives public funding, although, in most cases the NHS continues to provide fully trained paramedics to crew these aircraft when they respond to emergencies. In recognition of growing public interest in this subject, further research has been commissioned into the contribution of air ambulances to the care and transportation of seriously ill patients in a modern NHS.

  The provision and funding of air ambulance services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Assemblies.

  NHS Records
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the timescale of the police investigation into the death of a patient due to a blocked oxygen pipe at Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford in July and other alleged related incidents within the NHS is affected by record keeping with regard to(a) off duty rota records, (b) the off duty book, (c) weekly staff timesheets, and (d) agency timesheets; and if he will make a statement. [15011]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The police are looking at staff duty records as part of the investigation into the death of a patient due to a blocked oxygen pipe.

  The police acknowledge that this is a long and painstaking investigation which is likely to take some time.

  The Department and the national health service are co-operating fully with the police in this matter.

  NHS Catering
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS has spent on providing meals for patients; and how many meals were served in each of the last three years. [14936]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The national health service spent almost £366 million on the provision of meals for patients in 1999–2000, the first year when information was collected centrally. Data collection for 2000–01 is still in progress.

  The NHS provides over 300 million meals each year, detailed data are not collected centrally.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the applicants for the national franchise for NHS Catering; and if he will name the successful applicant. [15052]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The NHS Plan commits us to examining a franchise option by the end of this year. Any franchise arrangements will be subject to European Union regulation and will require open competition within the Community for any interested party.

  Drug Deaths
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons died wholly or primarily as a result of the use of(a) alcohol, (b) tobacco, (c) cannabis, (d) heroin and (e) cocaine in the last year for which figures are available. [15287]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Alcohol. Estimates range between 5,000 and 40,000 deaths per annum in England and Wales, reflecting the wide range of methods of calculation used in many studies.

  (b) Tobacco. It is estimated that smoking causes 120,000 deaths in the United Kingdom each year.

  Source:
  "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995" Health Education Authority.
  '(c) Cannabis, (d) heroin and (e) cocaine. Figures published by the Office for National Statistics indicate the number of times the substances are mentioned on death certificates. Figures for these substances are not on a comparable basis to those given for alcohol and tobacco, which are estimates. Figures are given in the table.

  Number of deaths where selected substances were mentioned on the death certificate—England and Wales 1999

  All deaths with substance mentioned

  Deaths where substance was the only one mentioned

  Heroin/morphine1

  754

  575

  Cocaine

  87

  31

  Cannabis

  7

  0

  1 As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate

  Source:

  "Death related to drug poisoning: England and Wales 1995–99" Health Statistics Quarterly 09, spring 2001. Office for National Statistics; ONS database of drug-related poisonings

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the monthly running costs are of NHS Direct. [15311]

  Ms Blears
  During the first six months of 2001–02, the average monthly running costs of NHS Direct sites was £6,341,000. A further £1,800,000 was spent each month on running costs to cover centrally procured services, national management and administrative posts, NHS Direct Online, NHS Direct Information Points and other developments and pilots.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a system of recording the performance of NHS Direct. [15409]

  Ms Blears
  An NHS Direct performance management framework is being developed which encompasses the principles of continuous quality improvement and will include qualitative as well as quantitative indicators. This will be implemented following consultation with the National Audit Office.

  The Department collects information on performance and finance from each NHS Direct site in England.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff are employed by NHS Direct; and if he will make a statement. [15310]

  Ms Blears
  As of September 2001, NHS Direct employed around 2,240 whole-time equivalent staff, 75 per cent. of whom have direct caller contact.

  NHS Direct aims to provide patients and the public with the information and advice they need to look after themselves and their families. It gives people the confidence to look after themselves when it is safe to do so and directs them to the right level of service when they need professional help.

  To date NHS Direct has handled over 8,000,000 calls and is currently handling around 100,000 calls per week. Regular satisfaction surveys indicate that over 95 per cent. of callers are satisfied or very satisfied with the service they receive.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the next set of research into safety of mobile phone masts. [15376]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: In May 2000, the Stewart report on mobile phones and health concluded that there is no general risk to people living near base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small. A subsequent measurement programme undertaken by the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) of mobile masts on school premises has confirmed that exposures are a small fraction of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. Eighty measurements have now been completed and the results are available on the RA web site www.radio.gov.uk.

  The Stewart report also recommended that a substantial research programme should be set up to investigate the potential health effects of mobile phone technology as a whole. This programme has been set up under the direction of an independent scientific management
  256W
  committee who have recently assessed a range of research proposals. The first group of projects is expected to start in the next few weeks. Information about the research is being made available at www.mthr.org.uk.

  Nursing Accommodation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost is per week of(a) keeping a person in hospital and (b) keeping that person in a nursing home. [15386]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Based on final national health service trust accounts for 1999–2000, the latest published figures, the average cost of treating a patient in hospital is estimated to be £233 a day or £1,630 a week. Based on data provided by local councils for 1999–2000, the latest year for which data are available, the average gross cost of keeping an older person in a nursing home in England is estimated to be £319 a week.

  Free Nursing Care (West Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when those people who were receiving nursing care in the West Chelmsford constituency on 1 October will have had assessments carried out for free nursing care; [14968]

  (2) how many people on 1 October in the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency were receiving nursing care; and how many of those receiving nursing care had by (a) 1 October and (b) 1 November been assessed to receive free nursing care. [14969]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis. However, 68 self-funding nursing home residents have been identified within Chelmsford primary care group and 36 have been identified within Maldon and South Chelmsford primary care trust. Determinations of these residents' registered nursing care will be completed by 31 December 2001.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which targeted initiatives are receiving support from the £300 million provided by the New Opportunities Fund in January 1999. [15252]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, as my Department sponsors the New Opportunities Fund.

  The £300 million Healthy Living Centre initiative is designed to tackle the underlying causes of ill health such as poor diet, lack of exercise, and lack of access to health and leisure facilities. The majority of applications have been from partnerships between voluntary and public sector organisations and grants have funded new services and, sometimes, new buildings.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the £300 million provided by the New Opportunities Fund in 1999 to support targeted health initiatives has been(a) allocated and (b) spent; [15253]
  257W
  (2) what proportion of the £150 million provided by the New Opportunities Fund in September 1999 to support health projects has been (a) allocated and (b) spent. [15255]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, as my Department sponsors the New Opportunities Fund.

  I have contacted the New Opportunities Fund to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projects are being funded from the £150 million made available from the New Opportunities Fund in September 1999. [15254]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, as my Department sponsors the New Opportunities Fund.

  The £150 million Living with Cancer initiative funds projects which aim to improve cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment and care. The initiative is intended to complement cancer service policy frameworks in each country.

  Small Acute Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the use of information technology and telemedicine links in the maintenance of small acute hospitals which take emergency admissions. [16458]

  Jacqui Smith
  A national programme of information and communication technology demonstrator projects was announced in 2000. Some of these projects are assessing telemedicine applications supporting smaller hospitals and minor injuries units. The projects are due to report in 2002.

  Telemedicine
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the future commissioning and use of transmitted clinical images as binary code for the purpose of remote diagnosis by specialist consultants. [16454]

  Jacqui Smith
  "Information for Health", the information strategy for the national health service published in 1998, required each health authority to consider the potential for telemedicine as part of their annual health improvement programmes. The decision to

  £ million (rounded)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  2002–032

  Neighbourhood Support Fund3

  —

  3

  11

  19

  19

  Education Action Zones

  10

  24

  57

  —

  —

  Community Champions4

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  Healthy Schools Programme

  —

  —

  6

  6

  —

  1 Estimated

  2 Plans

  3 Neighbourhood Support Fund expenditure for 2003–04 is planned to be £6,000,000

  4 The figures for Community Champions in 2001–02 and 2002–03 include £1 million from the Home Office Active Community Unit

  258W
  deploy facilities such as picture and archiving systems would be a local one based on clinical need and cost effectiveness.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the future uses of new technology to conduct clinical examinations remotely and to allow specialist consultants to consult with colleagues at another hospital. [16453]

  Jacqui Smith
  A national programme of information and communication technology demonstrator projects was announced in 2000. Many of these projects are assessing telemedicine applications in the context of clinical and cost effectiveness. The projects are due to report in June 2002.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  University Staff
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 July 2001,Official Report, column 554W, on university staff, (1) how many of the academic staff reported to have resigned from their universities were re-engaged by their universities (a) for the academic year until 30 September and (b) for a longer period; [16229]

  (2) which universities transferred academic faculty members from a contract of employment to a contract of service between 1 January and 30 March indicating the faculties involved in each case. [16228]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not available.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each(a) area based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which her Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expenditure in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative (1) nationally and (2) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [16213]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Department for Education and Skills' programmes contribute to the regeneration of all deprived neighbourhoods by raising the educational attainment, skills and aspirations of children, young people and adults. Levels of funding for the initiatives listed by the Cabinet Office Regional Co-ordination Unit as being the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills are as follows:
  259W
  Funding for Education Action Zones (EAZ) within the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency is:
  East Cleveland EAZ: DfES grant £102,400 (1999–2000); £851,900 (2000–01).
  Middlesbrough (East) EAZ: DfES grant £517,500 (1998–99); £866,700 (1999–2000); £803,100 (2000–01).

  Funding for the Healthy Schools Programme in Middlesbrough was £26,761 (2001–02).

  It is not possible to provide figures at constituency level for the Neighbourhood Support Fund or Community Champions.

  The Excellence in Cities (EiC) programme is designed to transform secondary education in our cities. The budget is some £200 million in 2001–02. As the programme comes on stream across all the new EiC authority areas and across all strands this figure is expected to rise to up to £300 million by 2003–04. In addition, over the life of the programme £124 million of capital investment is being made available. Funding for the three main strands of EiC (learning mentors, learning support units and extended opportunities for gifted and talented children) in Middlesbrough is £1,300,000 (2001–02). In addition, they have received a capital allocation of £1,200,000 for the new City Learning Centre.

  The Early Excellence Centres (EEC) programme is a national Beacon initiative aimed at developing and disseminating good practice in the provision of integrated early years education, child care and family services. The total investment in the programme from 1997 to 2004 is £45 million. There are currently no EECs in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is also responsible for the Children's Fund which is administered by the cross-departmental Children and Young People's unit and for which my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for Young People has day to day responsibility. She is also responsible for Sure Start together with my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health which is administered by the cross-departmental Sure Start Unit. The provisional budgeted figures for these programmes are:

  £ million

  Children's fund

  Sure start1

  1998–99

  —

  —

  1999–20002

  —

  7

  2000–013,4

  —

  58

  2001–024,5

  65

  184

  2002–034,5

  114

  449

  1 The figure for Sure Start in 2000–01 is for estimated outturn. Outturn will be published later this year in line with audited reports

  2 Outturn

  3 Estimated Outturn

  4 From DfEE Departmental Report, published March 2001

  5 Plans

  Figures are not available for the Children's Fund at the level of the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. Funding allocation for the Sure Start programme in East Cleveland constituency is: £20,000 (1999–2000); £799,911 (2000–01); £570,950 (2000–02).

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 11-year-olds failed to reach expected levels in(a) Maths and (b) English in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [16416]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Provisional figures for the 2001 Key Stage 2 assessments show that 158,000 (25 per cent.) eligible pupils did not achieve a Level 4 or above in the 2001 English Key Stage 2 test. 185,000 (29 per cent.) eligible pupils did not achieve a Level 4 or above in the 2001 mathematics test.

  Basic Skills
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adults have inadequate basic skills. [16415]

  John Healey
  Lord Moser's 1999 Report, "A Fresh Start", notes that perhaps as many as 7 million people (roughly one in five adults) in England have difficulties with functional literacy and numeracy. These adults have a wide range of needs, varying from those who cannot read and write or perform the simplest calculations, to those who simply need to brush up rusty skills. We are commissioning a new survey next year to provide an up-to-date assessment of the scale of basic skills need in England.

  The Government have recognised the vital importance to individuals and the economy of improving adult basic skills. The national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills, "Skills for Life", was launched in March this year by the Prime Minister. Our target is to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of 750,000 adults by 2004.

  Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many appointments she has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in her gift. [15484]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office's internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include numbers of appointments at 31 March 2001, will be published around the end of the year.

  Since 7 June 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made one appointment to Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) sponsored by the Department. In total there are 194 NDPB appointments in my right hon. Friend's gift.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13821]
  261W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

  Children's Fund
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list those authorities receiving allocations this year under the Children's Fund, indicating the value of the allocation in each case. [13663]

  Mr. Denham
  The first 40 first wave Children's Fund areas were announced on 23 January 2001.

  Following are the 40 first wave areas with their total allocation over three years.

  Million

  Areas

  Blackburn

  2.7

  Blackpool

  1.8

  Birmingham

  18

  Bolton

  3.6

  Bradford

  8.1

  Bristol

  4.2

  Camden

  2.4

  Cornwall

  4.8

  Doncaster

  3.9

  Gateshead

  2.4

  Greenwich

  3

  Hartlepool

  1.5

  Hackney

  4.2

  Halton

  1.8

  Haringey

  3.6

  Islington

  2.7

  Kent

  11.1

  Kingston Upon Hull

  4.5

  Knowsley

  3

  Lancashire

  12

  Leeds

  7.8

  Leicester

  4.8

  Lincolnshire

  5.1

  Liverpool

  8.4

  Manchester

  8.7

  Middlesbrough

  2.4

  Newham

  5.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3.6

  Norfolk

  6.3

  Nottingham

  5.1

  Oldham

  3.3

  Portsmouth

  2.1

  Rochdale

  3.3

  Salford

  3.3

  Sandwell

  4.2

  Sheffield

  5.7

  Southwark

  3.6

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2.1

  Sunderland

  3.9

  Tower Hamlets

  5.1

  In each area the local authority has identified a local partnership to manage and develop a Children's Fund proposal. Most of these proposals have now been approved and partnerships are now starting to implement these proposals.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of this year's Children's Fund allocation went to local authorities in London. [13662]
  262W
  Mr. Denham
  I am pleased to report that 16 per cent. of the first year's Children's Fund allocation went to Children's Fund partnerships in London. This amounts to £10.1 million in 2001–02.

  The local partnerships that are responsible for planning and developing proposals have submitted plans for preventive services in these areas; most of these have been approved and partnerships are now starting to implement their proposals.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) circulars and (b) consultation documents were issued by her Department in each of the last four years. [11826]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The numbers of consultation documents issued are:

  Year

  Number

  1998

  148

  1999

  185

  2000

  74

  2001 (to November)

  65

  The Department has not issued any documents labelled as "circulars" since 1999. The figures include numbers for 2000 and 2001 for documents which would have previously fallen into the category of circulars.

  Year

  Number

  1998

  29

  1999

  48

  2000

  55

  2001 (to November)

  39

  Secondary Education
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for secondary education in Retford. [16260]

  Mr. Timms
  Our White Paper "Schools Achieving Success", sets out an ambitious programme for the transformation of secondary education, building upon our success in the primary phase. We have also introduced the Key Stage 3 National Strategy aimed at raising standards for all 11 to 14-year-old children.

  Turning specifically to Retford, I am aware that the local education authority is consulting upon proposals for the rationalisation of secondary schools in the town. The Government believe that decisions concerning the supply of school places are best taken locally—by the main partners in the provision of education who have a knowledge of local needs.

  Student Loans
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have taken out student loans per year since their inception; what is(a) the average amount per loan, (b) the average amount loaned to each student, (c) the average time taken before

  263W
  repayments begin, (d) the running costs per year of the Student Loans Company and (e) the annual income from repayments of the Student Loans Company. [16216]

  Student support provision: academic years 1990–91 to 2000–01

  Academic years

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Student loans (United Kingdom)2,3

  Number of loans (thousands)4

  180.2

  261.1

  345.3

  430.4

  517.2

  559.8

  589.6

  615.1

  659.5

  723.6

  Value of loans (£ million)

  69.9

  139.2

  226.5

  316.7

  538.8

  700.8

  877.2

  941.0

  1,233.5

  1,823.0

  Average value of loan (£)5

  390

  530

  660

  740

  1,040

  1,250

  1,490

  1,530

  1,870

  2,520

  Eligible population (thousands)6

  643.5

  726.6

  836.3

  917.4

  944.4

  949.8

  945.7

  962.9

  966.7

  982.5

  Take up of student loans (percentage)

  28

  36

  41

  47

  55

  59

  62

  64

  68

  74

  1 Provisional

  2 Student loans are available to eligible students normally domiciled in the United Kingdom.

  3 Student loans are available to most 'home' students on full-time undergraduate HE courses (and students on full-time and part-time postgraduate courses of initial teacher training) who are aged less than 50 at the start of their course. From 1999–2000, students aged between 50 to 54 at the start of their course (this includes students who started their course after September 1998) can apply for a student loan as long as they can demonstrate to their awarding authority that they plan to return to employment after finishing their course.

  4 Refers to loans advanced in the target year only, which include those to students in their first, second, third and any subsequent year of their course.

  5 Rounded to the nearest £10.

  6 Total number estimated to be eligible for loans. This includes eligible students attending courses entirely at overseas privately funded or NHS institutions. From 1996–97 nursing students on diploma course with fees paid by the Department of Health bursaries are excluded though some may be eligible for loans if their Department of Health bursaries are reduced through means-testing. Population estimates have been compiled from data provided by HESA, FEFC and from the Student Loans Company.

  Notes:

  1. New student support arrangements were introduced from academic year 1998–99. New students in 1998–99 apart from certain specified exceptions received support for maintenance expenditure through means-tested grants (comprising about a quarter of the support available) and non income-assessed student loans (comprising about three quarters of the support available). In 1999–2000 students who entered higher education from 1998–99 onwards received support for maintenance expenditure entirely through loans, of which approximately three quarters of the value was non income-assessed. Loans made under these arrangements are repayable on an income contingent basis. The ratio of support for existing loans, ie those who entered higher education up to 1997–98, was roughly 50 per cent, means-tested grant and 50 per cent, non means-tested loan repayable on a mortgage style basis.

  2. Mandatory awards are awarded by local education authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales to eligible students normally domiciled in their area.

  3. Includes placement year sandwich students.

  4 Excludes placement year sandwich students.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company

  The running costs per year of the Student Loans Company are shown in the table:

  £ million

  Academic year

  Running costs

  1990–91

  13.0

  1991–92

  13.7

  1992–93

  13.6

  1993–94

  18.3

  1994–95

  19.7

  1995–96

  21.3

  1996–97

  22.9

  1997–98

  27.7

  1998–99

  36.5

  1999–2000

  48.6

  Source:

  SLC Annual Reports

  UK figures: mortgage style loan repayments received from SLC by financial year

  £ million

  Academic year

  Running costs

  1990–91

  0

  1991–92

  1

  1992–93

  5

  1993–94

  11

  1994–95

  25

  264W
  Margaret Hodge
  Not all of the information requested is held centrally or readily available. The information that is available is shown in the following tables.

  UK figures: mortgage style loan repayments received from SLC by financial year

  £ million

  Academic year

  Running costs

  1995–96

  52

  1996–97

  83

  1997–98

  129

  1998–99

  132

  1999–2000

  131

  2000–01

  178

  The SLC received payments from borrowers and returns them to the three funding authorities (DfES, Students Awards Agency for Scotland and Department of Education and Learning in Northern Ireland).

  Prior to devolution, repayments were shared on an apportionment basis, derived from estimated student numbers.

  Since June 2000, repayments have been returned to each funding authority on the basis of the borrower's domicile.

  Threshold Allowance Awards
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she will take to ensure that those teachers who crossed the payment threshold as a result of threshold allowance awards in the financial year 2001–02 will pay the same level of taxation on their increased salary as those who passed the payment threshold in the previous financial year. [16420]
  265W
  Mr. Timms
  Because the original timetable for threshold assessment was delayed by the judicial review initiated by the National Union of Teachers, some teachers did not receive their threshold pay rise before April 2001. These teachers will therefore receive both their 2000–01 threshold back pay and their 2001–02 threshold pay in the current financial year. In most cases this should not affect their tax position. However a minority might have to pay some higher rate tax as a result. For employees covered by PAYE income is taxable when it is received. This is a fundamental principle of the tax system that cannot be changed for teachers who might find themselves in this position. But we will do all we can to ensure that teachers who apply for threshold assessment this year receive their pay rise by March 2002.

  Key Skills
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what measures she is putting into place to ensure that key skills are integrated into all programmes of study in(a) schools, (b) further education colleges and (c) higher education institutions; and what monitoring of these measures is being carried out; [16196]

  (2) what progress her Department has made in the implementation of key skills in (a) schools, (b) further education colleges and (c) higher education institutions; [16193]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the role of key skills in education. [16192]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Key skills are important for everyone. They are an integral part of post-16 programmes in schools, colleges and the work-based route. Not only are they valuable in themselves but they also form the building blocks for successful further study and development. We are keen that all students have the opportunity to improve their key skills.

  In schools and colleges, updated key skills qualifications were introduced in September 2000. In higher education institutions, Foundation Degrees and Graduate Apprenticeships have been introduced from this autumn; both include key skills.

  (a) In schools, pre-16, the key skills are addressed through the National Curriculum subjects and GCSE qualifications in English, maths and ICT. Monitoring of achievement is through the National Curriculum assessments and the GCSE results. Post-16. the expectation is that where students have not already achieved A*-C grades in GCSE English, Maths, or ICT their programmes should lead to the formal acquisition of the level 2 key skills qualifications (or suitable proxies). Monitoring is through the achievement data collected by the awarding bodies and QCA.

  (b) The same expectation holds in FE colleges. Monitoring is through the Learning and Skills Council's Individual Student Record and will be included in the Performance Indicators. Also, all achievements will be monitored in local LSC offices via the Provider Review process.

  (c) We are working with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) on arrangements to embed work-related skills (including key skills) more widely across the HE system. Monitoring will be addressed as part of this process. Key skills are recognised in the revised UCAS tariff that is being used by students applying this year for entry to higher education in 2002. The tariff is subject to normal monitoring and review arrangements by UCAS.

  266W
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the new funding arrangements for post-16 provision reflects the Government's commitment to key skills. [16194]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has been asked to ensure that its funding regime supports a more tailored use of key skills, reflecting individual students' goals and needs. In work-based learning, the funding of key skills is included in the overall funding of the Modern Apprenticeship programme. In colleges, the level of funding available for key skills and the entitlement package is not affected by this improved flexibility; it is no longer dependent upon a fixed pattern of key skills provision and achievement. The LSC will take over post-16 funding of schools from April 2002.

  PFI Schemes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education' and Skills how many local education authorities have had PFI school schemes approved in the first four tranches; which ones are within their approved timed programme; and how many months of delay have elapsed for those which are behind schedule. [15551]

  Mr. Timms
  72 local education authorities have now had a total of 80 PFI projects approved. This includes 36 projects which have already signed, 24 projects which have already been approved by the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group and 20 projects which have been approved provisionally by this Department.

  We do not impose a timed programme on local education authorities, other than to indicate the financial year in which we expect contract signature to take place. Contract negotiations and building schedules are a matter for local education authorities and private contractors to determine. We are aware of no serious delays in opening PH schools against locally agreed schedules.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the names of the successful local education authorities for PFI schemes in the next financial year. [15552]

  Mr. Timms
  Local education authorities that were successful in gaining provisional approval for projects expecting to sign in the next financial year, that is 2002–03, were announced in March 2001. The closing date for the submission of bids for projects hoping to sign in 2003–04 is 17 December 2001. All bids received by that date will be assessed against published criteria, and announcements on those successful in gaining provisional approval from this Department are expected to be made in March 2002.

  Graduate Training Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the schools which took part in the graduate training scheme for teachers had less than 25 per cent. gain five A* to C grades at GCSE in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [15558]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Tuition Fees
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to allow tuition fees to be deductible against tax. [12693]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 November 2001]: In England, contributions towards tuition fees for home and EU full-time undergraduate students are income assessed. Around 50 per cent. of students are not required to make any contribution at all; 15 per cent. make a partial contribution, and 35 per cent. make the full contribution. The cost of higher education tuition is already heavily subsidised by the Government, both through the means testing system and because fees only meet a quarter of the average cost of a course. In these circumstances a further

  Number and proportion of children in maintained secondary schools in Wycombe constituency by ethnic group, January 2001

  Ethnic group

  Proportion of pupils in grammar schools (Percentage)

  Proportion of pupils in other secondary schools (Percentage)

  Total number of pupils in maintained secondary schools

  White

  70.6

  29.4

  5,866

  Black Caribbean heritage

  18.8

  81.3

  192

  Black African heritage

  34.9

  65.1

  43

  Black other

  36.2

  63.8

  58

  Indian

  82.6

  17.4

  121

  Pakistani

  22.6

  77.4

  939

  Bangladeshi

  46.7

  53.3

  15

  Chinese and any other minority ethnic group

  51.9

  48.1

  374

  Total number of pupils classified by ethnic origin

  62.0

  38.0

  7,608

  School Cleanliness
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 46W, on school cleanliness, what steps she will take to ensure that local education authorities and school governing bodies fulfil their responsibilities in maintaining cleanliness in schools. [13985]

  Mr. Timms
  None. I am content to leave this matter with the local education authorities and governing bodies responsible.

  Public-private Partnership
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the projects in her Department which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public-private partnership proposed; and if she will make a statement. [13451]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W.

  Schools PFI projects are not formally approved until a full Outline Business Case (OBC) has been submitted to the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group. This OBC must include a Public Sector Comparator (PSC) and it is a condition of approval that the proposed PH solution must demonstrate better value for money than the PSC.
  268W
  subsidy allowing tuition fee contributions to be deductible against tax would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, we have announced a review of student funding. A wide range of options is being considered and we will be consulting on any proposals that emerge.

  Schools (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils of each ethnic group in the Wycombe constituency attend(a) grammar and (b) upper schools. [14869]

  Mr. Timms
  The number and proportion of children in maintained secondary schools within Wycombe parliamentary constituency by each ethnic group is shown in the table.

  Ministerial Visit (Brazil)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the(a) itinerary and (b) cost of the visit of the Schools Minister to Brazil on 6 and 7 December 2000. [10381]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As the Schools Minister did not visit Brazil on 6th and 7th December 2000 or on any other date, there was no itinerary and no cost.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many infants are taught in classes with more than 30 pupils. [15383]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: For infant classes taught by one teacher in September 2001, an estimated 8,000 children (0.5 per cent.) were in classes of 31 or more children after allowing for additional pupils scheduled to enter school during the early part of the autumn.

  Schools reported nearly 63,300 infant classes taught by one teacher in September 2001. Of these classes, just 239 contained 31 or more pupils. In January 1998 nearly 485,000 infants (29 per cent.) were in classes of 31 or more.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she(a) routinely collects and (b) has collected since 1 September on infant class sizes. [15382]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Information about class sizes has been collected from maintained primary and secondary schools as part of the

  269W
  Annual Schools Census in January for over 20 years. In order to provide a true representation of the sizes of classes experienced by children, each school is randomly allocated a specific time on the census day at which class sizes should be reported. The current collection asks for the number of pupils, teachers and teaching assistants in the class at the appropriate time and also for its Key Stage and National Curriculum Year Group. The activity in which the class is engaged is also requested.

  The September Class Size Count is a separate collection started in 1998, introduced to monitor class sizes at Key Stage one. The statistical method used is the same as in the January Census, but, in order to lessen the burden on schools, information is only collected from primary schools and about classes where the majority of children will reach the appropriate age during the school year. The information required about each class in September 2001 was the number of pupils, teachers and teaching assistants and the activity in which the class was engaged and, for classes of 31 or more, the number of excepted pupils.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the percentage of school leavers(a) nationally and (b) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency who have entered higher education in each of the last four years. [16212]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Figures for the number of school leavers who go on to higher education are not collated centrally on a constituency basis. The available figures for Great Britain, showing the proportion of under 21 year olds who enter higher education for the first time, are given in the table. There was an increase in the index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, total HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 83,000.

  Age participation index (API)1 for Great Britain

  Percentage

  API

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–012

  32–34

  1 The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19 year olds in the population.

  2 Projected: final data on initial entrants are not yet available.

TREASURY

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement giving the reasons for not publishing monthly estimates of all forms of tax receipts; [16261]
  270W
  (2) if he will publish the monthly breakdown of the tax receipts estimates contained in the most recent financial statement and Budget report. [16275]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply of 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 775W, the answer the Financial Secretary gave him on 20 July under cover of a letter and the letter which the Economic Secretary sent him on 27 September (copies of both of which have been placed in the Library of the House).

  Fuel Smuggling
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the volume of motor fuel products smuggled into Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [15540]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise do not have estimates for the amount of fuel entering Northern Ireland as a result of cross-border smuggling. They have assessed the total revenue lost (excise and VAT) through cross-border shopping and smuggling of road fuels in Northern Ireland as about £100 million in 1998. Updated estimates will be presented in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings have been held between(a) Ministers and (b) officials and their Irish counterparts to discuss the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland since May; and if he will make a statement. [15544]

  Mr. Boateng
  I recently visited the Revenue Commissioner in the Republic of Ireland and, in the absence of the appropriate Minister, had a very productive meeting with the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners.

  UK Customs enjoy a very close relationship with the Revenue Commissioners and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland. UK Customs and the Revenue Commissioners of the Republic of Ireland have a Memorandum of Understanding designed to increase the effectiveness of the co-operation. Officials meet on a regular and very frequent basis at policy and operational levels.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many vehicles have been impounded by HM Customs in each year since 1997 for alleged smuggling of petroleum products; and what was the tonnage of fuel carried. [15541]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs records of the number of vehicles seized do not disaggregate between the nature of the offences involved in each case. I regret, therefore, that this information is not available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to tackle cross-border smuggling of petroleum products; and if he will make a statement. [15543]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs believe the main risk from cross-border smuggling of petroleum products is across the land boundary between the Irish Republic and
  271W
  Northern Ireland, and since September 2000 have increased their resources devoted to tackling oils fraud in Northern Ireland by a factor of four.

  Customs believe that the threat from cross-border smuggling of petroleum products is limited on the mainland. This assessment has been regularly monitored by a series of joint exercises run by Customs and the police which to date have resulted in limited seizures of illicit fuel.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful prosecutions there have been in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 for smuggling petroleum products into Northern Ireland. [15542]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of successful prosecutions in Northern Ireland for oils smuggling is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  3

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  1

  Inland Revenue/ Customs and Excise Research Programme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the(a) subjects and (b) terms of reference of the first two research studies undertaken by the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise Joint Compliance Costs Research Programme. [16340]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The first two research studies undertaken by the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise in the Joint Compliance Costs Research Programme are: (i) a study of the compliance costs of corporation tax for UK businesses; and (ii) a study of the compliance costs of VAT for UK businesses. The terms of reference of the studies were covered by the contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) submitted on 26 May 2000.

  Railtrack
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the House on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 724, if he will list the dates, up to one month prior to 5 October, when he sent advice to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. [16277]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have discussions with a variety of people, including colleagues in other Departments, on a wide range of subjects on a regular basis.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which dates, up to one month prior to 5 October, he sent advice to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, that funds were not likely to be approved to maintain the(a) viability and (b) liquidity of Railtrack plc. [16278]
  272W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for Transport, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 735W.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Office for National Statistics was asked to examine the accounting treatment of the successor organisation to Railtrack; and if he will make a statement. [16593]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Office for National Statistics was asked to examine the accounting treatment of a possible successor organisation to Railtrack on Wednesday 3 October.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the briefings his officials have given to newspapers on Railtrack in the last seven days. [15332]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is responsible for railways policy.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he authorised the payment of £162 million from the Strategic Rail Authority to Railtrack on 1 October. [16162]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The timing of payments to Railtrack via the SRA is a matter for the SRA and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he(a) has had and (b) plans to have with the Governor of the Bank of England on the effects of and matters arising from the administration of Railtrack. [15932]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have discussions with a wide variety of people on a wide range of subjects on a regular basis.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total corporation tax receipts were in the last financial year; and what receipts had been expected. [15929]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is set in the Office for National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. The latest forecasts were published in Budget 2000 and previously in the pre-Budget report 2000.

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total amount of non-mortgage consumer debt was in real terms in each year since 1992. [15936]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  273W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 20 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question about the total amount of non-mortgage consumer debt in real terms for each year since 1992. I am replying in his absence. (15936)
  The table below shows non-mortgage consumer debt in nominal terms, which is published in Table 3.2B of Financial Statistics, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons library. The Office for National Statistics does not publish data on non-mortgage debt in real terms. Also included is a time series which shows nominal non-mortgage debt deflated by the retail price index excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX).

  Year

  Nominal non-mortgage consumer debt (VZRI) (£ million)

  RPIX (CHMK)

  'Real' non-mortgage consumer debt (£ million)

  1992

  53,188

  136.4

  38,994

  1993

  52,974

  140.5

  37,704

  1994

  57,617

  143.8

  40,067

  1995

  67,624

  147.9

  45,723

  1996

  76,859

  152.3

  50,466

  1997

  87,497

  156.5

  55,909

  1998

  101,659

  160.6

  63,300

  1999

  114,872

  164.3

  69,916

  2000

  126,733

  167.7

  75,571

  Census
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Office for National Statistics authorised the use of Government-held personal records about(a) asylum seekers and (b) other categories of people during compilation of the 2001 census returns; [16336]

  (2) what guidance was given by the Office for National Statistics to census enumerators about access to information held by the Government about individuals; [16338]

  (3) what his policy is on the rules governing the access of census enumerators to individual personal information held by Government Departments. [16337]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Lidington, dated 20 November 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking:

  1. whether the Office for National Statistics authorised the case of government-held personal records held about (a) asylum seekers and (b) other categories of people during the compilation of the 2001 Census returns (16336);

  2. what his policy on the rules governing the access of census enumerators to individual personal information held by government departments (16337); and

  3. what guidance was given by the Office for National Statistics to census enumerators about access to information held by the Government about individuals (16338).

  In response to the first question you will want to be aware that the Registrar General is authorised by the terms of the Census Act 1920 to conduct a census in England and Wales.
  The Census Order 2000 (Statutory Instrument 2000 no. 744) made under Section 1 of the Census Act, prescribes the persons by whom and in respect of whom the returns are to be made. Returns were required to be made in respect to all persons who are usually resident
  274W
  in England and Wales. For the purpose of the 2001 Census a person was regarded as being 'usually resident' in England and Wales if he or she was present at an address in England and Wales on census night and had no other usual address in England and Wales or elsewhere. This would, therefore, generally include asylum seekers, and thus the Census Act imposed a duty on me to collect returns from such people.
  The Census Regulations 2000 (Statutory Instrument 2000 no. 1473), made under section 3 of the Act, empowered the making of any such arrangements as the Registrar General thinks fit for the collection of the particulars prescribed by the Census Order to be stated in the returns.
  For this purpose, the Registrar General was able to make arrangements where necessary to acquire information from official sources on the location of accommodation that housed asylum seekers and on other population sub-groups (such as rough sleepers), which would enable forms to be delivered and collected in respect of such people who might not otherwise be aware of their statutory duty to make a return or have access to the forms.
  In all cases the provision of such information would have been a matter for the data custodian of that information. The subsequent uses of the information for Census purposes were within the terms of the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998, and the strict confidentiality provisions of the Census Act as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991.
  In answer to your second and third questions, there were no provisions or arrangements made in the conduct of the 2001 Census for access to any individual personal information held by Government departments or agencies by census enumerators, and consequently no guidance given to enumerators on any such access.

  Pensioners
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people of pensionable age there are in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [16436]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 20 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning how many people of pensionable age there are in Middlesborough South and East Cleveland constituency. I am replying in his absence. (16436)
  ONS does not produce population estimates on parliamentary constituency boundaries. The smallest area level for which we produce population estimates is for local authorities.
  Mid 2000 estimates of the number of people of pensionable age in local authority areas are available in table 8 on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme population/PENo3/PENo3 v3.pdf.

  Fuel Taxation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what taxes and excise duty are payable on fuels used by providers of internal UK passenger services by(a) bus, (b) coach, (c) local train, electrically powered, (d) local train, diesel powered, (e) ferry, (f) hovercraft and (g) aeroplane. [14278]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: The rates of excise duty on ultra-low sulphur diesel, liquid petroleum gas, gas oil aviation turbine fuel and aviation gasoline—the fuels generally used by providers of passenger services in the UK—are set out in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
  275W
  As far as VAT is concerned, passenger transport provided in any vehicle, ship or aircraft that has 10 or more passenger seats, including the driver (or pilot, captain etc.) is zero-rated. Transport provided in such vehicles, ships or aircraft with fewer than 10 passengers, including the driver etc., is standard-rated.

  Corporate Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the review of corporate tax treatment of substantial shareholdings and intangible assets for large companies. [15922]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Good progress continues to be made on these reviews.

  Company Leases
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason there is not a public sector accounting counterpart to the Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 21 concerning the accounting treatment of leases that UK companies enter into; and if he will make a statement. [16076]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public sector accounting standards require the application of Statement of Standard Accounting Practice (SSAP) 21.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if capital assets where the ownership at the end of the contract reverts to the public sector are taken into account when calculating public sector(a) net investment and (b) net worth: and if he will make a statement. [16078]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The treatment of this type of contract will depend on how it is classified by the Department's accountants and the National Audit Office. If it is classified as a finance lease, it is included in net investment and net worth. If it is classified as an operating lease, it will not be. The decision will depend on whether it is the private or public sector which bears most of the economic risks and rewards associated with the asset.

  VAT
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total VAT receipts from the corporate sector were for the last financial year; and what receipts had been anticipated. [15930]

  Mr. Boateng
  Total Value Added Tax receipts are shown in the Office for National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics". The forecast can be found in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000".

  Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) debt investment and (b) equity investment in SMEs on growth in employment and output. [15938]

  Mr. Boateng
  Both debt and equity investment are essential for small firms if they are to grow and make a full contribution to the UK economy. The Government are stimulating growth in SME investment by reducing 276W
  the tax burden for SMEs, and increasing the supply of finance through measures such as provision of small firms' loan guarantees and venture capital finance.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt coal mine methane generated power from the climate change levy. [15721]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are at present discussing with the Association of Coal Mine Methane Operators (ACMMO) the treatment of electricity generated from coal mine methane under the climate change levy there are currently no plans to exempt coal mine methane generated power but the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes these decisions on a Budget by Budget basis.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bank of England has made representations to UK mortgage lenders on current average mortgage income multiples. [15928]

  Ruth Kelly
  Responsibility for the prudential regulation of banks and building societies now rests with the Financial Services Authority (FSA). In addition, the FSA is taking on responsibility for regulating mortgage lending. Both the Government and FSA consider it important that mortgage borrowers should not be exploited by lending in circumstances where they are self-evidently unable to repay through income but have no alternative repayment plans. The FSA is therefore setting rules in respect of responsible lending. Lenders will be required to show that they have taken account of a borrower's ability to repay the loan before entering into a regulated mortgage contract with him.

  European Commission Proposals
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proposals outlined on 12 November by the President of the European Commission on(a) EU budgetary powers and (b) the growth and stability pact. [15931]

  Ruth Kelly
  Mr. Prodi's speech is part of the on-going debate on the future of Europe.

  On budgetary issues the Government's position is clear. At ECOFIN on 10 July several Finance Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rejected ideas for a euro tax. It has been made clear that the Government do not support, and have no plans to impose, a harmonised tax on their citizens. Any proposal for a euro tax would have to be agreed unanimously by member states.

  On fiscal policies in the EU, the Government will assess carefully any proposals for a further Code of Conduct one they are presented by the European Commission.

  Small Businesses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on changes to insurance policies and premiums for small businesses since 11 September. [16175]
  277W
  Ruth Kelly
  We receive representations on a wide range of subjects from a variety of organisations and individuals.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the aggregates levy on the rural economy. [16089]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The rural economy will benefit from the levy funded 0.1 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions and the new £35 million Sustainability Fund which deliver local environmental benefits to areas subject to the environmental costs of aggregates extraction.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance he will provide to those whose employment is affected as a result of the aggregates levy. [16090]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The aggregates levy receipts will be returned to business, principally through a 0.1 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, which will have a positive effect on employment, as will the £35 million levy funded Sustainability Fund.

  Financial Services Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if self-insurance by companies is specifically excluded from the financial services compensation scheme; and if 278W
  claimants can be denied fall back compensation granted from the financial services compensation scheme where the employer and insurer are insolvent. [15959]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is set up to provide compensation if an FSA regulated financial services firm—bank, building society, investment firm or insurer—collapses. The FSCS is funded by these firms. The FSCS does not, therefore, cover claims against insolvent employers who did not hold insurance with a regulated insurer.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he received the formal notice from the Parliamentary Ombudsman of his intention to inquire into the regulation of Equitable Life; when he responded; and if he will place the correspondence in the Library. [16283]

  Ruth Kelly
  The formal notice was received on 30 October and the Treasury will respond to it shortly.

  Departments' responses to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are an important preliminary to his investigations, which are conducted in private. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to place the correspondence concerned in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 12 October from the hon. Member for Guildford. [16599]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have done so.

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

Accident and Emergency Services
Baroness Greengrossasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the Audit Commission report on accident and emergency services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government have taken note of the recent Audit Commission report. We launched a £118 million strategy Reforming Emergency Care to reorganise emergency care in the NHS. Reducing long waits in A&E is at the heart of this ground-breaking strategy. The strategy and the significant investment attached to it reflect the priority that the Government place on improving access to emergency care.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the Government's investment in A&E services and in other aspects of the NHS. However, the majority of people attending A&E departments are elderly, and for such people waiting times are often a life and death situation. Given that fact, does the Minister agree that it is important that older people, who often suffer from multiple symptoms and pathologies, should be seen in A&E by professionals who understand and are qualified to manage their various needs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. I certainly hope that, as part of the reform of emergency care and the implementation of our national service framework for older people, NHS trusts will ensure that services in A&E and others parts of a hospital are sensitive to the needs of older people. The patient forums which are shortly to be established in every trust will also provide a strong consumer view for the trust board to consider. I am sure that the needs of older people will figure largely in those discussions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister reassure the House that the triage system of determining those in most urgent need of treatment still operates in accident and emergency departments, irrespective of age?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. In the proposals on emergency care, one of the key recommendations is that in future patients should be streamed. A&E patients are currently expected to wait in a single queue. Often, that means that those with the
996
least serious problems find themselves continually put at the back of the queue when patients with more serious problems arrive—and that is understandable. The new emergency care policy suggests that at the triage stage people are separated. Those in need of urgent treatment will be fast-tracked, but those who require non-urgent treatment will be seen by a dedicated group of staff. Research undertaken by Warwick University suggests that by organising services in that way we can reduce overall waiting times for everyone.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend will perhaps not be aware of the fact that I spent eight hours in A&E last Sunday. I hasten to assure your Lordships that I was not the potential patient: I was simply the person looking after another potential patient. I hope my noble friend will agree that seven or eight hours is a very long period of time to spend in A&E. But the main problem, on which I should be interested to know the Government's view, is that no one knows what is going on. One is just sitting there, with, in this case, a young person—waiting, and waiting, and waiting. The psychological damage seems to me to be enormous—not merely to the patient, but in this case to me!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the psychological problems affecting my noble friend as a result of his wait in A&E. I agree with him. Long waits are very difficult in stressful circumstances. They are made all the more burdensome if people are not kept informed as to the reason for them. That is why establishing a new system whereby effectively patients will be streamed will enable people to he seen more quickly. I accept that we need to do more to inform patients and their relatives and friends as to how long it is before they are likely to be seen. Our target is that by 2004 the maximum waiting time for the whole process in A&E will be four hours. Although my noble friend regrettably had to wait eight or more hours, in terms of reduced waiting times we are on course for an interim target of 75 per cent by 2002.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister realise that it was in 1995 that the Oxford Clinical Trial Service Unit completed its definitive report on the number of lives that would be saved if the so-called clot-busting drugs were used for heart attack patients within hours of their attack? How many patients does the Minister think have died because only one-third of our A&E departments come up to the nationally agreed standards? What will he do to ensure that the money that he talks about will not be top-sliced all the way down, so that it barely reaches the A&E departments, as has happened with the money for cancer treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the intention is that the money will be spent in A&E departments and that it will not be top-sliced. We shall performance-manage the situation to make sure that that happens. As regards drugs, in the national service framework for coronary heart disease we have set a

997
target that, by April 2002, 75 per cent of eligible patients should be receiving thrombolysis within 30 minutes of hospital arrival, and within 20 minutes by 2003. We are making progress, and I am confident that we shall reach those targets.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as many patients are children, does the Minister agree that in A&E departments there should be more facilities for children and more people who understand their needs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, anyone who has taken a child to an A&E department can only agree with the noble Baroness. Some hospitals have introduced dedicated facilities for children. They have been aided in that by the modernisation fund that we have introduced, which has already brought additional moneys to 90 per cent of all A&E departments. We are also seeing an increase in the number of child-trained nurses, some of whom could work in A&E departments and ensure that children receive the kind of dedicated service that they require. We clearly need to build on that approach.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware how absolutely splendid the accident and emergency people were at Perth Royal Infirmary when my daughter fell 10 feet off a ladder and the ladder fell on her leg? They dealt with her immediately.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was very glad to hear that. I only wish that I could claim responsibility for the trust in Perth, but I fear that I cannot. There is no doubt that we have some very high calibre and dedicated staff working in extremely pressurised situations in A&E departments. By increasing our capacity and our staff numbers and, crucially, reorganising the way in which they work, we can relieve some of the pressure on those staff and cut down the waiting times, which we are determined to do.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I have made a couple of visits to A&E departments in the recent past. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that staff in A&E departments are properly protected from violent criminals, who come in every Friday and Saturday night, disrupting the work of the departments and intimidating the staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the House is glad to see the noble Lord back in his place. I agree with him. NHS staff have been put under intolerable pressure by frightening and revolting behaviour by members of the public. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that we will support hospital management in taking decisive measures to ensure that action is taken against such people and that our staff are not required to cope with the situations that the noble Lord described. There have been a number of encouraging developments, including links with local police services. In some
998
areas, the local police force has a police station in the vicinity of the hospital. We need to build on those initiatives.

Rheumatoid Arthritis: Drugs Appraisal
2.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following reports of a possible trial of beta interferon drugs for multiple sclerosis sufferers, they would support a clinical trial of anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, following a recommendation from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to establish whether those drugs might be secured for patients in the NHS in a manner that could be considered cost effective. NICE is currently appraising anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and we anticipate that its guidance will be published in March. We will consider carefully all its recommendations, including any for further research.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I remind him that there are 600,000 sufferers from rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom. It is a very painful and often progressive disease. Many of them cannot get anti-TNF drugs, even though the best clinical judgment in the country prescribes them, because of the shortage of funds in the NHS. Will the Government set up some special funding for that treatment rather than allowing this dreadful suffering to continue?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that rheumatoid arthritis is a distressing illness. Many members of our community suffer a great deal of pain and distress as a result of it. It was because of issues around the anti-TNF drugs that the noble Lord has mentioned that we referred the question to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The purpose of the institute is to give definitive advice on whether a particular drug is clinically effective and cost effective. I expect that the Government and the National Assembly for Wales will receive the outcome of that advice next spring. We must await that moment before any further decisions can be made. I do not believe that a special fund is the answer. We must have a proper process of independent advice so that proper decisions can then be made.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I accept the Minister's points. But does he accept that although for many years traditional treatments such as gold and, more recently, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been helpful for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the first really effective treatment to strike at the heart of the disease and to have shown itself as likely to prevent its advance is the anti-tumour

999
necrosis factor? Is it not therefore important that the treatment should be made widely available? At the moment it is subject to the problem of postcode prescribing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is exactly why we have referred the drugs to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The tradition of the NHS is for postcode prescribing under which a particular drug can be obtained in one part of the country and not in another. The existence of the institute enables independent judgment to be made on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a particular drug. If the institute so advises, there will be uniform provision of the drug across the country. I understand the impatience of patients over NICE reaching its conclusions, but we must await the outcome of the process. At the moment we are in the middle of it.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I too appreciate my noble friend's concern and he will understand my interest in the question. Is it known why more than three times more women than men develop this cruelly devastating condition; and does it not conflict with the founding principles of the National Health Service that postcode rationing can still discriminate between them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I am not aware of any specific evidence as to why more women than men should be affected, although I shall draw the noble Lord's question to the attention of those responsible for NHS research and development. On the general point, postcode prescribing is unacceptable in a national health service. That is why we set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The longer that it does its work and the more advice that it gives to the Government, the more we will eradicate postcode prescribing.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if taken sufficiently early, the drug in question can prevent a condition becoming debilitating. Should it not be a basic consideration, whenever any such drugs are considered, whether they can prevent a condition becoming disabling? Should that not be at the front of all of NICE's considerations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is one of the factors on which NICE will have to make a judgment. Before NICE was introduced, new and innovative drugs were often taken up very slowly. We have already seen that the result of NICE decisions is that, once it has given advice that a drug is likely to be clinically effective and cost effective, take-up in the NHS is quicker. We are also seeing that the initial results of advice given by NICE is considerably to increase the amount that the NHS spends on drugs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that NICE considers clinical effectiveness only in terms of the cost of the drug? Is it not important to
1000
consider the cost of the social care of patients if they are not given the drug and therefore rely on the state for everything? Should that not be a further factor to be considered in the equation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness. However, NICE's approach is fully consistent with what is described in the jargon as a societal perspective. That certainly falls within NICE's responsibility to promote clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

Housing Renewal
2.52 p.m.
Lord Greavesasked her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to bring forward proposals to assist with housing problems in areas such as east Lancashire, which have large numbers of cheap and substandard terraced houses many of which are standing empty.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, having recently visited east Lancashire, I fully recognise the severity of the housing problems in that area. The Government already support a substantial programme of local government expenditure on private sector housing renewal, and we will soon put legislation before Parliament to allow authorities much greater freedom to develop their strategies.
My department has also just received a proposal for the creation of a market renewal fund. I cannot, of course, commit the Government to pursuing that approach, but I welcome the work that is being done collectively by local authorities and housing providers in the North and the Midlands on that issue.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and intriguing Answer. The problem is that in many parts of England, the bottom end of the housing market has simply collapsed. Houses can be bought extremely cheaply or, in many cases, are worthless. The Minister is quoted as saying in a local paper, the Pendle Citizen, on 8th November that the sub-region has,
"consistently missed out on cash from central government and European union regeneration schemes".
Will he confirm that that is his view? Will he also comment on the fact that in my local authority area of Pendle, where I live, the amount of money available for private sector housing regeneration work was cut by a massive 30 per cent this year compared to last year, and, since the mid-1980s, has fallen by about 70 per cent in cash terms?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, I confirm the quotation. I do not know what are the precise figures for money available for private sector

1001
expenditure by local authorities on housing in the area identified by the noble Lord, but I shall write to him about them.
The overall position is that English local authorities presently provide about £400 million a year for private sector renewal. I accept that in the east Lancashire area, which I visited, local authorities have insufficient money to deal with the range of private sector housing problems—although the problem does not involve just housing but must be considered across the board. The problem involves housing, bringing jobs to the area, providing economic prosperity and working together to try to find solutions. One of the most impressive things I found when I visited six local authority areas in east Lancashire was that they were all working together with the private sector and other statutory providers to seek solutions to what are deep-seated problems.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, to what extent do the Government advise local authorities to consider the parts of their areas that are amply provided with terraced houses that are falling into disrepair and are unused before they give permission for further housing to be built?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the planning system is intended to deal with that issue. In our planning policy, we have sought to promote the idea that local authorities consider housing strategically throughout their area. They should consider what social housing and private sector stock exists and address the housing needs of the community as a whole, so that when they consider which houses in their possession to renovate and which planning permissions to grant, they have a strategic view of the community's needs.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Minister will be aware of the work that my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead—he is a good friend—is doing in Burnley. Perhaps the Minister had Burnley in mind when he mentioned visiting that area. Does he agree with my noble friend Lord Clarke that demolition of houses is a priority and that money should be provided to get the housing catastrophe into some order?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the good work that my noble friend Lord Clarke is doing in Burnley, and I should like to pay tribute to the amount of time and effort that he has put into his report.
When one visits east Lancashire—and other parts of the country—it is perfectly plain that there are significant areas in which substantial abandonment of housing is occurring. Once abandonment starts, it destroys communities. In some places, demolition and clearance will be the right course; but not in others.
1002
Each place will have a different solution, and the right thing is to identify what is the particular solution for the particular area.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister realise the concern, especially in rural authorities, about the number of new properties that will have to be provided? Will he tell us how the Government will first deal with the 750,000 properties that are lying empty, before forcing authorities to provide far more properties than they require, especially in the green belt?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are conscious that a proper approach must be taken to releasing land for housing. That is why, in national planning guidance PPG 3, we have instituted a policy that brownfield land should be used first, and only if no brownfield land is available should greenfield sites be used.
The 750,000 empty properties represent an important issue. We have introduced several measures to seek to encourage the owners of empty properties to bring them back into use. Those measures have not been wholly successful, because it is frequently difficult to identify who is the owner of a property and many such properties are in areas in which there is total market failure—that is, a significant number of houses are being abandoned and no one wants to live in the area because there are so many voids.
The problem of empty properties is not simply about persuading owners to renovate them; it involves precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to in his Question: trying to revive the market—often in the areas of lowest income—to try to provide proper communities.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have reached the 24th minute, and there is another important Question.

Employment Tribunals
2.59 p.m.
Lord McCarthyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make public immediately the full text of the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunals so that Parliament can judge the case for restricting access to employment tribunals as proposed by the Employment Bill 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, publication of the full report has been delayed because a routing problem with the computer program means that we do not have a complete data set for a number of questions. We are planning to publish the full report and data set in

1003
February, recognising the desire of your Lordships to see them before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill 2001.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but does he appreciate that he is talking about a piece of research, a telephone survey, which was begun in 1995? Seven years later we do not have a complete data set. I think we should throw it away. But if we do not do that, perhaps we should do it again and in the meantime surely we should not keep quoting it, as we do, or misquoting it, as we have done. It has been misquoted to suggest that what it is telling us is that the workers and employers of this country are rushing to litigation like an avalanche. However, there is no evidence of that except, of course, the evidence of this useless survey. The employers—they apparently have some access to it—say it means that 64 per cent of respondents never approached their employers on the matter. The Government do not say that; the Government say a different thing every time they quote the survey. If we are to find out anything about this matter, and if we are to justify the Bill, for goodness sake publish the survey or tear it up.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain of the question that I am supposed to be answering. I shall make some equally general remarks about the report. I believe that it was prepared in 1998. As I hope I explained, the problem is that these days these surveys are conducted by people who use a computer to direct them to different parts of a question. As a result of the failure of the computer program, we do not have complete data sets for some of the answers, but not all of them. We have used parts of the report where we have full data sets. As regards the statistic to which the noble Lord referred, that is based on robust data. Indeed, when we publish the survey—as I said, it will be published before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill—we shall at the same time deposit a full and sound data set in the ESRC data archive so that people can see how that statistic is derived.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that—if I ask a slightly more precise question to help him—many of the people who these days go to employment tribunals do so because of cases of racial discrimination or sexual harassment? If the Government in Clauses 22 and 23 of the new Bill bring in cost measures that are likely to deter those complainants, if this House is to pass that legislation we shall need more information than we have currently.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, two minor changes have been proposed in terms of costs. Those relate to the fact that the general principle of the Bill is a fair one which already exists; that is, that respondents or applicants who waste time making or defending hopeless cases should face the consequences of their actions. That applies both to applicants and to respondents. We propose that where there are additional costs other than legal costs they should be
1004
taken into account and that that can apply to representatives, although not to non-profit-making bodies.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true —
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true that the excuse of computer programs not functioning is getting as much credence now as that of "the cheque is in the post"? Is the Minister responsible for computer programs and IT generally in the Government and, if not, will he pass on to whoever is the suggestion that perhaps it might be a good idea to have a root and branch look at all our computers as this excuse has come up on so many occasions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that there is much evidence over many years under many governments that when governments say there has been a computer problem there almost certainly has been a computer problem. There was in this case. I believe that the survey was carried out by agents for the government. I can only say that what happened was regrettable and we seek constantly to make certain that these incidents do not occur.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is not just regrettable but also not particularly funny if workers are not to be allowed to enforce their rights through tribunals? Does he further accept that the research produced for his own department published this year by Burgess, Cropper and Wilson, shows that the increase in the number of tribunal cases has nothing whatever to do with some fever for litigation by British workers, it has to do with changes in the labour force industrial structure and the tribunals' jurisdiction, as stated in the headline to their conclusions? Does he also accept, especially in view of what he said about the competence or incompetence of what has been done with the survey, that this "Mickey Mouse" telephone survey does not invalidate the Burgess research and does nothing—especially when the Government have themselves misrepresented the conclusions in their consultative document—to show that workers have engaged upon some fever of reckless litigation which any trade unionist knows perfectly well is not the case?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that either I or the Government have implied that we are talking about a fever of litigation. There are a number of good reasons why the number of applications to employment tribunals has trebled since 1990. I refer to new employment rights; the effect of specific decisions of the European Court of Justice and certain case-law decisions. However, I do not think that they totally explain the rise. But that is not the issue that we are addressing in this case. We think it is

1005
in the interests of all parties, employees, employers and taxpayers, that there should be a proper dialogue in the workplace and that claims, if possible, should be dealt with there rather than be taken to a tribunal. It is not in the interests of anyone—employees, employers or taxpayers—that cases should be taken to tribunals which almost always results in a breakdown of the employment relationship. Through the Bill we seek to remedy what is clearly the situation; namely, that a substantial amount of these claims never go through a grievance procedure. That is the case as regards employers on many occasions and sometimes as regards employees.

Business
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has asked me to draw to the attention of the House a significant correction in Hansard which is to be found in last Friday's Hansard of 16th November at col. 859. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will be pleased to note that this was due to a computer error. The topic was a very important one, Europe, and those noble Lords whose offerings were not recorded sufficiently for posterity were the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Heathrow Terminal 5.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): 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.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 20, revising Article 207 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22, which is grouped with other amendments, concerns Article 207(2) of the treaty establishing the European Community. I hope that that is of guidance and help to those following the details of the debate.
This is one of a series of amendments, several of which concern the new move as embodied in the Treaty of Nice—and therefore will be brought into our legislation should the Bill be approved—for qualified majority voting for certain key appointments and arrangements in the organisation of the European Union's institutions. In this particular case we are concerned with the appointment of the Secretary-General of the General Secretariat, the High Representative for foreign policy and his deputy in the General Secretariat. Members of the Committee will know that in recent years the General Secretariat has expanded somewhat and now covers a wide range of Union activities over the second and third pillars. The role of High Representative for foreign policy has emerged, and it is filled with considerable prominence and ability by Mr Javier Solana.
We believe—if I may, I shall put reasons before the Committee—that this type of appointment is extremely sensitive and that it is very important that it is handled correctly. We do not consider that it is best settled by the rather crude instrument of qualified majority voting. We do not quite understand why the Government ever signed up to this particular veto abandonment. We say that not only because we consider that vetoes and the ability to cry "stop" are always the most wonderful and best way forward but because, in the matter of appointing such crucial figures in European affairs, we believe that discussion and understanding between the member states is a much healthier way of proceeding than the process of one group of people outvoting another. That is particularly the case as we move into the new pattern of weighting of votes in the Council, which we shall debate later. We do not believe that that is the right way to proceed.
We need to be extremely careful mainly for the following reason. There is always a danger—a number of assertions and quotations, one of which I shall refer to in a moment, reinforce this point—that the High Representative for foreign policy will drift into acting as Foreign Secretary for a putative entity—that is, the European Union as a type of enlarged, replicated nation. Of course, that can be extremely dangerous.
In the present case, I consider the High Representative to be a man of vast ability who has done excellent work. I believe that this type of post works best when the person holding it acts as a skilful honest broker or "putter-forward" of positions between disputants or even potential combatants. The contribution made by Mr Solana in, it is hoped, defusing a Macedonia-type situation is considerable. Therefore, the honest broker role is the right one. However, for a number of reasons, it could be extremely dangerous if the holder of the post, having been voted in by qualified majority voting, believed, as some do, that his was a Foreign Minister role.
First, as I believe we mentioned in earlier debates and as Henry Kissinger observed in recent comments, a Foreign Secretary needs to put forward a foreign policy. In the European case, a foreign policy must be woven together out of the vast complex of the different and diverse viewpoints of the 15 member states. In due

1007
course, that number may become 25, or perhaps even 28 if all 13—that is, not only the next 10 countries but the three after that—join. Once that position is reached, the matter is non-negotiable. If Americans, Indians, Japanese or Russians arrive and say, "That is a very interesting viewpoint. Ours is slightly different. Can we reach an agreement?", the answer is that the Foreign Secretary's position, if that is the role that has been taken on by the High Representative elected by QMV, becomes impossible. He will say, "This is the given position. I cannot unravel it. You must take it or leave it".
Secondly, the whole concept not merely of a common foreign policy, which is what is usually put forward, but of the pattern evolving into a single foreign policy is dangerous because it raises expectations that every single member of the greatly enlarged Union which lies before us—indeed, even of the present Union—is entitled to a say in evolving the policy which the High Representative is supposed to promote.
Of course, in recent days we have seen the disappointments and difficulties to which that leads. A crisis appears, all types of bilateral alliances and arrangements spring up, often put in place with great subtlety and agility and very rapidly, and, to put the matter crudely, the point is reached where it is not possible to wait for the slowest member of the convoy. Indeed, if one waits too long for the slowest member, the policy never crystallises. No foreign policy emerges, and the type of assistance given recently, for example, by the coalition of members to the United States in forming a coalition to deal with the global attack on terrorism would simply not be forthcoming.
To put it into the vernacular, everyone expects to be invited to the dinner. When they are not, one ends up not with a feeling of unity and brotherhood among the European states, in which I, for one, passionately believe, but a feeling of crossness among certain states that they have been left out and that somehow the big boys are ganging up against the rest. That view was mentioned by Mr Berlusconi and reported in this morning's newspapers. That is not good for the type of Europe that we want to see and for the kind of European unity that some of us have spent half a lifetime trying to work for.
Therefore, the whole question of who fills the role is delicate. It needs to be handled by very careful, friendly debate and discussion in good faith and not by the hammer instrument of saying, "Well, we can't discuss it. We'll have a vote and the people with the most votes win". That is not a healthy approach.
Thirdly, to take another current example, is the question of the posture of the European Union member states in relation to the crucial Israel-Palestine issue. Different member states and, indeed, different parties and groupings inside member states have different views on how pressure should be applied and to which side—that is, Israel or Palestine or both—if we are to reach the dream (I hope that it is more than a dream) or perhaps the attainable goal about which Colin Powell spoke only yesterday of a separate Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace.
If, by having the wrong person in the post, an EU view is allowed to develop that is in any way one-sided, and if it is not possible to articulate and interweave that view with the evolving policies of Washington, in which America is bound to play a vast and key role in this whole issue whether or not the world likes it—personally, I do like it—then we have not created more stability. We have not opened out the past away from the hideous, endless tit-for-tat killing of the Israel-Palestine situation but have raised further barriers and put further obstacles in the way. That, again, I consider to be dangerous.
Fourthly, there is the concern, which I do not believe is only in the mind or can be dismissed, that behind the idea of common foreign policy, a common approach in certain situations or the use of Mr Solana as a skilled broker, is a strong impulse to wrap up all foreign policy into a single approach and put it in the first pillar inside the Community. Mr Romano Prodi, who is an invaluable quarry of quotes, said on 14th November—less than a week ago—that he wanted to see a single European Union foreign policy and he wanted it to be under the Commission. He said,
"as I have said many times in the past and will say again here today, [Europe] will not succeed in contributing to peace and stability in the world, nor will it be able to fill a political role that matches its economic stature, or indeed be accepted in such a role, unless it is united in its actions".
I believe that that sounds all right in relation to that point. He then goes on to say:
"This problem will be resolved once and for all only if the necessary adjustments are made and the entire foreign and security policy of the Union is brought inside the Community system".
That is what we are up against and that is what lies behind the concern which some Members of the Committee may consider fanciful but which I do not. The High Representative and Secretary-General of the Secretariat is a person on whose discretion and skill we rely greatly to prevent that coming about. I do not believe that the Government or any sensible and committed European want to see the entire foreign and security policy of the Union brought inside the Community system. We want a Secretary-General and a High Representative who can resist that. Those are reasons why we are doubtful about the proposal and do not understand why the Government signed up to it.
I have yet one more reason in this context; namely, that there exists in certain foreign policy discussion circles the view that one cannot really do anything unless one has an army—one needs a military force in order successfully to project influence in the world. That view might have been valid until about 10 years ago, but I suspect that in the knowledge-based age of information technology it no longer applies and that nations or political entities can project their weight in terms of their contribution to global stability without the military attachment. That has been for many years the view of the Europe-builders—it was the view until recently, when there began to be talk of Europe becoming in some senses a military power. We have been told hitherto that that was not happening and that all that was involved was the minor matter of

1009
carrying out certain low-intensity, low-profile semi-policing tasks rather than going for a full-blown, fully equipped European army, which would be somehow autonomous from NATO.
I notice that the Secretary of State for Defence has changed his tune. That makes us a little worried about the role of the High Representative. He is reported in this morning's papers as saying that the new force must move quickly, have heavy-lift air transport and go quickly into combat zones; he also referred to mid-air refuelling and radar-jamming devices. That is far from the low-level humanitarian tasks that we were earlier discussing and it makes one feel even more strongly that there is an old-fashioned doctrine at the heart of much of this thinking. That involves saying, "Yes, there must be a European identity and the weight of Europe must be projected in the world. We must have forces to back that up. That is how we can achieve balance against the hegemony of the United States of America". We believe that that is a false perception and the wrong approach. If there is to be reinforcement of America's efforts, it must involve the strengthening of NATO and that must be done in the spirit of partnership not of duplication and it must not involve rival forces or rival foreign policies. We have seen too much of that—for example, delegations went off to Korea to second-guess and to attempt to outwit the Americans in their handling of that situation. Again and again, the spirit has been one of rivalry rather than of partnership.
For all of those reasons—there are many more, and noble Lords may point out those that I have overlooked—the matter of who fills the role is crucial. The matter of how the role is chosen is also crucial and requires great delicacy and a careful approach. The introduction of QMV does not seem to us to be consistent with that approach. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has built an extremely elaborate castle on the modest foundations of this amendment. First, I remind him that I was listening again—for the second time in two weeks—to a group of visiting American officials, who began by reminding us that the United States strongly supports a European security and defence policy. As one of them said, "We bought into this after St. Malo". They also said that the United States now sees the NATO relationship as being balanced between a more coherent European security and defence policy and the United States.
Secondly, my understanding is that the model for the role of High Representative was precisely designed on the role of the NATO Secretary-General and that the intention was that something like that useful model would operate in relation to the High Representative. It was partly for that reason that the first person appointed by the European Union to be High Representative was the serving NATO Secretary-General.
Thirdly, I turn to the role of QMV in relation to that position and the President of the Commission. As those who were in the previous Conservative
1010
government should remember, one reason for the introduction of that approach was the competitive vetoing of nominees for President of the Commission by Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Major. As a result, we lost Ruud Lubbers, who would have been an excellent President of the Commission, and Jean-Luc Dehaene, who might have been a good president, and we found ourselves with Mr Santer instead. There is a good argument for gaining as much as we can in terms of consensus but for preventing the kind of competitive vetoing that unfortunately mars this business.
We should stick closely to the proposed clause and not wander into questions about the future European army or where we might be in 25 years. The proposal is an entirely helpful step forward.
Lord Williamson of Horton: We are dealing with a simple series of amendments, which relate to a simple series of provisions in the treaty, and we are dealing with a single point—the relevant voting arrangements. In other words, we are concerned with the change from unanimity to QMV in relation to several appointments to European institutions and other bodies, starting with the Secretary-General of the Council, which is the subject of the amendment. We shall later deal with appointments to the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is in his place. Although he apparently has nothing to declare on European affairs except his genius, on the previous occasion on which we discussed the Bill he commented on the pensions of some noble Lords. I am happy to state that I worked for many years in the United Kingdom Civil Service and that I have a pension from the United Kingdom Government. I worked for rather fewer years in European institutions and I have a pension from that source as well. That seems pretty normal to me. I am also a co-chairman of Europe 21.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, who sets some Members of the Committee an excellent example. I trust that it will be followed in the course of our debate.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I add that the noble Lord recognises that he has only to declare his genius—that is to be welcomed.
I made it clear at Second Reading that my view is that with the Treaty of Nice we have come to the end of the road of changes with regard to unanimity and QMV. It is wise to retain unanimity in relation to several important matters, such as constitutional change, taxation and so on. However, the decisions that we are now discussing—those about appointments—are suitable for QMV and may in some cases reduce the rather undesirable tendency to excessive bargaining about such appointments. There can be advantages in that. So far as concerns the Secretary-General of the Council, especially in his role

1011
as High Representative, we have to keep in mind the fact that we are in the intergovernmental sphere. Whatever his method of appointment, he remains fully under the control of the member states.
There is a wide difference between the types of appointments. Some of them are important, such as that of the Secretary-General of the Council, and others are less important because they are predominantly decided beforehand, such as the appointments to the Committee of the Regions. It is justified to move to QMV in relation to all of those appointments.
I do not in any way take a doctrinaire view on the question of QMV. We need efficiency and to protect the important interests of member states. The proposed change to the Treaty of Nice does not in any way damage the essential interests of the United Kingdom. I support the change to the treaty and I do not support the amendment.
Lord Biffen: My noble friend Lord Howell, who moved the amendment, highlighted one of the continuing anxieties—not so much what the proposed changes in the treaty imply, but whether ultimately they will lead to further consequences. As has already been said, this debate is being carried out not in a vacuum but against the wishes of Señor Prodi. He is obviously the star turn so far as concerns my noble friend; he is certainly valuable to all of us as a source of quotations. However, no joke is involved. He clearly has in view the completion of the slogan, "Europe: a nation". That involves saying that Europe should have the qualities that are normally associated with a unitary state and that it should have its own foreign policy.
The question of whether the appointment is made by qualified majority voting or by unanimity is a narrow one. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that it is not a ditch upon which one would want to fight and die. However, the issue touches upon whether a move to qualified majority voting will encourage those who have as an objective a European foreign policy, or whether staying with unanimity will retain the present situation whereby the affairs of the European Union are conducted substantially outside the existing, closely-knit Commission-generated apparatus.
This debate relates to the enlargement of the European Union. We should apply that test all the time. It is a Union that will accept the applicant states and inevitably, unavoidably and logically Turkey also. It appears to me that in a European Union of such a size we should play the hand of diversity because Europe will become diverse. We are a European Union of many proud, national states, with national interests, able to play those interests to the advantage of the Community generally.
I speak in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who played so signal a role in developing the Anglo-American relationship. We like to believe that we made that contribution to the European Union. The same may be true of other countries. The
1012
enlargement includes Poland. What better country is there to speak to Ukraine and to Russia than a country with Poland's experience? In relation to Turkey, we can consider the set of relationships that will be brought into play in regard to the Middle East, which will be so much more germane because of the events of 11th September.
That is the Europe that beckons; it is a Europe that is wider and more diverse. In my view, if the role of the Secretary-General did not exist we would still have a satisfactory arrangement for European policies based upon a reconciliation of our joint national interests. That is the shadow behind this debate. Of course, this debate is on a relatively narrow point, but I was delighted to hear my noble friend make his points. I do not know whether he will press the amendment to a Division, but I shall be happy to say that I look to a diverse Europe that does not need this drift towards centralisation. Indeed, it requires that such a drift be reversed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: It appears to me that qualified majority voting arouses strong feelings that are often based on a misplaced analysis. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, has just made a cry for diversity, but a European Union of 27 with no qualified majority voting would resemble the medieval Polish parliament where everyone had a veto. I doubt that our Polish friends would thank us for recreating their medieval parliament just as they arrive in the European Union.
On qualified majority voting for such appointments, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that unanimity does not always achieve good results. I shall choose my words carefully. The two "least good" Presidents of the Commission in living memory were chosen after a veto by someone. That is not a very happy precedent. Moreover, when qualified majority voting is used in the European Union votes are not required all the time as, frequently, it encourages consensus. It means that one country out of 27 cannot block abusively a nomination.
I believe that the case for the change to the Treaty of Nice is quite good and I support it. I also consider that what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the appointment of the High Representative was a confusion of two points. Whether the High Representative is appointed by qualified majority or by unanimity does not affect, one way or the other, his ability or stupidity in relation to exceeding his powers. That simply does not arise. However, there is the matter of whether in exceeding his powers the High Representative is under the control of the member states or not and that relates to whether foreign policy decisions are taken by unanimity or by qualified majority voting. The situation remains that such decisions are taken by unanimity, so the scope for exceeding his powers is slight. In that context I regard the matter of how the High Representative is chosen as an irrelevance.

1013
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the powerful arguments that he advanced for having qualified majority voting in the foreign policy area so as to stop a few countries preventing a joint action of the kind currently taking place with the United States. I am not convinced by that argument. I believe that keeping unanimity in the main issues of foreign policy will be necessary.
Furthermore, I do not agree with the view that foreign policy issues have been sliding towards the Commission. I am well aware of what the President of the Commission has said. Presidents of the Commission have been saying that for years and they have not advanced towards their goal of achieving greater influence in foreign policy. Rather the contrary has happened. In recent years, the foreign policy work of the European Union has moved away from the Commission; not towards it. The Commission has to play a role within that, but it does not direct it. That is the reality.
When the European Union set up the office of High Representative and appointed a distinguished former Secretary-General of NATO, Mr Solana, it drove a nail into the coffin of the Commission's hopes of controlling foreign policy. That does not mean to say that every President of the Commission from now until eternity will not make speeches saying that he believes that that is a shame and that he wishes it were otherwise.
The reality is as it is, and with Mr Solana, the servant of the member states, acting intergovernmentally and the dominant figure in the implementation of such foreign policy as the member states agree, I believe that the situation is much more solidly entrenched than before. I argue that the changes to make certain appointments by qualified majority voting are justified. They do not touch on the areas for which I could not support an extension of qualified majority voting; for example, a change to the treaty, an increase in the financial resources of the Community, new member states and taxation. They touch on much less important areas and I believe that the case for the change is a good one.
Lord Tebbit: Any consideration of the merits of qualified majority voting always takes place on the terms of extending the role of QMV. We never have debates on the overall virtues of QMV and of unanimity. That is because there has been no case in the history of the European Union of a move away from the requirement for unanimity back towards QMV. In other words, this is a one-way street.
Of course, distinguished ex-civil servants from the Foreign Office, who have later served in the European Union, will always come forward to tell us that we are living in the best of all possible worlds, except that this treaty would make just one little improvement to make it even better than the best of all possible worlds. Never, in any circumstances, is the European Union said to have over-reached itself in its extension of its powers. This is not a debate on the merits; it is merely
1014
a debate on whether we shall take one further step this week, this year, in this treaty in the same direction. Having said that, on the issue of the appointment of the President of the Commission, there is a good case for unanimity.
A noble Lord: The high commissioner.
Lord Tebbit: The high commissioner, I am sorry. He must carry the absolute confidence of all member states.
A noble Lord: It does not matter.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord says that it does not matter. He need not carry—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment is about the Secretary-General and not the President.
Lord Tebbit: That was a slip of the tongue. We will get on to him perhaps a little later. But we can be sure that sooner or later that will come before us.
On the general issue of the merits of QMV and of unanimity, I say again what I half said in the debate on Second Reading. Those of us who in general take the view that unanimity is a safeguard must also remember that on many issues—not this one—of policy making unanimity is something of a two-edged sword. Once a UK Government say yes to a proposal—such as the Social Chapter—and it goes into the treaty, it would require unanimity of all member states to get it back out again.
So the unanimity rule can make it impossible for an incoming Parliament, however large its majority in terms of votes or seats, to change something which has been agreed within the Council. Therefore, it leaves more and more areas open to reform—should that be what the British people want—only by the nuclear option of opting out of the Treaty of Rome altogether. It pushes us down that road. We must bear that in mind. But, in general, in cases that are more administrative than consist of policy, there is a strong case for maintaining the rule of unanimity.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The problem for many of us who have been engaged in discussing these treaties over a long period of time is that we remember some of the things that were said in previous debates. During the discussions on the Amsterdam Treaty, for example, when we dealt with this question of the High Representative for defence and foreign affairs, we were told that it would be all right because he would be appointed by unanimity. Therefore, if we did not like the appointment, Britain would be able to veto it.
The ratchet moves on. With the European Union everything happens by stealth and by ratchet. The ratchet moves slowly up one and then another until eventually we arrive at the position at which those who form the European Community always wanted to arrive: that is a country called Europe. With that in mind and with the assurances that we were given at earlier times we now wonder why we had the safeguard

1015
of unanimity and why we were told that that was a safeguard. We are now told that it does not really matter whether we have unanimity; and qualified majority voting is okay. So that is one of the problems.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I listened with the utmost respect because he has much experience in these matters. But he will forgive us, I am sure, for taking what people say at face value. We cannot get away from the fact that the President of the Commission in his interview with the Independent on 4th February 2000 said:
"Step by step. the Commission is like a growing government".
There is no equivocation about that. Mr Prodi, like all Presidents of the Commission, wants to see the powers of the Commission and of European government growing and growing. At least Mr Prodi is honest enough to say what he is about. Unfortunately, other people deny that that is what he is saying he is about. It is about time that we had some straight and truthful talking about what is intended.
Not everyone reads the new arrangements in the same way. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I am discouraged. I thought that perhaps there was some good in this new arrangement; that perhaps it meant that the Council will take power from the Commission; and that it was trying to arrive at a situation that would cut the Commission down to size, because it is growing, as Mr Prodi says, too big for its boots.
I had some hope—it seems that I was wrong—that the Council was saying to the Commission, "This is going far enough", and that, "We are going to listen to what Mr Chirac says about the Commission; that it should not grow into a government, but that it should be the civil service of the European Union and the servant of the Council and not its master; and that it should not be the sole organisation and institution that proposes policy". I had some hope that that is what this was about. But unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has had much experience in this area, has disabused me of the marvellous thought that perhaps the whole thing was going to become a little more democratic. So I am disappointed that perhaps I am wrong.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may be wrong. It may be that that is what the governments of the EU intend. They, like so many of us, have been concerned about the Commission accruing power which it should not have. It may be that they have been listening to what we have said. It may be that they want to take power from the Commission and to exercise their considerable power in a more democratic and open way rather than from behind closed doors.
Those are my thoughts. We are in Committee. This is when we put forward our ideas, our fears and our questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to come down on my side and say that at last the elected representatives will go backwards and regain power
1016
from the Commission and not allow it to take more and more power and, indeed, become the government of Europe, as Mr Prodi so wants.
Lord Tomlinson: Perhaps I may sound a warning to my noble friend on the Front Bench. If perchance he were tempted to come down on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he would create far more problems for those who sit immediately behind him than he might solve.
The debate has been interesting and wide ranging, but the vast majority of it has borne no relevance to the group of amendments. There are three amendments in the group and they are identical. The only change in the treaty would be the addition of the words "by a qualified majority". The amendments do not deal with Mr Prodi, the Commission, or anyone else.
Were we to be tempted into dealing with the election of the President of the Commission, I remind members of the Committee that twice in recent years we have been the country that has exercised the veto. I am not sure whether we are more proud of having created the presidency of Mr Jacques Santer or Mr Jacques Delors.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord. Lord Tomlinson, has put his finger on the point. We are dealing with another example of Euro-creep in that we are discussing the move towards qualified majority voting for the appointment of the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy. I do not know why the European Union has to indulge in the hubris of always putting the word "high" in front of representative. There is a high representative of this, that and the other, which smacks of something from Gilbert and Sullivan. I fear that that is a little more dangerous than was intended.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit made an excellent contribution, but I may have misunderstood him when he said that, in the progress of these unions towards the glorious European mega-state that awaits us at the end of the gilded ladder, there has never been a move from QMV to unanimity. There has never been an example of giving up the veto. All the examples show a move from unanimity towards qualified majority voting.
Lord Tebbit: If I did get it the wrong way round, I was going to say that I would be sure to send my secretary up to the Hansard office in the manner of Ministers to put into the official record what I thought afterwards that I ought to have said rather than what I actually did say.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure that the Committee would agree that the Hansard office will be invited to oblige.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his excellent contribution, referred to "the ratchet". It is important to understand that we are dealing with a ratchet that can move in only one direction. The treaties say that it must do so. They say that the so-called acquis communitaire can never be reversed. If your Lordships

1017
do not agree, I can name the articles concerned. It is worth reading them so that one can see exactly how one is caught. I refer to Articles 2, 3 and 6.4 of the Treaty of European Union and Protocol 30, which is supposed to be the protocol on the glorious clause on subsidiarity, which supposedly allows member states to do their own thing. It is interesting to note that it is Protocol 30 on subsidiarity in the TEC—the treaty establishing the European Community—that makes any reverse of power acquired by the European Union impossible. But, once the European Union has something, it keeps it for ever.
On the specific matter of the common foreign and security policy, it is worth saying that there is a case for suggesting that the events of 11th September do not show that we need more CFSP. We do not need to move towards ever closer union on that issue. I know that those who support the European dream immediately pounced after those events, saying that we must have more collaboration and CFSP, and that it was once again the hour of European unity in standing and fighting together.
I note that the Prime Minister, whom everyone believes has done a magnificent job since 11th September, and on which he should be congratulated from all sides of this Chamber, did not rush off to sit down with his friends in Brussels. He contacted the President of the United States immediately and has stood shoulder to shoulder with him ever since. The other leaders in the European Union have been rushing round the world trying to emulate him in a rather unsatisfactory manner. The Dutch Prime Minister rushed to Downing Street to a dinner to which he had not been invited because the Prime Minister had rightly put together the big hitters of the European Union and asked them to dinner. There was the spectacle of the Dutch Prime Minister muscling in on that.
We also heard chippy remarks from the Belgian Prime Minister when he said that our Prime Minister was hogging the world stage too much, which was not helpful. Our Prime Minister was trying to help in the interests of civilisation and humanity as we know it.
I do not agree with the theory that the events of 11th September mean that we should have more common foreign and security policy in the European Union.
Lord Lea of Crondall: Is the noble Lord suggesting that Luxembourg should have had a veto on who to invite to that famous dinner?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No. I was merely pointing out that it is not the European Union that responds in times of crisis, but the old and tested alliance and friendship of this country and the United States of America. The behaviour of the Dutch Prime Minister shows an ambition to muscle in on this tried and tested
1018
and, if I may say so, powerful and effective alliance. It shows how pathetic the ambitions of some of those leaders of European countries are.
Lord Acton: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is making an admirable speech as usual, but I cannot understand what it has to do with the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: If the noble Lord will be good enough to read Hansard tomorrow, he will find out that I am trying to suggest that the last thing we need is more unity over common foreign and security policy. That includes the appointment of a High Representative.
When one considers matters of Euro-creep, one always does well to consider just how bad things have already become. In that respect, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that there are already 28 foreign policy security groups which meet in Brussels. I do not expect the noble Lord to respond today, but I should be grateful if he could write to me, placing a copy in the Library, saying which areas those 28 groups cover. To whom do they report? What action have we ever taken outside the agreement of one of those 28 groups in Brussels? I do not suggest that these groups are binding but that they have already compromised our foreign policy to a degree which many of us would find unacceptable. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide some enlightenment on that matter at least by way of correspondence.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Following this debate I have a problem; namely, that I can reply either to the amendment or to some of the speeches. I shall cut my speech on the amendment and very briefly respond to the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on foreign policy. There is so much misunderstanding contained in a period of only 14 minutes that something needs to be said in public. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—I must repeat it from the Dispatch Box—foreign policy is made by member states, not the Commission. Foreign policy is made by unanimity, not qualified majority voting. The arrangements for foreign policy were established in the Treaty of Maastricht, not the Treaty of Nice. There is no change in the Treaty of Nice. Any change would require the unanimous agreement of the member states.
The High Representative—we come to the tenuous link between these debates and the amendments—whether chosen by qualified majority voting or unanimity, implements the policy agreed by the member states. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said, the role of the High Representative is modelled on NATO's Secretary-General. There is no danger in future of a high representative following a policy which is inconsistent with the unanimous views of the member states. That is as much as I want to say about foreign policy.
However, I should like to deal with qualified majority voting because it refers not only to these amendments but to all the others which were grouped

1019
with it by agreement last week but have now been ungrouped. I shall not speculate in public on the reasons for that.
Lord Tebbit: I know that the Minister, in referring to the adoption of foreign policy by QMV through the Council—that is part of the Treaty of Maastricht, which he will recall I strongly opposed—will draw the attention of the Committee to the second paragraph of Article 11 which provides that member states shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union, or is likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. Clearly, that means that once a policy has been adopted any member state which seeks to deviate from that policy after a change of government will be in breach of the treaty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that I had said enough about foreign policy, but even now the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, appears to believe that decisions on foreign policy made by member states are by qualified majority voting. He just said so.
When the United Kingdom joined the then European Economic Community there were already a number of articles in the Treaty of Rome which were subject to QMV. As the EEC, and later the European Union, has grown larger there has been a need to extend QMV to stop decision-making grinding to a halt. The biggest extension came with the Single European Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may have disagreed with the Treaty of Maastricht, but his party did not. Literally thousands of directives and regulations have been passed using articles to which QMV has been extended. That allowed progress on the single market to be accelerated—and a very good thing, too.
My partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—for the extensive range of information that he requires he must refer to published documents—is that Maastricht also introduced QMV into many new areas of activity: implementing measures for common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs pillars; trans-European networks and transport; telecommunications; energy infrastructures; development policy co-operation; consumer protection; environment, and many others.
I have a whole section of brief which attacks the Conservative Party but I do not propose to use it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I did my best to oppose the Treaty of Maastricht. Any attack that the Minister may make on the party is not something which will worry me very much. The noble Lord may have misunderstood my question when he cited a list of items which moved to QMV under Maastricht. My question concerned the 28 foreign policy groups which meet in Brussels and, as I understand it, already decide most of our foreign policy. I accept that it is not appropriate for the noble Lord to provide all this information, even if he had it at his fingertips—which I suspect he may not—during Committee stage. To establish just how bad is the
1020
situation already, my question is: what areas do these groups cover, to whom do they report and what action have we ever taken outside them? Have we ever acted against the view of the majority in those 28 groups?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since the question has nothing to do with the amendment I shall write to the noble Lord referring him to the published documents which will answer his question. I believe that that is as fair as I can offer. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is entirely consistent about Maastricht, but it was their party which put forward that treaty. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as a member of the then government object to the Single European Act 1986 in quite the same way.
I turn away from the Conservative Party, with some pleasure, to talk about this Government's views. The Government take a pragmatic view of QMV which is based on calculating Britain's best interests. Qualified majority voting works for Britain and has built the single market on which over 3 million UK jobs and thousands of businesses depend. It simply is not true that Britain always loses out and others almost always win. In 1999 the UK was not outvoted on a single issue, but Germany was twice, France three times and Italy eight times.
We are clear that more qualified majority voting in the right areas can work strongly in Britain's interest in future. That was how we approached the negotiations on the Treaty of Nice. Where we felt strongly that an issue was of such fundamental importance that the decision must remain with the UK—with this Government and Parliament—we simply said that we would not agree. We made that clear to this House and our European Union partners even before we started the negotiations. We set out in advance in a White Paper in February 2000 the areas where we would not agree to QMV. We said that we would not accept QMV for tax, social security, defence, border controls, treaty change or the Union's own resources—its budget—nor did we. The UK veto remains on all these issues.
Nice extends QMV in 31 articles of the treaty, and there are good reasons for all those changes. How significant are they compared with those articles which were agreed by the Conservative Party—I am sorry, previous governments? How many times is the new article on the appointment of the CFSP special representative to be used compared with the number of times the articles which moved to QMV under the Single European Act have already been used? Consider the significance of moving consumer protection to QMV as the opposition did at Maastricht compared with moving the rules for the procedures of the Court of Auditors as we did at Nice.
This is not about numbers but about British interests. To oppose QMV in principle is short-sighted. Every one of the 31 moves to QMV that we agreed at Nice will be in Britain's interests. It is in Britain's interests to have QMV for industrial policy to increase competition. Our companies do very well out of the single market. It is in Britain's interest to have

1021
QMV for international agreements on trade and services. Our companies benefit from the liberalisation that this is likely to deliver.
It is also in the UK's interests to have QMV for the rules and procedures of the European Court of Justice. That will deliver more efficient procedures and speedier judgments to ensure that the EU's rules are respected. In this group of amendments, it is in the UK's interests that decisions on who should be appointed to official positions should be made efficiently. They should not be held up on the principle of Buggins' turn, or on the basis of nationality or cross-border rivalry. We need the best people appointed quickly and efficiently so that they can get on with their duties. That is what QMV will do for us in this area.
We have nothing to apologise for in the changes made in the Treaty of Nice. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister extols the virtues of QMV and says how helpful it has been to the British economy. Does he agree that there have also been occasions when we knew that we would be outvoted on a matter and therefore did not even put it to the vote? I refer, for instance, to the directive on young people at work with which I was associated. Let us also take the example of the British art market—a valuable asset to the country—which has been destroyed by QMV. I trust that the Minister will agree that QMV is not all one-way traffic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not all one-way traffic. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, last week we had a specific example of one-way traffic in the other direction which I meant to draw to the Committee's attention. The noble Lord challenged whether there were any cases of QMV moving to unanimity. Hansard will show that we debated last week the changes to Article 175(2) on the environment which restored to unanimity decisions on measures of a general nature on land use.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that this debate is about appointing the secretary-general of the secretariat, but not the President of the Commission—an even more important issue which we shall debate in another amendment. I am sorry that we have missed the attack on the Conservative Party which sits steaming in the Minister's brief. That might have stimulated a wide debate. However, I am on his side. We want to keep the debate to the issues in the amendment as much as possible.
I do not apologise for considering the implications underlying the amendment in order to argue the force of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reproved me for that. I believe that that reinforces and defines some of the problems under both governments with European Union legislation. When one seeks to halt a trend or a broad drift, every grandmother's footstep looks somewhat small, Therefore any attempt to halt that step opens itself to the charge of pettiness. Yet
1022
when those steps are added up, when each little salami slice is put together again, one has moved significantly in a certain direction.
The noble Lord may say that this step is not very great. However, since Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaty there has been a constant underlying murmur that the inter-governmental pillars shall one day somehow be brought into the full Community system. One needs to be on guard against that trend. Many of us believe that it will be very unhealthy.
With his usual authority the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that it does not matter how the person is appointed because he or she will be a servant of the Council of Ministers. That is undeniable; but it surely does matter, even if it appears to be a marginal issue, as to whether it is one person or another. That might well be shaped by a QMV or unanimity with general agreement and consensus.
I agree with the view that power is drifting away from the Commission to the Council. I may not carry with me all my noble friends on this point. The trend in decentralising the tendencies and longings of the Commission to establish a major role in foreign and military policies has been encouraging. Under the present arrangements that has been prevented. The present arrangements have begun to develop a fascinating pattern of redistribution of power in the European Union which weakens the motor role of the Commission over previous decades. That is a healthy development which we need to reinforce. There are quite solid moves to ensure that foreign policy is kept as far as possible in a sensible, flexible pattern of arrangements and not too centralised or "communitised". That is good.
I close this lively short debate by appealing not to higher glories and higher principles but merely by asking, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Those who want to see a flexible, democratic Europe may be just about holding their own. The Prime Minister has done magnificently in holding his corner against too much centralisation and singularisation of foreign policy in Europe. It is just about working. By bringing in QMV—it is a small touch—we are allowing matters to drift a little in the opposite direction. It is time that here as elsewhere in many areas the drift was stopped. It is an important principle. It is not a marginal issue. I should like to have the opinion of the Committee tested on this matter.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 176.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Astor, V.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Arran, E.

Belstead, L.

1023

Bitten, L.

Lucas, L.

Blackwell, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Marsh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carrington, L.

Naseby, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Northesk, E.

Chadlington, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chalfont, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Palmer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Parkinson, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cuckney, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rogan, L.

Elton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erroll, E.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hanham, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Higgins, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Strange, B.

Hogg, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thatcher, B.

Jopling, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Vinson, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Vivian, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Waddington, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Warnock, B.

Lindsay, E.

Wilcox, B.

Liverpool, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Addington, L.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brennan, L.

Amos, B.

Brett, L.

Andrews, B.

Bridges, L.

Avebury, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bach, L.

Brookman, L.

Barker, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Barnett, L.

Burlison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Berkeley, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Billingham, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Blackstone, B.

Chan, L.

Blood, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Cobbold, L.

Borrie, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

1024

Crawley, B.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elder, L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morgan, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Northover, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gale, B.

Orme, L.

Geraint, L.

Parekh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Paul, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Pendry, L.

Golding, B.

Peston, L.

Goodhart, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grabiner, L.

Puttnam, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Radice, L.

Greaves, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Greengross, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grocott, L.

Rennard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rooker, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Russell, E.

Harrison, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Haskel, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sharman, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hylton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Chancellor)

Taverne, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jones, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Laird, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Layard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Uddin, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Varley, L.

Levy, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Weatherill, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

[Teller]

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Privy Seal)

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

McNally, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Heathrow Terminal 5
4.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement concerning the proposal to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport and to outline our intention to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system.
"I am today publishing the inspector's report into Heathrow Terminal 5 as well as my decision letter. Copies of both have been placed in the Library of the House. My decision and the reasons for it have been set out in the decision letter itself.
"The inquiry into Terminal 5 was the longest in British planning history. It opened in May 1995 and closed in March 1999. The inspector, Mr Roy Vandermeer QC, reported to my department on 20th December last year. I should like to thank the inspector for his report. I am grateful to him for the great diligence which he has shown.
"The delay in reaching a decision since the report was received in December arises because, since the inspector reported, the applicants—BAA, who are the owners and operators of Heathrow Airport—warned in May that they wished to revise the Twin Rivers Scheme which was a part of the original application. It was August before they put forward any details. Those then required consultation, which was completed in mid October.
"After considering the inspector's report and taking into account all the relevant considerations, I have today given my approval to the development of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Such a development is in the national interest. It will enable Heathrow to remain a world-class airport. It will bring benefits to the British economy, both locally and nationally. At the same time as giving my approval to the development, I have also imposed conditions in order to protect the interests of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow.
"The inspector stresses in his report that the issue is essentially one of striking a balance. He identifies the benefits of Terminal 5. They are considerable. He sees Heathrow as essential for keeping the UK air transport industry strong and competitive.
"The inspector sees wider benefits beyond the aviation industry. He points to benefits for London and for the UK as a whole. He says that Heathrow
1026
has done a great deal to attract investment to the United Kingdom and that London's success as a world city and financial centre could be threatened unless Heathrow stays competitive. He says that by ensuring Heathrow's continued success, Terminal 5 would make a major contribution to the national economy. And he says that it would be good for passengers, providing a terminal equal to the best in the world and relieving the pressure on the other four terminals. I also agree with the inspector that the real beneficiaries, if Terminal 5 is not provided, would be Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, Schipol in Amsterdam and Frankfurt Airport.
"The inspector rightly draws attention to the disadvantages. They, too, are important. There is noise: the inspector looks at that issue at length. And he looks at matters such as extra road traffic, air quality, intrusion into the Green Belt and the effects of construction.
"The inspector weighs all the benefits and costs very carefully. He says—and I use his words—that he has come to the clear conclusion that the benefits of Terminal 5 would substantially outweigh the environmental impact as long as its effects are properly controlled.
"I agree with him that Terminal 5 should go ahead, but subject to conditions. I would like to outline the key conditions to the House. First, a limit has been set on the number of flights each year at 480,000. This limit has been imposed on a precautionary basis and because of the inspector's concerns about noise. This was recommended by the inspector. Last year Heathrow handled some 460,000 flights and just under 65 million passengers. Even with a limit of 480,000 flights, the inspector adopted a figure of 90 million passengers per annum as the potential capacity of Heathrow if Terminal 5 were built.
"Secondly, the noise effects of Terminal 5 will also be limited by a condition restricting the area enclosed by the 57-decibel noise contour to 145 square kilometres as from 2016. Again, I follow the inspector's recommendation.
"The inspector recommends stricter controls on night flights. I recognise that there is considerable concern about night noise. I am not legally entitled to change the night noise regime without consultation. I will consult on an extension of the night quota period when I next put forward proposals for the night noise regime for the BAA London airports. I have decided that this consultation will take place by 2003 at the latest.
"The House should also be aware that we have already announced a change to the system of so-called 'westerly preference' at Heathrow to reduce the number of night flights over built-up west London. This is in line with one of the inspector's recommendations. We have also announced a major study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This will permit a fresh look at the present 'Leg' noise index on which the inspector commented.

1027
"I have also agreed with the inspector on the need to promote the use of public transport. So I have imposed conditions, as he recommended, requiring the extension to Terminal 5 of both the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line before the new terminal is opened.
"And I have agreed with the inspector in cutting the provision of car parking spaces for the airport as a whole below that in the original proposals. I am imposing a condition limiting total spaces to 42,000 rather than the 46,000 proposed by BAA. Of these only 17,500 rather than the 21,700 originally proposed, will be available for employees.
"The terminal proposals also included widening of the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b. But I agree with the inspector that widening would not be appropriate. I have therefore refused approval for it.
"As to timing, I have imposed conditions requiring that work to implement any of the planning approvals should not start until a separate approval has been given to the essential scheme for diversion of the twin rivers that flow across the Terminal 5 site. That will ensure that there will be proper opportunity for full examination of that scheme.
"I should touch on three further points. First, the tragic events of 11th September and the effects of those terrorist attacks on air travel. In reaching my decision, I have noted that the inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly, Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis.
"Secondly, honourable Members will know of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 2nd October in the case of Hatton and Others v. the UK. This concerned night noise at Heathrow. The court held by a majority that there had been an infringement of the convention. I am considering that judgment, which does not become final until at least three months after it was delivered. Quite apart from my decision on Terminal 5, I will of course wish to ensure that the night noise regime at Heathrow complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.
"Thirdly, I am well aware of the length of time that was taken by the process of the public inquiry into Terminal 5. In saying that, I mean no criticism of the inspector; but there must be an issue as to whether such lengthy inquiries are appropriate. Accordingly, I announced on 20th July that we were considering a package of measures to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. This included a commitment to publish up-to-date statements of government policy before major infrastructure projects are considered in the planning system, to help reduce inquiry time spent on debating the policy, the introduction of new arrangements to give Parliament the opportunity to approve projects in principle, and
1028
improved public inquiry procedures. We shall be publishing further details for consultation in the next two months.
"Taken together with the other steps we will be proposing to improve the operation of the planning and compulsory purchase systems, these measures will both safeguard the rights of people to have their say and reduce the time that is taken in future to reach decisions on major infrastructure projects.
"My decision and the reasons for it are set out in full in the decision letter which I have issued today. Nothing I say here today should in any way be seen as a substitute for what is in that lengthy decision letter.
"Giving the go-ahead for a fifth terminal at Heathrow is essential if we are to maintain Heathrow as one of the world's leading airports and bring benefits to the British economy both locally and nationally.
"I have no doubt that the national interest requires that this project should proceed as long as we put in place measures to safeguard local people and their communities. This I believe my decision achieves and I commend it to the House".
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. Perhaps I should first congratulate the inspector, who has produced an extremely good report. It is a mammoth feat considering that the public inquiry took four years. The Government's will be welcomed by the airlines.
The Secretary of State has had to balance difficult considerations. On the one hand, there is a need to maintain Heathrow as a major European hub to compete with Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris and to benefit the aviation industry in this country. On the other hand, there is the contrary need of safeguarding the interests of those living near Heathrow.
The Minister has outlined some of the steps that the Government believe should be taken before Terminal 5 is opened. I should like to comment on some of those steps and to ask a number of questions.
The noble and learned Lord said that there would be a limit of 480,000 flights and that that would be a planning condition. We welcome that. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no increase in the number of night flights? We believe that there should be a presumption against night flights over residential areas unless it can be proved that there is a real need for them. We are as concerned as the Government about noise. The report states that there will not be a final decision until 2003. Why will it take so long? Will the effect on sleep disturbance be considered?
The Minister said that the Government will insist that rail and tube links are improved. We welcome that. Can he explain why there will be a limit on the increased usage of the Heathrow Express? I do not understand why there should be such a restriction.

1029
What will be done to improve the rail links from the west? At the moment, if you get on a train to Heathrow from the West of England you have to stop at Reading and get on a bus. We believe that, at the very least, there should be a western rail link, if not, indeed, a southern rail link as well.
When coming to their decision in regard to Terminal 5, did the Government consider the capacity of other London regional airports such as Stansted, Luton and Gatwick? Indeed, did they look at whether there was a need for a new runway in the South East? The noble and learned Lord explained the need for increased capacity but, at the end of the day, if capacity is to rise at that level, will another runway be needed to cope with it? Can the Minister confirm that a new runway is not in the Government's plans at the moment? Can he confirm that there will be no need for an additional runway at Heathrow when Terminal 5 goes ahead?
In coming to their decision, did the Government consider the House of Commons Select Committee report published in 1995–96, which stated that consideration should be given to constructing a new airport in the Thames Estuary?
This has been a mammoth inquiry which has cost more than £83 million. It has taken far too long—more than eight years—and it will be at least another six years, if all goes well, before Terminal 5 can be opened. The Minister announced plans to change and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects. We are concerned that the Government's plans should not undermine local involvement when considering such projects.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we, too, welcome the Statement made in another place and repeated by the noble and learned Lord. I wish to concentrate, particularly, on the issue of access to the airport.
We learn from the papers that the motorway will not be expanded. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I, too, am concerned about surface access by rail from the South West, the West and the North. It is apposite that we are considering the report at the same time as the CAA has published its first report into the funding of airline landing charges for the next five years. In terms of improved access to the airport, nothing in that report gives any comfort. It will happen if someone else pays. We believe that it should be either a condition of planning consent or that we should change the rules—which are to go before the Competition Commission—so that money is set aside for decent surface access, including the extension of the Piccadilly line and the Heathrow Express.
It says in the Statement that those lines are to be extended, but it does not say how that is to be paid for. They have to be paid for, and we believe that they should be paid for by airport users. We should not forget that "airport users" include not only passengers but "weepers and greeters" and people who work at the airport and travel there every day. The present means of access are either very inefficient or very
1030
expensive. We want these issues addressed because, inadequate as it is, the Airport Express is not a suitable way for workers to get to the airport.
We welcome the fact that the Minister will look at the planning system. This inquiry is a monument to inefficiency and has cost a vast sum of money. It is time that we moved towards an inquisitorial system and away from the adversarial system which was used here. The inspector should ask questions and people should not read out long statements. Several improvements can be made. But, whatever the outcome, inquiries should be held efficiently.
We know that there will be more noise. Unfortunately, that will be one of the effects of this decision and it is one of the crosses that people who live near the airport will have to bear. It is an area of bad air quality, which will get worse. There will be more car parking spaces than there are now. We believe that a real attempt should be made to deal with the issue of decent surface access above all others.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their welcome for the decision. I shall now deal with the points that they have raised
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the 480,000 flights limit and asked for an assurance that there will be no increase in night flights. There can be no change in the night flight regime without consultation. My right honourable friend in another place said that he would consult about the night flight regime in the light of the concerns expressed. That consultation will be thorough and detailed and concluded by 2003. It is right that the process should be detailed, thorough and take some time.
The reason for the limitation on the number of Heathrow Express train journeys from Paddington is to deal with traffic around the Paddington area. The Secretary of State deals with that issue in paragraph 55 of the decision letter, where he sets out his reasons.
As to capacity at other airports, the report of the inspector deals in great detail with the issue of capacity at other airports in the South-East of England. He refers to capacity at airports in the country as a whole, but he obviously deals in detail with capacity in the South-East.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the fact that it will take another six years, if all goes well, before Terminal 5 is completed. He drew attention to the fact that the procedure has taken too long. With respect, we agree that the planning stage of major infrastructure projects needs to be dealt with in a way that will lead to a quicker result than occurred on this occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that access to the airport should be paid for by the users of the airport. The British Airports Authority is committed to encouraging the introduction and use of additional public transport services at Heathrow. The Secretary

1031
of State expects the BAA to fulfil that commitment, including additional rail services—to which paragraph 54 of the decision letter specifically refers.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, six years ago, I addressed the Select Committee on Transport in another place at length about the marinair airport, which my noble friend Lord Astor mentioned. I declare an interest, as chairman and chief executive of the Thames Estuary Airport Company. Another Peer, who is seated behind me, is on the board—and another Peer present is the company's political adviser. We hope to make an announcement in the next few weeks. Two of the people with whom we were working closely were killed on 11th September, which did not add to our speed or joy.
We heard today about concern, which is reasonable, over night flights and flights over towns. A Thames Estuary airport, some 30 kilometres downstream from Tilbury, would kill any night effects on London. It would also avoid daytime traffic over London and the risk from crashes.
Judging by the post that we have been receiving, interest in the airport is enormous—not only from local councils. People throughout the South East are worried. If we can make our announcement, I hope that the Government will listen with great interest. That would be to the Government's advantage financially and in every other way. Such a development would be in the Government's favour and the country and employment would gain. Above all, new runways at existing airports would be totally unnecessary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's remarks in respect of a matter on which there has not yet been any announcement. Today, we are dealing with a decision in relation to Terminal 5 and we should focus on that issue.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on reaching a decision which removes a great deal of uncertainty after such a long public inquiry. Many people who live, work or have businesses locally will be pleased.
My noble and learned friend commented that BAA is committed to encouraging public transport. Is that really sufficient? Most other airport developments in Europe not only have rail services to the airport but local and national rail services pass through the airport. Paddington might get congested but that is nothing like what Heathrow will become if more people are not encouraged to use trains. I echo the comments by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the need for west-facing rail services. Are BAA committed to such services and to opening them before the terminal itself is opened?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The relevant part of the decision letter states:
"The Inspector recommends at paragraph 32.4.4 and paragraph 35.1.1.1.f of his report that conditions should be imposed requiring BAA to use their best endeavours to provide a four trains an hour service linking Terminal 5 to St. Pancras, and to secure the opening of the Gateway North station, before Terminal 5 is opened. The Secretary of State has concluded that such a condition could not easily be enforced and agrees with the Inspector that there are problems in providing such a service as identified by the Inspector … Therefore, and bearing in mind the guidance in Circular 11/95 on the use of conditions, the Secretary of State has concluded that he should attach these conditions. However, the Secretary of State expects BAA to comply with their commitment to encourage the introduction and use of additional public transport services at Heathrow and to consider securing a four trains an hour service linking Terminal 5 to St. Pancras and the opening of the Gateway North Station, before Terminal 5 is open"
That is a partial answer to my noble friend's question.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the Statement referred to 480,000 flights a year. Can the Minister give the definition of "flights"? Does that phrase include landings as well as take-offs or is a "flight" a landing or a take-off? Regardless of the answer, will the noble and learned Lord confirm—I am no way being facetious—that an airplane is an airplane is an airplane? Is a business jet exactly pari passu with a Boeing 747?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the figure of 480,000 relates to air traffic movements—take-offs or landings. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane, so all air traffic movements will involve a range of sizes.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at a time when the airline industry is facing massive shutdowns and losses and is begging for structural funds to survive, is it not paradoxical that a new airport is being predicated on rosy traffic forecasts? If, following 11th September, traffic patterns and travel habits change drastically, will there be a chance to reconsider in the next two years or so? We may find that there may soon be excess airport capacity, rather than a need for a fifth London air terminal.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement dealt in part with my noble friend's point:
"In reaching my decision, I have noted that the Inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis".
The decision must be based on a long-term look into the future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Statement referred to reviewing the lengthy planning processes involved in major infrastructure projects. Will that review be included in the report?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that aspect will not be included in the report, which will simply be about Terminal 5. In July, my right honourable friend

1033
gave indications in another place of the areas where we shall try to speed up and streamline major national infrastructure projects. Within the next two months, we shall issue a separate consultation document that will set out our proposals for improving and streamlining major infrastructure project processes.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I note the restrictions on car parking and the welcome improvements in public transport announced as part of the decision. The south-west link proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—from the Feltham-Staines line to Terminal 5 and other terminals—is long overdue if the number of people travelling to the airport by car is to be reduced. Is there any intention to establish a target maximum number of passengers and staff travelling by car to the airport in future? Fifty per cent is the sort of target that other airports seek to adopt. That would send a signal that the Government are serious about encouraging people using Terminal 5 to travel by public transport rather than driving there in their own cars.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are keen to encourage public transport. As to a specific target, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the reduction in the amount of car parking space available. Is it realistic to expect that it will be possible, by any means, to reduce the amount of car parking space required? Do the figures quoted by the noble and learned Lord include car parks outside the perimeter of the airport itself?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to whether it is realistic, the noble Lord will recall that one of the conditions imposed in relation to Terminal 5 going ahead is an improvement in the frequency of various public transport services. That will assist in some respects. So far as concerns car parking, I believe that the figures given are for parking within the vicinity of the airport, including Terminal 5.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is my observation with regard to people who work at Heathrow that the airport authority is already attempting to discourage them from coming in by car. I suspect that the main cause is that the land is rather too valuable to allow it to have cars parked on it all day long. I am talking about people who work there, not people who travel.
Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on his public transport announcement. Will he accept that when the airport authority brought forward this project, it tried to convince people that underneath the new Terminal there would be an "all singing, all dancing, all modal" transfer station, as it were, where rail—I do not mean rail into London; I mean rail to the North West and the South West—bus, taxi and motor car could all come and go in relation to the aeroplanes arriving and the passengers arriving. Is that being done?
1034
My second question relates to the enormous landside shopping facilities that were planned. Are those landside facilities—said to be as large as the entire shopping area of Staines, the nearest sizeable town to the airport—going ahead? If so, they will of their very nature increase the number of people who want to reach the airport by car.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the detailed history of what was on offer by the BAA—and I am not inviting the noble Baroness to remind me of the details. The inspector addressed the issue of what public transport improvements are required to deal with Terminal 5. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has considered those carefully and has given his conclusions. Those were not on whether the facilities would be "all singing and all dancing"; they were on the precise public transport improvements that are required in order to facilitate Terminal 5. He addresses all those considerations in the detail of his decision letter. The right place to look for the answer is the decision letter. So far as concerns retail decisions, I fully understand the noble Baroness's point. Perhaps I may write to her on the matter.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I accept that this is an important decision to have made. But it seems extraordinary that it has taken a year since the inquiry finished to come to this point of a decision being made today. In the future, could these important inquiries have a slightly shorter time-scale? Six years is a long time in reality.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, an application for permission to go ahead with Terminal 5 was made by the British Airports Authority in 1993—so the decision has taken eight years. The time-scale is much too long. That is why the Government, in parallel with the decision announced today, are proceeding with a consultation process on how to shorten the period in which decisions of this kind are taken. That is the consultation paper to which I referred in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there will be considerable disappointment at today's announcement among people living around Heathrow and around the London approaches and the western approaches? There will be a considerable increase in the number of passengers. An increase of 38 per cent, or 25 million, means that there will be an extra 80,000 movements of people each day. Furthermore, I am not sure that the figures tie up with an increase of only 20,000 in the number of flights. The increase in passenger numbers is given as 38 per cent, and in flights 4.5 per cent. People will need to examine those figures.
Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that, unless there is a radical alteration in transport facilities to Heathrow, the congestion on the M4 and in west London will be more than people can bear—and it is

1035
unbearable now? The decision having been made, I urge the noble and learned Lord to put as much pressure as he can on the Heathrow authorities to bring forward a transport plan which will not bring about those increases in traffic, fumes, noise and general additional environmental pollution. Also, will he give those people the assurance that this is not the run-in for a third runway at Heathrow?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the answer to the first question is yes. I am aware that there will be significant numbers of people for whom the decision will cause considerable dismay. Those views were expressed during the course of the inquiry. The inspector and my right honourable friend in another place have considered them extremely carefully. As has been made clear, the decision seeks to provide a balance between the benefits of a fifth Terminal and the consequences for those in the vicinity who will be affected by it.
I shall not attempt to address the specific figures raised by my noble friend in his question. However, I assure him that those issues were considered by the inspector.
So far as concerns congestion on the M4, surface transport to and from Heathrow after Terminal 5 is built was considered in considerable depth by the inspector and again by my right honourable friend in considering the inspector's report. The issue has been fully taken into account, both in the inspector's conclusions and by my right honourable friend in his detailed decision letter.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, does the Minister realise that hardly a thing that he has said today gives any comfort at all to the general travelling public? It is hell getting to Heathrow with suitcases and perhaps with children; and doing it by public transport is virtually impossible, particularly for more elderly folk. Nothing that the Minister has said indicates that it will become easier. Using public transport is not the answer, given the difficulty of trans-shipping luggage from trains to platforms, to airport check-ins and so on. What the Minister wants to think about is making life easier for the passengers, not easier for the planners.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the purpose of the decision in building a fifth terminal at London Heathrow is to facilitate in particular the comfort and convenience of passengers at Heathrow. There are specific public transport aspects to the decision, in particular connecting London to Heathrow, which the decision specifically deals with. It is to be hoped that the travelling public will find greater facilities as a result of this decision.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, now that the Government have come forward with a decision on this important issue, no one should under-estimate the complexities or the controversial nature of the decision. I, for one, fully understand why it has taken
1036
the Government some time to digest the very full report from the inspector. What the decision does provide is clarity for all concerned, particularly those in the airport and airline industry—clarity against which they can make their investment decisions.
Perhaps I may briefly ask the Minister about a point of detail. Having praised the length of time and the diligence with which the report was studied before a decision was reached, perhaps I may ask about the announcement itself. Last night, the media were full of the fact that this decision was about to be made and gave some impression of what it would contain. This morning's press carried fairly full details—which miraculously coincided with the Minister's announcement this afternoon. Given that BAA is a publicly quoted company, and given that some 3 million shares in it have been traded this morning on the Stock Exchange, first, did the department, or Ministers, authorise the disclosure of any information whatever about the decision in advance of the Secretary of State's announcement? Secondly, what does the Minister believe the effect would have been on the stock market of this period of limbo?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his characteristic understanding of how long it took before the decision was made, although, as I have made clear, such decisions need to be made more quickly in future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear that Parliament would be given the announcement first. That is what has happened today. I am not aware of any earlier disclosure. It is not surprising that there will be great speculation about the result when such a decision is about to be announced. That is inevitable. I am not sure what the noble Viscount means by the period of limbo. If he means the past six years when the decision was in gestation, that is the nature of such projects.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
5.11 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 22, revising Article 214 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"
The noble Lord said: This amendment may superficially appear the same as Amendment No. 22, but it raises very different issues, although they were touched on in the previous debate. The central concern is the application of qualified majority voting to the appointment of the President of the European Commission, which is a highly significant role. The process—which has been changed, for reasons that are not totally apparent to us—is germane to the appointment.
As I understand the technicalities, the Commission President is now to be nominated by the member state governments acting by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity. The Council would also adopt the list of nominees for members of the Commission by QMV and by common accord with the nominee for president. The European Parliament would still approve the Commission as a body, but the final appointment by the Council would be by QMV instead of unanimity.
Some of your Lordships may be keen to point out that past procedures for finding the best person to be President of the Commission have not been entirely happy. That point has already been made. One might say that the results have been mixed—not all bad and not all good. The views of member states on the best man or woman for the job reflect their concerns and interests on the future shape of Europe.
The proposition that the system is bad and ought to be changed will not stand up by itself. The system has produced some great figures who have performed their role superbly. My earliest memory is of the widespread approval in the EEC, as we then called it, for the work of Walter Hallstein, whom Jean Monnet greatly admired. Walter Hallstein fulfilled the role that Jean Monnet saw for the Commission in its early days: he should be a low-profile individual with not too large a dose of political ambition and not too high a profile on the political platforms of Europe, but dedicated to sewing together the European unity that Jean Monnet sought and of which he was the magnificent and visionary architect. Other great people followed: Jean Rey, Franco Maria Malfatti, Sicco Mansholt, Francois-Xavier Ortoli, who was most impressive, then the superb Roy Jenkins, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who acted as president from 1977 and is universally regarded as having done an excellent job, then Gaston Thorn, Jacques Delors, Jacques Santer and now Romano Prodi.
Latterly, there has been increased unhappiness. That may be because larger accumulations of power appear to be in the hands of the president. Perhaps that is an illusion, but it may still he why people have become more jealous and concerned about how this important role should be fulfilled. I would not like to say. The unease is there and after Mr Delors left there was a great deal of in-fighting.
It could be argued that qualified majority voting would cut out all the in-fighting, but I doubt whether it would. Those of us who watch these things closely—and I know that there are people in your Lordships' House who have been much closer to the issue than I have—could not sustain the argument that bringing in qualified majority voting will clean up and swiftly refashion the entire procedure. There will always be jostling for the job. The answer of the true Europe-builder is not so much to reform how the job is sought, but to be a great deal clearer in defining the purposes and limitations of the role of President of the Commission.
I worry more for the future because people talk now about electing the President of the Commission, not just through QMV, but maybe, under a new constitution, by a Europe-wide poll. In other words, the aspiration exists to turn the job into a presidency more along the American political lines than anything that was intended by Jean Monnet. That is a great worry and should on its own cause us to be very cautious about tinkering in any way with the methods by which the succession of presidents have found their place in the job.
Then there is a worry that is particularly associated with the Nice Treaty and the Bill. It covers areas that we shall come to in later debates: how QMV will work under the new weighting systems. The new arrangements are significant and involve a pretty hefty advantage for the big states and some difficulties for the smaller states, should they wish to hold out for their own candidate against whoever was wanted in Berlin or Paris—or maybe in London.
My view—I do not necessarily claim that it is universally accepted by my party—is that our nation is at its best and pursues its true longer-term interests best when it is looking after the smaller countries of Europe. There is an inclination for us to be gung-ho and claim that we have fixed Britain's interests and made sure that we cannot be outvoted by the smaller countries, but I do not think that that is a healthy way for European democracy to develop. There should be strong circumscribed limits on the powers of the central institutions so that the arrangement of rules at the centre can be more democratic and less of a threat to the interests of individual states.
I do not want to compare the European Union with the United States, but I have always been fascinated that from the start the United States has managed a system that has full population-weighted representation in the lower House, but an upper House with two senators from every state regardless of size. Some of those states are so vastly different in size as to make any differences of size in Europe look quite modest—unless we consider Luxembourg. The difference between Rhode Island and California is colossal. So it is possible to have a fair and balanced democracy without huge weightings here and there. If such weightings are to be applied, I should tremble at what may be in prospect if I were a citizen of a smaller state.
That is a worry, but our broader worry is that we see no reason why QMV is necessary in the matter, despite the ups and downs and bumps of previous appointments. We are not convinced by the usual efficiency argument. Every time that I hear high officials talk about more efficiency and momentum in Europe, I check myself, because in a democracy we need checks and balances, and they often lead to inefficiency and loss of momentum. Perhaps the other side of the coin from momentum is more democracy, argument and tiresome disagreement. Perhaps those who are so eager to have momentum, efficiency, rapid appointments and rapid moves forward in Europe-building should occasionally pause, after the great success of the past half-century in building Europe to

1039
realise that once democracy is introduced, everything will—and ought to—slow down. That is why I move Amendment No. 23, with which Amendments Nos. 28 and 31 are grouped. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure that we do not need to rehearse the arguments on qualified majority voting that we had when discussing the previous amendment, but it may be worth putting on the record how the particular example of Euro-creep to which the amendment relates occurs.
When the Treaty of Amsterdam was introduced, the President of the Commission was, in effect, given a veto over the other members of the Commission appointed under him. Until then, the whole Commission had to be approved by the member states. Under Amsterdam, the relevant provision is at Article 214—thoughtfully renumbered by the Brussels bureaucrats to muddle any of us who may have known it as Article 158 under the Treaty of Maastricht and earlier versions of the treaty. Article 214(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam states:
"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament".
The new provision there was getting the Parliament's agreement, but the President of the Commission was still appointed "by common accord".
We then have one of the real beauties of European drafting—one must say that it is clever. The Amsterdam Treaty continues:
"The governments of the Member States shall, by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate the other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission".
So that is how they did it: they slipped in three little words—" by common accord"—that in effect gave the President of the Commission a veto, because no one could be appointed to the Commission without common accord with the president-elect.
We now see the process stalking on an extra step in the Treaty of Nice—as usual, it never goes backwards, always forwards—under which the president himself is to be appointed by qualified majority voting. I support my noble friend's amendment. I do not want to sound monotonous, but the treaty provision is yet another example of the ratchet moving eternally in the same direction.
Lord Tebbit: During the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford presented the argument, "If it ain't broke; don't fix it". What he perhaps neglected to recognise was that, so far as the European federalists are concerned, the treaty is "broke" until it becomes a treaty for a European state. That is what they are trying to fix each time that they fix new amendments to the treaty.
However, as we are a bunch of reasonable people in this Chamber, and taking my noble friend's point that, "If it ain't broke; don't fix it", will the Minister tell us which appointment as President of the Commission he believes was so unsatisfactory as to justify a new system? Which one was it? Is it the present president or
1040
one of the previous ones? I ask him to name names, because unless he does, we should all conclude that the present system is working perfectly well, in the Minister's opinion.
Lord Tomlinson: I invite my noble friend, before he replies to that question, to reflect on the fact that many members of the population of this country, many Members of the Committee, and certainly many members of the European Community think that President Delors was an excellent president. In him, we managed to get as President of the European Union a good federalist who pursued a good federal line. He was there by virtue of a British Prime Minister exercising a veto. I am in many ways grateful for the exercise of that veto. We got a splendid President of the Commission as a result. The only problem was that he was frequently abused once we had got him, because he managed to do what he had said that he would do.
On the other hand, a British Prime Minister used his veto later, when the excellent candidature of Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene, the President of Belgium, who was a rather robust individual—certainly one who would have controlled his Commission—was blackballed. As a result of that use of unanimity and of the veto that arises from it, we had President Santer. By common consent, President Santer was a nice man—in many ways, an amiable man—and I had much regard for him, but not even his best friends would call him a successful President of the Commission.
I ask Conservative Members of the Committee to reflect on the two stories of the use of the necessity for unanimity, and to determine of which of those two events they are most proud. I am certainly more proud of the former than the latter. Especially as we now have a treaty that looks beyond the Community of 15 to a Community of 25, 26, or 27 member states, that process of horse-trading, which has not automatically served us well in the past, is now past its sell-by date. It is now appropriate that we move to qualified majority voting.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the Minister replies, will the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, confirm that he said what I think that he said? I understood him to say that he thought Mr Dehaene from Belgium would have made a good President of the Commission. Did I hear him correctly?
Lord Tomlinson: I had already sat down, but I think that the words that I used—Hansard will confirm this tomorrow—were that he was certainly a robust individual who would have led his Commission
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am no more tempted into history by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, than I am by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am lost in admiration for the historical overview of the presidency since the time of Walter Hallstein given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I shall not follow him in that direction either.

1041
However, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, it is worth saying what Article 214(2) provides, as amended by the Treaty Of Nice:
"The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.
The Council. acting by a qualified majority and"—
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is paying attention because the words
"by common accord with the nominee for President"
are not new. They are as they were in the previous treaty.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope that I shall not irritate the Minister but that is actually what I said. The three little words "by common accord" were introduced at Amsterdam. I was merely giving an example of "Euro-creep".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise to the noble Lord; I misheard him. The article continues,
"shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.
"The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament".
All that is as it was in Amsterdam. It then states:
"After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority".
That is another of the new bits.
I do not have much more to say about qualified majority voting in these appointments. I believe that I have said it all. I think it is clear that we take the view that in these circumstances we support qualified majority voting for appointments because it will mean greater efficiency. As regards what is meant by efficiency, I think that it means less inefficiency. It means getting quicker decisions on the right person regardless of nationality.
We do not think that it would be right for one country to be able to block appointments, as has been possible in the past, or, worse, to hold policy decisions to ransom by insisting on its own candidate. I cannot promise the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that such a step will cut out all infighting; that is idealism. However, we want the best person for the job chosen on merit and experience not on nationality and we believe that this is the way to get it.
Lord Tebbit: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may press him on the following point. Does he think that this change will get us a better quality of president in future than we have had in the past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have a better chance of getting a better quality of president. I do not promise that every single nominee will be better than
1042
every single nominee in the past, which is how the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, could be interpreted.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The Government have agreed to this change in signing the Nice Treaty. However, the argument always cuts both ways. It may turn out that the measure will not make much difference at all, and judging by what we have just heard, that is one possibility. Life will go on with all its complexities and, therefore, one may ask why we oppose the measure as it is not important. Alternatively, the measure may be considered an immensely significant part of the new European system and, therefore, one may ask why we oppose it as it is so important.
I refer to those of us who believe that we see a vision of Europe ahead which is modern, not centralised, in which there is not too much power at the centre; in which the laws, rules and procedures of the network prevail over the laws, rules and procedures of the hierarchy; and in which European unity is not constructed as a kind of ersatz scaled-up nation state with all its symbols and so on, but is something much more gentle, tolerant and flexible. Therefore, every time we are faced with the proposition that there should be more power at the centre we are concerned.
The Commission—we debated this matter on earlier amendments—may or may not be losing power to the secretariat. The European institutions are, of course, enhanced by every QMV move. We shall discuss later the substantial list—these matters have been somewhat belittled in earlier debates—which comprises considerable and important areas where QMV is to apply under the Nice Treaty. However, as regards the matter that we are discussing, this is one more area where we are not persuaded. The case for taking this step seems to me to be minuscule, but the principles involved in taking it, however small it may appear, are gigantic.
I was interested to hear the fair assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, of past presidents. I thought that he was fair even with regard to President Santer. I, too, shall be fair in that regard. It seems to me that President Santer was defeated by the system. He was an extremely decent man who intended to do good but he was dealing with a Commission system which has defeated others and may not yet have been put back in its box.
I hope that Commissioner Kinnock will win through with his reforms. However, when one examines the detailed progress of those reforms, Commissioner Kinnock must occasionally be rather cast down as there has been little progress as regards the Commission making big reforms and adopting the role of servants, which the Members of the Commission are. They are servants of the people of Europe and of the nation states rather than their masters. As I say, there has been little progress in that regard despite the tribulations which poor President Santer experienced. I do not blame President Santer for the situation; I blame a system which is bad and

1043
which is not in any way improved by what we are being asked to do in the Nice Treaty in this respect. Therefore, I suggest that we would be far wiser not to tinker with this area, but to look for other deeper reforms to make a better Europe than the one we have today. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 174.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Astor, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Biffen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blackwell, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Blaker, L.

L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L.

Monson, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Moynihan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Naseby, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Noakes, B.

Chadlington, L.

Northbrook, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cuckney, L.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fookes, B.

Rogan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Hambro, L.

Selborne, E.

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Sharples, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hogg, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strange, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Jopling, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kimball, L.

Tebbit, L.

1044

Thatcher, B.

Waddington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Vinson, L.

Wilcox, B.

Vivian, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Barker, B.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Boothroyd, B.

Chancellor)

Borrie, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

Jones, L.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Laird, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Burlison, L.

Levy, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Chan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cobbold, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B. [Teller]

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McNally, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Maddock, B.

Desai, L.

Mar, C.

Dholakia, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ezra, L.

Mitchell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morgan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Filkin, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Newby, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Geraint, L.

Northover, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Orme, L.

Golding, B.

Parekh, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Paul, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pendry, L.

Grabiner, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Greaves, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Greengross, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grenfell, L.

Plumb, L.

Grocott, L.

Radice, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Rea, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harrison, L.

Roper, L.

1045

Russell, E.

Tomlinson, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Tope, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sharman, L.

Uddin, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Varley, L.

Sheldon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Walmsley, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Warner, L.

Simon, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Privy Seal)

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Thornton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 36 (b),".
The noble Lord said: Once again, we are dealing with changes in the procedures by which important officials of the European institutions take office. On this occasion, the amendment concerns the Court of Auditors. I confess that, having read the details of the treaty, I am not 100 per cent clear as to how the QMV system now introduced into Article 247 operates. The details are set out in that article. In replying to the inquiries behind the amendment, perhaps the Minister will clarify some of the issues.
It appears that member states produce a list of people in accordance with the proposals of each member state. Those people are then appointed for six years, but the Council,
"acting by a qualified majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt [that] list".
However, if the list already exists, what does the QMV adoption process involve? It is possible that, as in relation to other matters, that process will not make very much difference. In that case, the same question arises: why do we bother?
That aside, the work of the auditors is of vital and central importance to the processes, decisions, actions and activities of the European institutions. If there was any doubt about that in the past—I do not believe that there was; we and, indeed, all parties in Britain have always favoured very much the work of the auditors—it will have been eliminated or wiped out by the latest report from the auditors. That report, regrettably, found that a further £5 billion had been lost through fraud and mismanagement in the dispensation and implementation of Community programmes.
That is extremely disturbing. It indicates that the Court of Auditors is doing a very good job indeed and that someone else is doing a very bad job. It indicates that the Court of Auditors provides a mechanism that
1046
really works and, therefore, again raises the question of why it needs to be changed or why we came to agree in discussions on the Nice Treaty that it needed to be changed. I make those short remarks simply to explain why the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have a short query to put to the Government. I understand from the Official Report of a week ago that the latest report by the Court of Auditors was published last Tuesday. My application to the Printed Paper Office for a copy of that report has so far proved fruitless. I do not blame its personnel, but no one knew where the report was. My latest information is that the report, which was referred to in the other place a week ago and which was reviewed in The Times last Tuesday, will not be available to noble Lords for another couple of months. I should appreciate it if it were possible to obtain a copy; the matter is of more than considerable interest to me—I have been following it for some time.
The excellent report on the Court of Auditors by the European Union Committee, which has been published for some considerable time, has not yet been debated in your Lordships' House although it was recommended for debate in the House. I advise Members of the Committee that it would be premature to place any particular valuation on the Court of Auditors or on the procedures that it adopts in accordance with certifying whether a true and fair view is presented before having that debate. I do not doubt that those who arrange the business of the House can adequately explain why this excellent report has not been brought before the House before now. A debate on the report would enable the House to arrive at a more objective judgment on the value of the provisions and of the amendment.
I hope that the Government can enlighten us a little further on what is happening in the whole audit field. Fraud there undoubtedly is. The Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House put the view adequately. I do not know what Senor Prodi has done about the matter, but such cases come before the Commission.
The European Union Committee report would reveal the precise extent to which the Commission is involved with the Court of Auditors. I do not know how far the matter will ultimately prove to be relevant. I hope that the situation will be clarified; otherwise, I venture to suggest that my observation about debating the unintelligible—that is roughly what the treaty and the amendments are—is perhaps a little more apposite than many may have thought.
Lord Tomlinson: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I have had the benefit of obtaining a copy of the Court of Auditors report on the last financial year, which was published last week. I do not pretend that my bedside reading has necessarily led me to read it cover to cover but I have read it substantially. There is no reference to fraud amounting to £5 billion. As ever, there is a fairly substantial reference to irregularities and the continuing reminder to member states in the Court of Auditors that 90 per cent of the

1047
EU budget—primarily the budget for the common agricultural policy and structural funds—is expended by the authorities of the member states. It states that most of the irregularities occur within member states, where accounting principles are inconsistent with those that are laid down at the centre. We should not put too much credence on the bold figures that have been quoted. There should be an attempt to distinguish between fraud and irregularity, and the report by the Court of Auditors does that.
I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Bruce on the valuable report by the European Union Committee. It has now been around for several months—I believe that it was published in April or May of this year—and it should have been debated in your Lordships' House. It does not heap paeans of praise on the Court of Auditors; it makes substantial criticisms of the court—about the way in which the court is structured and works, about the lack of professional audit capacity in it and about its unpreparedness for enlargement, which is the major challenge for the EU. I am sure that the proposal about applying QMV in this case makes no substantial difference whatever to the competence of the Court of Auditors or its role.
Lord Biffen: I want to take up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the availability of the European Union Committee's report on the Court of Auditors, which was proposed by this House. It was widely acclaimed and should be central to our discussions. The way in which the amendment is drafted inevitably prevents a wide-ranging discussion—it would be similar to the discussions that we have at Second Reading—of the topic. The situation is a commentary on the way in which we treat EU legislation. We treat it quite differently from our own domestic legislation; less determination—less precision—is involved. If ever there was a case for paying more attention to European legislation, this matter demonstrates that need.
I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I cannot pretend that the question of whether the appointment is made by QMV or not is a ditch in which one is prepared to die. I have a purely practical request: how will the effective work of the Court of Auditors be improved as a result of its being appointed by QMV? How will the decision to choose the members of the court be improved by undertaking qualified majority decisions? If a change of this character were essayed in our domestic legislation, it would be subject to the most relentless examination of exact cause and effect. That would be done not as a result of partisan politics but with a desire to ensure that whatever the House of Lords or Parliament fashioned as law should be justified and effective.
Lord Monson: The £5 billion may consist mainly of fraud or as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, suggested, of irregularities; whichever is the case, is it not sinister that there seems to be so little concern about it on the Continent and within European
1048
institutions? It appears that if one draws attention to it one is considered almost a "bad" European. If the amendment does anything to reduce that vast sum, it will be well worth supporting.
6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I feel that this amendment is unlikely to reduce the vast sums. As I hope that I shall explain to your Lordships, this is likely to make for a weaker Court of Auditors. If we follow, for the record, the Euro-creep at work in this amendment to the TEC, we need to look at what was said before the Treaty of Nice and before the Treaty of Amsterdam. The original wording that we are now changing may go back to the Treaty of Rome. Article 247. as it became at Amsterdam, was previously Article 188b. It is illuminating to see how much more rigorous the court was supposed to be under the original treaty.
Article 188(b) simply said:
"The Court of Auditors shall consist of 15 members".
We then have the same qualification that they should be chosen,
"from among persons who belong … in their respective countries to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified for this office. Their independence must be beyond doubt".
That is not altered, although sometimes one wonders. The wording that we are changing with this treaty says:
"The Members of the Court of Auditors shall be appointed for a term of six years by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament".
That was the position.
I submit to your Lordships that the fact that it did not matter from where these auditors came but that they had to be approved by unanimity by the Council must be a point in their favour. On the other hand, we now move to an arrangement whereby there must be one national from each member state. I suppose the Treaty of Amsterdam masquerades as preparing the European Union for enlargement. The draftsman of this new clause had in mind one national from each of the new member states which, it is alleged, will one day join the European Union.
Paragraph 2 of Article 247 continues as it was before and as I have quoted, and paragraph 3 states:
"The Council, acting by a qualified majority … shall adopt the list of Members drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State".
I am sure your Lordships will be grateful for the elucidation that my noble friend Lord Howell has asked the Minister to give the Committee on exactly how that will work.
Before, it did not matter where the auditors came from, but they had to be approved by unanimity and, therefore, they had a stronger chance of being the best people for the job than if one of them had to come from each member state. They were appointed for six years only and now their appointment is renewable. In view of the fraud or irregularities, or whatever one wants to call it, I believe that this is a serious situation.
As we are talking about the Court of Auditors, perhaps I can ask the Minister whether he can tell the Committee what has happened in the wake of the

1049
mass resignation of the Santer Commission. I know that Mr Kinnock, a Commissioner, is in charge of cleaning up the place, but is there any evidence that the Court of Auditors' report has found great improvement as a result of Mr Kinnock's efforts? Is the £5 billion that is at stake any less than it was before?
I have a question for the Minister that I could have tabled as a separate amendment. Of course, I could do so at the next stage of the Bill. However, it appears to me—I do not know what the Minister will think of this—that instead of having one person from each member state of the European Union, many of which are recipients and many of which caused the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, with the common agricultural policy and so on (I do not exclude the United Kingdom from that), would it be better if the Court of Auditors consisted of representatives of the donor countries? Would that not be much fairer? What would the Court of Auditors find if it consisted of some good, solid German, Danish and British accountants? Does the Minister believe there is any chance that it would find a figure as small as £5 billion missing every year? I doubt it.
As to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, on the innocence of the whole system—that irregularities take place in member states—the well-known policy when dealing with fraud is to follow the money and, if necessary, to withhold the money. If such matters are taking place in member states, we simply should not give them the money in the first place. Can the Minister tell me whether I am being oversimplistic or unreasonable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First, I shall deal with the issue raised by my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Tomlinson. I do not know why the report of the Court of Auditors was not in the Printed Paper Office or how my noble friend Lord Tomlinson acquired it when my noble friend Lord Bruce did not. Of course, that is a matter for the authorities of the House. I can assure noble Lords that they will have heard the criticism and the matter will have to be sorted out.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. The report of the Select Committee is not missing from the Printed Paper Office. That has always been available.
Lord Biffen: I never suggested that it was. I am quite aware that the report of the Select Committee has been available for some while. The fact that it has been available and has not yet been debated ahead of this debate appears to me to be quite deplorable. In that sense, I was echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There was either a slip of the tongue or, more likely, I misheard the noble Lord. When the report of the Select Committee is debated is a matter for the usual channels.
1050
I was taken aback by what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. I have done what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has done and looked at paragraph 3 of Article 247. The noble Lord is right. The members of the Court of Auditors shall be appointed for a term of six years. That is in the existing text.
"The Council, acting by a qualified majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt the list of Members drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State".
That follows a provision in paragraph 1 that the Court of Auditors,
"shall consist of one national from each Member State".
It sounds to me as though a very small difference is proposed and all that is provided by qualified majority voting is that someone from one member state cannot veto the nominee of another member state. It strikes me that that provision may be useful, but may not always be required. It certainly does not lead me to consider that there is any danger in it. On the other hand, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, it does not lead me to consider that the work of the Court of Auditors will be improved. I believe that the possible difficulty in the decision-making process for the appointment of the Court of Auditors will be removed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Another change is that the term will be renewable. It used to be for just six years. Under the new wording it will be renewable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And why not, if they are good?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case, will the Minister respond to my suggestion that perhaps the members of the Court of Auditors should consist of the donor countries only. Does he not believe that that would do much to stamp out fraud and so on? Does he believe that that is a good idea that Her Majesty's Government can put to their partners in Brussels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not think that I was required to take that seriously. I am sorry. If there is one way to introduce disharmony between member states it is to say that the rich have the ability to override the wishes of the poor.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The rich would merely have the ability to follow their own money. Many of the problems that we face would not be there.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Can the Minister say how he regards the apparent distinction between fraud and irregularity? It would be useful to be informed of where the line is to be drawn between them. An irregularity is an irregularity. Therefore, the dividing line between that and fraud may be a question of intent. It may be a whole question which merits the decision of extremely skilled lawyers in the field. But it perhaps is a little dangerous—I put it no higher than

1051
that—to regard an irregularity as something that can be tolerated rather than checked and taken to its source and remedies for the "irregularity" instituted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The rules of this House and the rules of this Committee do not provide for any sanctions against noble Lords asking questions or making points which are outside the area of the amendment that we are supposed to be considering. Self-denial says that I will answer questions about the amendment and not questions that clearly have nothing to do with it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case, if we are to decide whether the Court of Auditors is to be appointed in future on a system of qualified majority voting, with all the disadvantages that I have enumerated, would the Minister care to answer the question that I put to him, and which is well within the amendment, as to how the Court of Auditors' report this year compares with its previous reports? We are talking about the performance of the Court of Auditors whose composition we are asked to change. Also, how is Mr Kinnock getting on with his reforms which concern the Court of Auditors?
Lord Howell of Guildford: We all applaud the spirit of self-denial in which the Minister speaks.
It is right and proper that we should focus on the amendments without excluding some of the reasoning—often the great edifice of reasoning—and events that lie behind the proposals in the Nice Treaty and the wish of the amendment that they might disapply in our own legislation.
What we have established from the short debate is that while our amendment is unlikely to change anything very much, neither will the provision. This therefore is change for change's sake. In addition, Article 248 states:
"The Court of Auditors shall draw up its Rules of Procedure. Those rules shall require the approval of the Council, acting by a qualified majority".
That change is in heavy type. So there, too, is a tiny grandmother's footstep forward in directions as regards which we are right to be on our guard. Bearing in mind the need to make progress and that this is perhaps not a central provision either way, although there are questions left hanging in the air—Why bother? Why do it? Why sign up to it?—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 41,"
The noble Lord said: These are similar provisions concerning the addition of QMV to other interesting and important areas in the structure of the European institutions. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 refer to the extension of QMV to choosing the membership of the
1052
350 member-strong Economic and Social Committee. Its members are appointed for four years. Amendment No. 30 concerns the Committee of the Regions.
Both bodies are valuable institutions. I have heard them criticised. People have said that they are only talking shops and so on. Talk and the airing of opinions and views from certain interests in addition to those of the citizens of Europe through the, sadly inadequate, general democratic system—an envelope of democracy encasing the European institutions—should not be dismissed. The institutions form a part of the pattern of exchange and dialogue from the grass roots. They are rather like the buttresses of a cathedral that has not been built because the democratic deficit is so obvious at the centre of the system. But around the edge are institutions where hard work is done by people from the various member states who offer their expertise and views. Apparently, that is all to be governed by qualified majority voting. I wonder why. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Howell. I would like to find out more about the Committee of the Regions. It was established in the Maastricht Treaty. It seems to have areas of compulsory consultation—economic and social cohesion. trans-European networks, public health, education, youth culture and so on. What has it achieved? My noble friend said that it was not a talking shop. If it is not a talking shop, what has it done? If it is a talking shop, why do we need it at all? If it is not, perhaps we could be told why it is so important that it needs to he dealt with by qualified majority voting and not by unanimity.
It may be that the Minister can tell me this in a letter rather than in a debate, but it would be interesting to find out its remit and what it has done. I have not seen a report on the Committee of the Regions. I do not know whether it has a budget, whether its members are paid or unpaid, whether it gets its expenses, and where and how often it meets. I know that there is a so-called "bureau" of 40 members including a president and a vice-president, and so on. It seems to have a great deal of work to do. But I wonder whether it is worthwhile. What has the Committee of the Regions done? Perhaps a member of it can tell me. My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is here. He was a member of the Committee of the Regions. We may be further enlightened. I wait to hear if we get some information from a member of the very committee about which we are talking.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: One could ask other members of this House who are members of the Committee of the Regions. These things are not secret. There seems to be a view that the entire European Union is a conspiracy against Britain which, to my great surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, along with the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Stoddart, and others, appears to share. There seems to be a view that somehow there is a great secret plot going The

1053
noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred to all these secret groups which now meet under the common and foreign security policy.
I am happy to give—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not think that I used the word "secret". I just believe that they exist and I was asking who they report to, what they do and whether we take any foreign policy decision without their agreement.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I can refer the noble Lord to some extremely boring academic articles—the first one written in 1977 by a dreadful character called William Wallace—to show that this is not secret. It has been much studied. These things are all out in the public domain if one wishes to learn. Trying to use this Committee to suggest that we need to be told at great length by the Government things that have been in the public domain for a very long time seems to be a little excessive.
Lord Bowness: I was tempted by my noble friend to rise to speak about the Committee of the Regions. I shall resist the temptation to speak at length, but implicit in my noble friend's remarks was the suggestion that the committee was a waste of time.
I had the honour to be a member of the Committee of the Regions in its first mandate. I am no longer a member, but there are two Members of your Lordships' House who are still members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Tope and my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. The committee is representative of local and regional government from the member states of the European Union. The number of its members is determined according to the size of the member state.
There is obligatory consultation by the Council and Commission on proposals put forward by the Committee of the Regions. I should have thought that noble Lords would be pleased to hear that members of the Committee of the Regions always hold a local mandate within their respective member states. Many of the initiatives of the European Union are implemented by local and regional government within the European Union. I know that this may bring shock and horror to some of my noble friends, but I was a member not only of the Committee of the Regions but also of the European People's Party group on that committee, and it seemed to me that it was entirely appropriate that local members who ultimately had to implement European legislation should have the opportunity of commenting at an early stage.
In order not to take up too much of the Committee's time, I shall say only that within the first mandate when I was a member, the results of the committee's work were carefully monitored. At least two reports were produced, showing the areas in which members of the Committee of the Regions, through the opinions that they produced in open plenary session before the public, influenced proposals put forward either by the
1054
Council or the Commission. I am sure that since I have ceased to be a member, and as the committee has gone from strength to strength, its influence has grown.
That committee is certainly not a talking shop. I can assure my noble friends that its members are not paid; they are given subsistence and a daily allowance. They meet principally in Brussels, although I believe that some members of the commissions and the bureau meet elsewhere from time to time. Certainly the bureau meets once in the country that holds the presidency.
I see no reason why members of the Committee of the Regions should not be appointed on a qualified majority vote. They go forward on a slate from the member states. Local government in this country does not decide who they should be. It may forward names to the Secretary of State, but it is the Council which makes the appointment.
I regret taking up the Committee's time, but it seemed that some of the work of the Committee of the Regions was being called into question and it was suggested that it was in some way secret. I thought it appropriate that somebody who served on that committee for four years, with other Members of your Lordships' House, should make it clear that that was not the case.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether it is in order in these Committee proceedings to make a prophecy rather than to ask a question. My prophecy is that the Committee of the Regions, and the regions concerned, will eventually come forward, in a future amendment to the Treaty of Rome, as elected bodies that report directly to Brussels, and to a degree that is not yet clear to me, they will replace the parliaments of national governments. There is evidence for my remarks, not because of the inevitable drift of Euro-creep, to which I referred before, but Article 263 lays the ground for the change that I forecast. It refers to,
"representatives of regional and local bodies, who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly".
Those are the new words. One has seen so much of this over the years—from Maastricht, through Amsterdam to Nice. Unfortunately I was not involved in these matters during the passage of the Single European Act, but that is the drift of what the Committee of the Regions and regional assemblies are expected to be.
Lord Bowness: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I should explain that in the United Kingdom legislation that implemented Maastricht, we specified that members of the Committee of the Regions should hold a locally elected mandate. That was not the case for all member states. There were instances of people who had lost their local mandate but did not resign. To some extent that went to the heart of the Committee of the Regions which, far from being representative of Brussels, was representative of local and regional authorities from the different member states.
The latter part of the phraseology is to take account of the Dutch and Belgian position and allow their burgomasters, who are appointed by the Crown and

1055
the governors of provinces, to serve, because they are accountable to their local authorities—to use our phraseology—although they are not directly elected by them. It is a guarantee of local democracy and local accountability working in the Committee of the Regions
Lord Acton: I understood the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, sat down. If I may also speak now, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, if he is familiar with the golden words in the Companion that debate must be relevant to the Question that is before the House. I do not wish to be anything but polite to the noble Lord who knows that I hold him in the highest esteem. He is a friend of 30 years, but he constantly speaks off the point. Prophecies are not relevant.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In answer to my noble friend Lord Acton, if I may refer to him as such, it is pertinent if one is considering how the Committee of the Regions is to be altered by this treaty that we consider what its future may be. I could have a bet with the noble Lord, if he would like that.
Lord Acton: Will the noble Lord answer my question? Is he familiar with that rule?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Of course, and I believe that I am within it.
Lord Waddington: We used to talk at the Bar of pleas in aggravation. I think that we heard a plea in aggravation rather than mitigation a short time ago. The trouble with the Committee of the Regions is that it is there for a purpose. There is only one conceivable purpose, which is to further the project of a Europe of the regions. As that is the last thing on earth that we want and would be very damaging to our interests in this country, I certainly look with no favour whatsoever on the Committee of the Regions. Anything that can be done to diminish its influence is something well done.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: First, I wish to ask the Minister a question. Does the treaty alter the method by which members of the Committee of the Regions from this country are appointed? Will the system be altered in any way?
My other point is that, whether we like it or not, there is a worry in the country that the Committee of the Regions is working towards the regionalisation of Europe on a cross-continental basis. I have received letters about it. I was at a well attended meeting in Exeter—there were about 300 people there—where concern was expressed about the activities in relation to regionalisation. There was also a meeting in Bristol, attended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, to discuss the question of regionalisation. A member of the Commission attended that particular meeting. Naturally, people questioned why that
1056
individual should be at the meeting to discuss English regionalisation. That was a perfectly legitimate question to raise.
To support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I understand that at a meeting of the European Movement at the University of Bristol, Dr Caroline Jackson, a Tory MEP, was asked whether regional assemblies would become regional governments and eventually cause Westminster to be abolished. She said yes. I did not hear the observation of the noble Lord, but I give way to him.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: So that the noble Lord can get it, if Caroline Jackson has said it, that is game, set and match, is it not? It is all over.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: But game, set and match to whom—Caroline Jackson or Parliament at Westminster? The fact of the matter is that she is, presumably, a responsible person. She represents the South West. I know her reasonably well. She is a nice woman whom I like very much. I got on very well with her when I represented Swindon. She is presumably a responsible person—and that was the statement that she made. She may not have meant it. She may not have meant it in the way she said it. I do not understand why people would do that; nevertheless, although she may not have meant it, that was what she said. That is why people are worried, and it is legitimate to raise these concerns when we can in this Chamber since we are likely to be involved in future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are not very many rules in this House, but I shall invent one: do not take bets on line. If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wants to give you his money, do it outside the Chamber, please.
This is a debate on an amendment which would introduce qualified majority voting into the selection of members of the Economic and Social Committee and of the Committee of the Regions. The present situation is that both committees are consultative bodies on each of which the UK has 24 members. No change is proposed under the Treaty of Nice. The only change is the increase in the total number of members to accommodate the new member states. As I understand it, in practice in the past no member state has ever objected to another's nominations. The only reason that I can think of for the provision of qualified majority voting is the same as that which applies to the Court of Auditors; namely, it would prevent a member, unusually and without precedent, objecting to the nomination of another member state.

1057
Therefore, I believe that it is a useful but not very important measure—and certainly not worthy of the kind of debate that we have had this afternoon.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I moved the amendment in a very modest tone. I apologise if I have intruded into divisions on the Benches opposite about these very important bodies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The divisions are entirely behind the noble Lord.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I said that in the knowledge that the noble Lord would rise to his feet to assert what is decreasingly true as the whole pattern of the debate on Europe shifts to a new direction. That will produce some surprising new divisions as Ministers will shortly learn.
The conclusion is that this is a matter of no great importance. I must not distort the words of the Minister, but he indicated that this was not a tremendously progressive and creative provision. He could not see any point in our objecting to it; nor could he see very much point in the provision in the document. We are left with the feeling that we are dealing with rather small matters, although interestingly these kinds of debate uncover deeper issues, which perhaps are not dealt with either in the other place or this Chamber, about the way that Europe and our own affairs in relation to the rest of the Union are developing. Perhaps that should be debated more thoroughly.
For the moment, we are concerned with two narrow amendments which are not vastly important, although the provisions are significant. We note yet again that they are small grandmother's footsteps in the direction of a qualified majority vote and away from unanimity. I suspect that in the end they will make some difference, but obviously we shall not get to the heart of the matter this evening. Therefore, in the same spirit that I moved the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 33 not moved.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 1, line 12, after "Protocols" insert "(other than Article 3 of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union)"
The noble Lord said: We come now to matters extremely central to the debate about the whole Treaty of Nice and the legislation that is passing through your Lordships' House in relation to it. It has been argued by Ministers and their supporters that the issue we are about to address adds up to the whole purpose of the treaty; namely, that it is the key to the process of enlargement, which we on this side support very strongly, and that if anyone tampers with it, somehow that process will be held up.
There are two clauses in this group. I shall speak to a probing amendment that is concerned with the redistribution of voting weights in the Council which is covered by the article that we are considering. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has tabled an amendment which takes a larger vista and considers the whole of the crucial protocol. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to make some comments in relation to that as well.
I start with the narrow point. We are dealing here with new procedures which will require 169 votes—a qualified majority—for a decision to be reached. There is a new weighted population factor—62 per cent of the total—in deciding whether such a decision by 169 votes, or at least two-thirds of the majority of the Council, is valid. This raises some interesting arithmetical questions. One of the propositions of Ministers all along, including at the time of their return from the exhausting process of the Treaty of Nice, which many found an unsatisfactory event, was that somehow in the battles for weightings of Council votes and so on, the United Kingdom had come out of the scrum somewhat better off than when it went in.
However, my noble friend Lord Tebbit observed the other day in this Chamber that, in fact, when one added up all the votes and looked forward to the enlarged Union—we read that the aim is that there should be a so-called "big bang" involving an extra 10 in 2004, so it is hoped, with Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, coming along behind—the number of votes left to the United Kingdom appeared to be a considerably smaller proportion—a shrunken proportion—of the total. Therefore, there are two circles to be squared—or squares to be circled—and it will be interesting to hear the views of Ministers on how that is to be done.
I move to the larger issue. Those of us who want to see enlargement move ahead might have hoped that the protocol would be the core of a treaty which might have gone through considerably more quickly. The present treaty has come up against the buffers—we hope they are temporary—of the Irish referendum. The reasons that that took place in the Republic of Ireland are associated not with enlargement or the protocol but with a mass of other issues which were hung on the treaty like decorations on a Christmas tree. That made it a treaty which many people—in particular those who want to see enlargement carried forward as quickly as possible—find unconstructive and undesirable.
Contrary to the assertions of Ministers, we believe that the Treaty of Nice is not the vital key. There are important mechanical keys to the enlargement process although they are by no means the main obstacles or issues. In so far as the enlargement arrangements give to the new applicant countries fewer seats in the European Parliament on a population-merit basis it will make life more difficult.
The Nice Council produced a timetable for enlargement negotiations and raised a number of issues. If we are concerned about enlargement, it would be better to concentrate on those issues rather

1059
than claiming that this protocol and these mechanics are the vital, determining factor for enlargement. Of course, they are not. The major issues lie in other areas and require the attention of all those who want to see enlargement go forward. It is a great pity if attention is distracted by the claim that the Treaty of Nice is the unlocking key. It sets back the enlargement cause.
The Nice Council identified a list of issues: transport, taxation, justice and home affairs, energy and, above all, the need for the applicant countries to comply with the full body of the acquis communautaire—I understand that there are 80,000 pages—and the insistence not only on compliance and the signing up to it but also on implementation and enforcement over areas so vast that no human mind can get hold of them. These are matters which have to be handled by a set of computer programs. We are dealing with complexities of such detail in 1,001 different areas that those who seek to negotiate them and sign up to the acquis lose all track of the underlying purpose: to become members of the European Union, a totally understandable and desirable aim.
Last week, I attended a conference in Budapest involving a number of Ministers from the leading applicant countries. The Treaty of Nice was not mentioned once. Concerns about enlargement, whether the timetable would be adhered to, and the problems involved, concentrated on quite different issues: the movement of labour, immigration questions and the common agricultural policy. Polish Ministers spoke. We must remember that there are more farms in Poland than in the whole of Germany and France added together. Concerns concentrated on security and the need to maintain the Atlantic dimension. In the centre and east of Europe one finds more determination that we should not undermine NATO to which Hungary and the Czech Republic have recently adhered and less satisfaction with the idea of autonomy, separate forces and so on. There were concerns—I noted them on visits to capitals of other applicant countries—that the complexity of the acquis is creating colossal problems. Some countries are being asked to adhere to standards which are not asked of existing members of the Union. That is one of the great issues. But when we look at enlargement, the protocol and the Government's arguments that this is essential and that the whole treaty coating and envelope are essential for enlargement, the biggest issue is none of those things: the biggest issue is the budget and who pays. Ten per cent of the EU budget is said to be set aside for financing enlargement. I have heard suggestions from Brussels that it could be as much as 25 per cent. Mr Stoiber, the Prime Minister of Bavaria, said recently in Berlin that if one wanted to remove obstacles one would have, first, to increase regional aid from 30 billion euros to 67 billion euros— I cannot work that out in dollars or pounds but the amount is more than doubled—and that for the process to move forward the financing of the common agricultural policy would have to increase from 34 billion euros to over 50 billion euros. He added, as have others, that for the applicant countries that is a moving target. People are considering ways
1060
in which the common agricultural policy can be reformed, as it must be. The constant difficulty of the applicant countries is not with the Treaty of Nice but with having to comply with a moving target.
That is the reality of the enlargement debate. It is not a question of the Treaty of Nice being pushed through, without even a pause in relation to the Irish referendum. We are heading towards a Europe which could have 25 members and nearly half a billion people by 2004 with three more countries to come. Many of those countries face colossal awkwardnesses and difficulties.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Radice: I thank the noble Lord for giving way; I do not yet know the conventions of the House. I accept all that he said about the real concerns of the entrant countries. However, if the weightings for the countries had gone wrong, the noble Lord would have heard a lot about the Treaty of Nice. The Polish Government were very concerned that the weighting of their vote should be of the same order, for example, as Spain, which has a similar population. There was a moment when it seemed that that might be so. We would have heard a lot about the Treaty of Nice if it had gone wrong.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am glad to accept the noble Lord's intervention. He carries enormous experience on these matters. I am sure that his intervention is in line with all the procedures and customs of this House, as I understand them. I am quite a new boy as well.
The provisions in the protocol—and this is why I am moving a probing amendment—are important for the enlargement process to go forward. However, the noble Lord used the phrase "if it [the Treaty of Nice] had gone wrong". I hope that the Treaty of Nice will go right, but at present it is an undisputable fact that one country has refused to ratify by a referendum. Until that can be unscrambled, the Treaty of Nice will not go forward. If we had had a smaller treaty—a plan B—with such provisions in the protocol it might by now be all over and done with. There would have been no objections in Dublin or anywhere else. Unfortunately, the decision, supported by Her Majesty's Government, was that the Nice Treaty should include other provisions which have nothing to do with enlargement and which have greatly weighed down the treaty-making process. Those issues to do with enlargement did not feature very much.
What will be the result? Those of us who want to see enlargement are entitled to raise these questions with some firmness. It is perhaps a cause of anger that far from helping enlargement, clumsy treaty making is getting in its way. What is happening? In Warsaw we see that hostile europhobe parties—they are not merely euro realists or sceptics—are gaining more influence and now have 15 per cent of the votes. There is enormous concern about the acquis provisions on borders and about Schengen. Poland has huge difficulties when considering how to transfer its border

1061
from the west, the old Schengen border, to the east, vis-à-vis Russia, which has always presented a porous and different kind of border. That will require vast upheavals and social changes.
In the Czech Republic we find growing disenchantment and worries expressed over whether Slovakia will be included. I hope that it will be, otherwise the Czechs will have to consider putting a Schengen border between the Czech Republic and Slovakia; namely, a border erected between two nations which, until only a few years ago, were one country. That border is particularly permeable.
I had an opportunity to put questions to the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr Orban. We met on a public occasion and there is no harm in repeating his comments. He made it perfectly clear that he seeks a flexible Europe. He is uneasy about centralisation and the growth of qualified majority voting. The Hungarians also face nightmarish problems as regards the Schengen provisions vis-à-vis Romania if that country remains outside the EU. The above are immensely difficult problems which we shall address with all our energies.
I turn now to the brave Baltic states, which I have visited on many occasions and for which all have a soft spot. It is often forgotten that Estonia was founded, in effect, by British actions taken in the 1920s before that country entered the long dark night of absorption into the Soviet Union. Those states have been asked to put up tariffs. I understand that they are not worried about it, but that is what joining the European Union means. However, they are concerned that they may become second-class members of the common agricultural policy. That concern also applies to other countries.
The Cyprus problem is beginning to burn. No noble Lord is better qualified to comment on that than the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who is not in his place. However, the problems with Turkey and Greece are extremely dangerous. There is a real threat that Greece may veto and obstruct the entire process if membership for Cyprus is delayed. Equally, Turkey may cause all the trouble it can if the situation turns the other way around; namely, if Cypriot membership is accelerated. Furthermore, smaller countries such as Latvia insist that they want to see a Europe of nations.
The cause of Europe has been damaged by the botched nature of the treaty proposals and evidence of the big boys ganging together over them. That is why the famous Euro-barometer records waning enthusiasm. At the beginning of this year it recorded that some 44 per cent of the EU was in favour, but I gather that the percentage is now much lower.
We agree with the Minister, who commented yesterday at the Dispatch Box that considerable benefits will be enjoyed in an enlarged market. Ironically, we seem to be moving to a situation in which the applicant states, whose position would be assisted by this protocol if only we could move it forward and it was not bogged down in the rest of the treaty, are set to grow faster than the near stagnant member states of western Europe; in particular they
1062
will grow faster than Germany. Luckily, however, for the moment the British economy seems to be doing well.
When we are told that unless we tick the boxes on the Nice Treaty enlargement will be held up, then we are entitled to be more than cynical and to say that, on the contrary, if we were to tick all the boxes in the Nice Treaty we shall find ourselves in deeper trouble. Indeed, that is the case already. If, as many advised at the time, we had concentrated on the simple mechanical changes needed to correct the weighting, distribute properly the seats in the European Parliament, get the structure of the Commission right and so forth, we would now be moving ahead on the process of enlargement.
It is deplorable that enlargement has taken so long. It should have taken place after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the liberation of Czechoslovakia soon after. Those of us who visited those regions at the time told our dear friends in Prague—it may have been misleading—that in only a matter of months, or perhaps a year or two, they would join the European Union. That was 12 years ago. So much for enthusiasm about enlargement.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he seriously suggesting that all the problems he has adumbrated—the 10,000 pages or so of the acquis communautaire, the challenges of economic adjustment, abolition or reformation of the CAP, and questions about the budget—could have been dealt with far more quickly had we not put in place a treaty along these lines? That appears to be the burden of the noble Lord's argument.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I do not suggest that. If that is how my comments have been perceived by the noble Lord, then mea culpa, it must be the inadequacy of my presentation. I had thought that I made it clear that these are the obstacles and issues and thus the areas to which energies should be directed. I was going to go on to say that perhaps, when looking back over the past 12 years—and, I confess, here moving to the very edge of the amendment—if we had spent less time on manufacturing endless treaties and more time on addressing the issues I have outlined in my remarks—and perhaps building treaties around their resolution—we would be a little closer to the goal of enlargement than, humiliatingly, is now the case.
I hope that it takes place in 2004, which will mark 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. That is far too long, but when enlargement is secured, it will reunite the Europe for which a previous generation fought and gave their lives. That is a fine objective. I should hate to see bureaucracy and the machinations of certain treaty arrangements get in its way. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Richmond: The noble Lord described an eastern Central Europe which is barely recognisable. If it is truly the noble Lord's conviction that in the capitals of the applicant states governments hold their heads in their hands in despair when confronted by the complexities of the acquis

1063
communautaire—for which they must buy large computers to scan an unforeseeable future; although one noble Lord is strong on prophecy and it might be cheaper to hire him—that they perceive as an absolutely unalterable barrier, then that conviction is, frankly, quite unreal. The truth is that the acquis communautaire, although complicated, provides an important blueprint and plan for the modernisation of eastern Central Europe.
It is greatly to the good fortune of Europe at this historic moment that the treaties are in place, that the acquis communautaire is a single body and that, therefore, a proper negotiating agenda has been agreed; namely, a road map by which the enlargement of Europe can proceed. If all those achievements were wished away, which clearly is what many Members of the Committee desire, then to be frank, Europe would be in turmoil. We would certainly be dependent on prophecy and even the biggest computer would not be able to solve our problems.
The fact is that membership of the European Union is the great driving force for modernisation in the eastern Central European states. Far from enthusiasm waning for membership of the EU—I do not know which polls the noble Lord has consulted; they differ from the ones I have seen and from the evidence of my own visits to some of the capitals—it is clear that determination to proceed with enlargement is formidably strong. Are we to say that the populations who will that and their governments which express that are foolish, naïve and misled? Have they not listened to the prophecies, and thus do not believe in the conspiracy theories? Should we in some way educate them in a new clarity and realism? No, that is not the right approach.
The fact is that the Nice Treaty, although somewhat inelegant in parts, is essential to the enlargement process. It has clarified the important question of weighting of votes in the Council. It has introduced an element of legitimacy to the voting system, which is extremely important because it would be difficult to proceed if that had not been achieved. As Europe stands at present, it is vital that the three larger countries of the present Union hold their positions. That was not easy to negotiate at Nice, as we all know. However, it was achieved.
We must distinguish between the endless and multiplying problems foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He has examined every aspect of the European Union for grandmother's footprints, or someone else's footprints; there are always more footprints in the snow. Every time one of them melts, it is replaced by dozens more. Indeed, it would be possible to become positively hectic, even neurotic, in the pursuit of those footprints. I sometimes wonder whether, on occasion, that might be the case.
But the truth is that the vast majority of opinion expressed by the applicant states is clear: enlargement should take place. The Treaty of Nice has been welcomed as a necessary step. The Government are absolutely determined to go ahead with it. I do not think that it is right, for this Committee or those
1064
elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to stand in the way of what is clearly the historic right of the applicant countries and an unarguable demand that we should move forward.
7 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to speak to my amendment, which is Amendment No. 34A. I believe that it goes to the heart of the enlargement process. The protocol on enlargement deals with institutional reform in some detail, including the re-weighting of votes, the number of members of the European Parliament and members of the Commission. To that limited extent it is about enlargement. Perhaps it is one of the few parts of the treaty that is actually about enlargement.
That is all very well. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has said. I am sure that there is a groundswell of desire in the candidate countries to join the European Union. But the real barrier to enlargement in the end, apart from the reforms which are being carried out, is the common agricultural policy. It seems to me that without reform of that policy within the treaty there will be more barriers to enlargement. It will be harder for the candidate states to enter the European Union.
Of the five candidate countries at the moment, Poland and Hungary have two very significant and highly important agricultural sectors. Indeed, I believe that Poland has more farmers than the whole of the rest of the European Union together. I agree that most are small farmers, but farming represents about 20 to 25 per cent of Poland's GDP compared with about 3 per cent for this country. So for Poland it is a very serious problem.
Therefore, it seems somewhat irrational to make preparations to receive new members before we have decided what the ground rules are, how they are going to be accepted and how the CAP is to be reformed to allow the candidate countries to join the Union. In the way the CAP is currently constituted there does not appear to be any provision by which the candidate countries can be admitted, because there is no appetite for reform. Indeed, the President of the Commission has gone on record as saying that there will be no reform or even review of the CAP before 2006. He has been supported in that view by the French Prime Minister.
It is astonishing that, given their importance, the chapters on agriculture have not been opened for discussion with the candidate countries. But the agriculture Ministers of Poland and Hungary have made it perfectly clear that they expect that their farmers will enjoy all the benefits, if I can call them that, of the common agricultural policy.
So how is that circle to be squared? How can we meet the legitimate expectations of the agricultural sectors of the candidate countries without reforming the CAP? How is it to be reformed? How is it to be dealt with? As I have said, there is no prospect of real reform. It has been tinkered with at the edges in the past few years. It has been watered down and

1065
proposals have been made but nothing significant has happened. Certainly, nothing is going to be done to radically reform the CAP, which is necessary.
It appears to me that there are three possible scenarios. The first is that some of the current recipient countries—France is the largest—will volunteer to give away some of their receipts to the candidate countries. I do not know whether that has been proposed, but we have not been knocked over in the rush for that to happen.
Secondly, the other proposal, which is equally unlikely, is that the CAP budget of the European Union will be enlarged to accommodate the new entrants and their agricultural sectors so that they can receive the subsidies that the current members receive. The third scenario, which seems to be on the cards at the moment, is that the candidate countries are to be told that they will have to comply with all the rules and regulations of the CAP but that they will not receive subsidies because there is no money and they will have to make shift with that scenario. It is rather like being an off-peak member of a tennis club where one pays one's dues, obeys the rules without being able to change them but can use the hard courts only on weekday mornings.
I do not believe that that is acceptable to any of the aspirant countries with such large agricultural sectors. My noble friend Lord Howell was absolutely right that a smaller treaty, perhaps beginning with the title "Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union", encompassing the reform of the common agricultural policy, would have made the enlargement process much more speedy. I did not realise that it had taken quite as long as my noble friend said, namely, about 15 years. That seems astonishing. I gather that the first countries to join will not do so for another three years, if then, and only if the CAP is reformed. I believe that application and reform of the CAP should be coterminous and therefore should be included in the treaty; hence the reasoning behind my amendment. If the treaty is to be about enlargement, surely it has to include agriculture and the CAP.
Lord Grenfell: I believe that it has been said that a misunderstanding repeated often enough may begin as an embarrassment but usually ends up as a matter for widespread mirth. I do not know how many times I have heard it repeated in this House as regards the Treaty of Nice that reform of the CAP does not require a change to the treaty; that reform of the CAP is going forward on a parallel track and will continue until it is completed. But to try to put the CAP into the Treaty of Nice does not make any sense whatsoever.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: That is the noble Lord's opinion, but I do not agree. I believe that putting the CAP into the treaty would hasten the process of enlargement.
Lord Waddington: I was slightly surprised by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond. It is difficult for us to speak with
1066
authority about attitudes in each of the applicant states. But it would be a very brave person who asserted that all these applicant states want to join a tightly-knit club subject to more and more rules dictating how they should approach essentially domestic problems rather than that they should wish to join a union of sovereign states. In so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, it would be a very brave person who asserted that it is not the latter which most of them would prefer.
I have always looked with great dismay at the Treaty of Nice, because it is ironical that we should be saying that it was a treaty to pave the way for an enlarged community and yet we are putting more and more difficulties in the path of the applicant countries. We are saying, for instance, that they could not join unless they accepted that they had to have rules in this or that direction, and as a result of a step taken last year, for instance, they had to have an involved system of works councils and bargaining in the workplace which have nothing whatsoever to do with the normal rules of any club. That was how I reacted to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, looked at the matter.
Lord Watson of Richmond: Would the noble Lord accept that, by definition, the applicant states have applied to join the European Union as defined by the existing acquis communautaire? That is a matter of historical fact. Whether the noble Lord likes the European Union as it exists within the present acquis communautaire is another matter: whether he believes that they would like a different kind of Europe is a matter for speculation. I have heard that the candidate countries are absolutely determined to join the European Union as it is at present defined by the acquis communautaire. A number of countries have made it quite clear, for example, that they would like to join the European monetary union and the euro when it becomes a reality.
Lord Waddington: It is certainly not what I would like, but that is not at issue at all. I am just saying that I doubt very much whether it was wise or proper, in advance of saying that these countries could join the Union, to impose more and more rules which had nothing whatsoever to do with completion of the single market.
We were discussing this earlier. I would not have risen had it not been asserted by the noble Lord that all the changes that have taken place are meat and drink to the countries which wish to join. I think that is complete and utter nonsense. If those countries had been consulted about some of the extensions of qualified majority voting provided for in the Nice Treaty, they would have asked, as I do, what on earth that has got to do with enlargement of the community. It quite clearly has nothing to do with it.
Lord Monson: It seems to be glibly imagined by enthusiasts of greater European integration that the electorate of the Republic of Ireland will tamely come to heel and reverse their recent decision before long,

1067
certainly within the next couple of years. But supposing the Irish electorate stick to their guns, as they show every sign of doing? What then?
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, said that the ratification of the Nice Treaty by all member states is a necessary step towards enlargement. He is absolutely right. Is it seriously imagined that enlargement can take place with countries not knowing how many votes they will have in the Council of Ministers and how many seats they will have in the European Parliament?
It is also glibly imagined, I am afraid, that there will be no problem about admitting Cyprus while continuing to keep Turkey at arm's length. The Greeks certainly want that to happen—there is no secret about that—but others are rather more discreet. The Germans secretly aim towards that situation. If that were to happen, it would without any question be a breach of the Zurich agreements. Turkey would not take it lying down and it would have the most serious consequences. We should reflect upon this matter.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: When I spoke to the previous group of amendments, I referred to a meeting about regionalisation being held at Exeter, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. That of course was a slip of the tongue; it should have been the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate and sincerely hope that I have caused him no difficulty with his right reverend friend.
As to the amendment, I am the odd man out—no, I am not quite the odd man out—because I do not believe that enlargement will be good for the Community or for this country. I say that I am not the odd man out because I understand that Sir Edward Heath—who, as noble Lords will know, is no political friend of mine—takes the same view; that is, that enlargement may well do a lot of damage to the Union rather than improve it.
There is some evidence that this will be so. After all, we started out as the Common Market; we became the European Economic Community; we then became the European Community; now we are the European Union. So virtually at each enlargement we have found that there has been not only a widening but a deepening.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am glad that a noble Lord said "Hear, hear". It confirms what I am saying. At each stage there has been a deepening, and with that deepening has come centralisation. That, I fear, is what will happen—and, indeed, is happening—through this treaty. There will be a greater accrual of powers to the centre and a greater bureaucratic control by the centre.
I do not believe that that is what the British people intended—although they were not consulted about it—when they joined the Common Market. They
1068
believed that they were joining a free market—not a single market; that did not come until 1985— where individual countries had free trade between them and co-operated on a wide range of issues. That has not turned out to be the case.
Whether we like it or not, it is becoming increasingly obvious from the messages coming from heads of state, from members of the Commission, from Members of the European Parliament and from Parliament itself, that that is not the intention. The intention is to build a state of union, and a good many of the necessary building blocks are there. I believe that that would be a disaster for Europe because, as we have found in the past, as various bits of the new state find themselves disadvantaged in relation to other bits of the state, they will rebel and the whole edifice will fall apart.
That will be so especially if we are not prepared—I am not sure that we are prepared at the moment, although we may be later on—to have a much bigger central budget. The United States has a central budget of 25 per cent of GDP. If you are going to redistribute and bring countries up to a standing which is acceptable throughout, you will need central taxation. Indeed, we have already seen signs of that. The Belgian presidency said that there would be a need for direct taxation levied by the European Parliament, and the European Parliament believes that there should be a central tax levy.
That is what is facing us. I do not know whether people in this country understand that. When the MacDougal Committee reported on expansion in, I think it was, the 1970s, it said that we would need at least 7.8 per cent of GDP to be raised as central taxation for redistribution in an expanded community. But 7.8 per cent of our GDP is about £78 billion. We have to grasp these kinds of issues if we are to go ahead with a successful expansion.
I do not believe that it is possible. I do not believe that people are prepared to accept what goes with real expansion, real enlargement. I believe that, because of that, the whole project will collapse—which would not bother me; I should be delighted—and endanger the existing community. The Committee should take that into account.
Lord Tugendhat: Perhaps I may delay the Committee for a minute and a half or so because I should not like the debate to end without a single Conservative voice being raised in favour of the Treaty of Nice. I say that because the Treaty of Nice is designed to bring about a result that has been the objective of successive Conservative governments over the years.
I realise that many noble Lords on these Benches, and many other of my friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party, have changed their positions somewhat in recent years, but the fact remains that the original objective of Conservative governments (that is, to bring about the enlargement of the Community) was a good objective in the interests of this country and of a wider Europe.

1069
I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that it is an absolute disgrace that enlargement was delayed so long after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He is absolutely right in that, as in many other things. If we were by any mischance to reject the Treaty of Nice after the Irish referendum that has already been referred to, that would make the task of enlarging the EU immeasurably greater. I cannot believe that either my noble friend or many others who have been in the Conservative Party a long time or have served in Conservative governments would want that to happen.
I hope that the Treaty of Nice will be passed as it stands. It is a curate's egg, by no means perfect in all respects and has some features that I would have preferred not to see, but it is designed to bring about a result that would be in the interests of Britain and Europe and one for which the Conservative Party has fought over many years.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may try to answer some of that from my noble friend. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke—whose amendment I support—I fear that enlargement may be a serious mistake for the continent of Europe. I do not understand why the Conservative Party still thinks that enlargement is a good idea. I say to my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, if I could have his attention for a moment—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Would the noble Lord prefer it if we left, to allow the debate to continue in private? I feel intrusive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister is of course free to leave but I do not think that that would improve the quality of our debate.
I was saying that I do not understand why the Conservative Party—on whose Benches I still sit, just—goes on saying that enlargement is a good idea. I had the privilege of sitting on your Lordships' Select Committee from 1992 to 1996, which I am no longer allowed to do. In those days, the position of the then Conservative government was entirely clear. It supported enlargement because it thought that "widening" would lead to "weakening" of the centre— the powers of Brussels and so on.
If we did not know before, we know for certain now—with the Treaty of Nice before us—that "widening" definitely leads to "deepening". It cannot be widened without increasing the powers at the centre—of Brussels. I am at issue with my party. I understand why it adopted that position but suggest that it is no longer tenable.
I accept also that the political classes at least in most of the new democracies of eastern Europe want to join the European Union—although my noble friend Lord Howell revealed that many of the peoples of eastern Europe and some of their political leaders are beginning to wake up to what joining the EU may
1070
mean. Why is it in their interests to have struggled so valiantly to escape communism, only to submerge their hard-earned democracies into what seems to be an emerging undemocratic EU megastate? I acknowledge that countries enjoy the EU subsidies that they receive while they are queuing to join and that the prospect of joining the EU has on a few occasions made some applicant countries—I have Romania in mind—behave better than they might have done otherwise. Neither of those two qualifications condones the colossal mistake that enlargement would mean for their emerging democracies. It is clear that those emerging democracies and emerging economies cannot afford the 80,000 pages of mostly labour and social-related legislation or the latest raft of stuff from Brussels—which particularly hits small businesses, as we debated on the first day in Committee. All those countries really need is free trade, which is denied them by our good partners in the European Union. They need also defence through NATO.
In earlier debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has said that proper or sufficient enlargement of the kind that the Government would like to see is not possible without the Treaty of Nice, but it is. The EU has been enlarged on several occasions when new applicant countries have joined. Even with the Treaty of Nice, there will need to be a separate treaty of accession with each country that joins. If people want enlargement, they certainly do not need the protocol. Enlargement can be achieved country by country. Voting can be adjusted, as in the past, as each new country joins.
We Euro-realists love the Europe of nations—the continent of different cultures and glorious civilisations—but hate the Treaty of Rome, the European Union and everything that comes out of it. We believe that democracy is the guardian of peace in Europe and elsewhere. On the whole, democracies do not provoke conflicts but forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations nearly always end in disaster. I could give the Committee many examples, including Northern Ireland, the Middle East, most of Africa, Yugoslavia and the Trans-Caucasus. The recipe for conflict and aggression is some form of undemocratic or even fascist leadership and a lack of true democracy.
If applicant nations from central and eastern Europe can keep their democracies and trade freely together and with their neighbours under NATO, we shall see peace and prosperity—and not run the risk of the European dream descending into the conflict that I fear lies ahead.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the interesting way in which he moved Amendment No. 34 and spoke to Amendment No. 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. The protocol is important but that is not the only issue. I was seized with a huge

1071
sense of relief when the noble Lord remarked that the matters involved were so vast that no one mind could get hold of them.
The noble Lord gave an illuminating description of his visit to Budapest and elsewhere in central and eastern Europe last week and said that he had not been tackled about the Treaty of Nice. His experience cannot be so different from mine. When people are worried about an issue, they tend to raise it. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Radice. I am sure that if people had not wanted the noble Lord to support the treaty, they would have said so. Most of the people to whom the noble Lord spoke probably did want him to support the treaty today. No one is disputing that in a number of European countries there will be some people who disagree with their government. But it is a function of democracy that we deal with the elected governments of the day, and with the view that they put forward on behalf of the people whom they represent.
The noble Lord spoke again about his vision for Europe in the future. He set it out with the same eloquence when we debated the Bill at Second Reading. He steered a course between his European credentials—of which I am sure he is justifiably proud—and the position of his party. However, I felt that in raising the points that he did, he was properly addressing the issues that are to be raised at the IGC in 2004: for example, defining and de-limiting the European Union's competence; simplifying the treaties which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, criticised; making those treaties easier to understand to the ordinary citizens of Europe; improving accountability and transparency; and the role of national parliaments. When the noble Lord spoke about the "enormous complexity", he was quite right. That is why his view has—if I may draw this from his remarks—at least some points of commonality with that of the Prime Minister; namely, that these subjects should rightly be discussed at the next IGC in 2004.
The noble Lord went on to say that the simple mechanical processes are important. Indeed they are—and they are here in the protocol. The protocol sets out the changes to the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which are in the Government's view essential for the European Union to enlarge—I believe the word I used previously to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was "successfully". It is an important mechanical key, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, and I use his phraseology. It is not the only key, but it is certainly an important one. First, to mention a relatively minor matter, we need to repeal the protocol on the institutions which was agreed at Amsterdam. It has obviously been overtaken by the Nice treaty.
Amendment No. 34 by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would strike out only Article 3 of the protocol concerning vote re-weighting. Amendment No. 34A by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, would strike out the whole protocol. That is the difference between the two amendments. Either way, the
1072
Government believe that the Opposition is misguided in tabling these amendments. Perhaps I may attempt to explain why.
First, we are re-weighting the Council votes to give the United Kingdom and other big member states—that is, Germany, France and Italy—more power relative to the small or medium-sized member states. The effect is that the UK's relative voting power—I stress the word "relative" in relation to current members—goes up. Whereas under the present arrangements we have three times the voting power of Denmark, following the agreement at Nice we shall have four times its voting power. That is a fairer distribution in relation to our population size. There could be a blocking minority, consisting of Germany and two of the other three countries—that is, the United Kingdom, Italy and France.
Secondly, agreement was reached at Nice on a new level of seats in the European Parliament following enlargement. Its overall size will increase to 732 in an EU of 27 members. The number of UK MEPs will fall to 72 from the current 87 seats. We discussed this in some detail during the debate at Second Reading.
It is the Government's position that this is a good deal for the United Kingdom. In designing a system for almost double the current number of member states it was inevitable that the United Kingdom would have fewer seats—particularly if the size of the European Parliament was to remain manageable. But the reduction will be gradual.
Thirdly, it was agreed at Nice that, once the EU reaches 27 member states, there will be less than one commissioner per member state, chosen on a basis of equal rotation. Again, that is an important reform, which will help to keep down the size of the Commission—a point with which I am sure many Members of the Committee have a great deal of sympathy—so that is a manageable size after enlargement.
So we have in the protocol the arrangements that will enhance Britain's power in the Council, relative to the small and medium-sized countries; and which will reform the Commission and keep the Parliament to a manageable size, but with significant numbers of MEPs remaining. We believe that the changes are in the interests of the United Kingdom.
I turn briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. My noble friend Lord Grenfell is right. Reform of the CAP does not require treaty change. The noble Lord may feel that treaty changes are desirable, but they are not mandatory. That was the point that my noble friend was making. We shall negotiate on the CAP, as I have had occasion to state previously, and as the noble Lord noted, the chapters with the applicant countries have not yet been opened, but they will be opened by the beginning of next year. One would, of course, expect all those who are going to negotiate on such issues to adopt a tough negotiating position. I would do so; so would any other sensible negotiator. The point is what is negotiated in the end, not the position that people adopt in prospect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. It is gracious of her to give way. When she says to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that treaty change is not necessary to reform the common agricultural policy, will she agree that enlargement is not possible without reform of the common agricultural policy? While we are on that point, will she agree also that the President of France has assured the world, in the strongest conceivable terms, in the past fortnight that France will not tolerate any change in the common agricultural policy from France's point of view—it is very advantageous to France—until 2006? Of course, it may be just a negotiating ploy, but if it is so, does it not put the process back a bit?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am sure the noble Lord will accept it when I say that I have sat round negotiating tables in recent months and heard people declare one position with absolute certainty; and I have seen some very different outcomes—most notably in Doha only last week. If we were to insist on CAP reform before enlargement, we should make enlargement a hostage to those member states which are least keen on it. We must be careful about the way in which we approach this matter. We are approaching it very much in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in relation to Ireland. The Irish Government have asked us to go ahead with our ratification process. That may not suit the position of some Members of the Committee. I understand that. But the Irish Government are the democratic leaders of their country. They have asked us and our European partners to proceed with our ratification process, and we are proceeding, on the unequivocal mandate that we have as a result of this year's general election. I admired very much the unequivocal stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, rode to his rescue and said that he, too, was not too keen on enlargement. But whatever else the treaty is about, it has been very much in the public domain a treaty about successful enlargement. I believe that the Government have a mandate on which to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, gave balance to the debate. He agreed with his noble friend about the "disgrace" in terms of the length of time taken for enlargement. He was right to say that if we wreck the treaty we shall delay enlargement even further. The noble Lord knows his noble friend far better than I do, but I cannot help feeling that his noble friend on the Front Bench will understand the weight of his remarks on that point.
The Government are right to resist these amendments, for the reasons which I hope I have spelt out clearly.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reply so clearly to the
1074
amendments, which, in the case of those in my name, are narrowly focused on the weighting issues. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, but I do not think that she explained how, in an enlarged Community, eventually the voting power of the United Kingdom will be rather less. I do not attach too much weight to the issue of less or more voting power. It is my personal view that the real problem lies in the over-centralisation of power in the European institutions. If there had been any beef behind subsidiarity, which turned out to be an empty vessel, or any determination at Nice or at other summit gatherings to return to nation states some of the powers that in today's conditions it is inappropriate to deal with centrally, even though it may have been appropriate to do so in the past, the problem of weighting and the feeling that powers were going to be taken and important decisions made at a high level against national interests would be much reduced.
The arithmetic suggests that, while with the current members—the words that the noble Baroness used—the share of British votes is up, eventually, when the enlargement takes place, our share will go down. I do not know when that "eventually" will be. The Commission has produced an upbeat report about enlargement, suggesting that the whole thing can be tied up for 10 countries by 2004, which is not at all far away. At that point we shall have a shrunken role.
I do not make a major issue of that, but we should get it right for the record. The noble Baroness is right about current numbers, but for the longer term Ministers are not correct in saying that Britain will have a larger share of the votes.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, spoke with great authority and knows a great deal about the mood in the applicant states. We get different impressions from the different places that we visit. There is an opinion poll machine called the Euro-barometer—I find these things very inaccurate—that seems to indicate that popular support for the whole project is waning in a number of applicant countries. But if the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asks why we should believe such polls, he has a friend in me because I find that they can be extremely unreliable.
The generation who first took power after the velvet revolution, who hoped that enlargement would come soon, were driven by a very understandable essential impulse: they wanted to join the club of Western democracy, as expressed by the European Union, and to put as much political space as they could between themselves and the then Soviet Union. The older generation in many central European capitals remains of that view. Despite the new friendship and hand-clasping in Texas by the very skilled Mr Putin—whose Russian Government have been very helpful in the present global anti-terrorism campaign—there remains a deep feeling engraved in many minds by hideous memories that Russia is not the body to be politically associated with and the European Union will give some protection. Running alongside that is the equal wish that NATO should be enlarged still further.

1075
We can see these debates unfolding. The Prime Minister recently made some interesting comments about whether Russia might become related to NATO in some form. This touches on that debate. The older generation wants to get away from Russia and join Western organisations, but the younger generation wants to wait and see whether the modern Russia is really as dedicated to dangers, expansion and territorial seizure as Communist and pre-Communist Russia was for hundreds of years or whether we have a new Russia. They are not sure that it is quite such a high priority to distance themselves from Russia. If they want to distance themselves, they want to ask a question that they did not ask at the beginning: what is the cost? They want to know how much they have to pay in the approval of the acquis to join the club. That mood is undoubtedly present. It leads to a lively debate. It is basically a pro-European—indeed, pro-European Union—debate, but it raises fundamental questions about the governance of Europe that were not addressed at Nice and towards which I do not believe that the Nice Treaty was helpful.
Of course I respect the extremely experienced views of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. He speaks not only as an experienced business person but as an ex-Commissioner. His judgment is that the treaty is essential to enlargement. Other judgments are that the treaty may help if it works—as long as it works, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, suggested. Some of my noble friends have argued all along that the treaty is heading for trouble and that before we are through we will have to think about recasting treaty arrangements to move the enlargement process forward.
We have probably quoted Mr Prodi too much and I know that the Minister is tired of my quotations from him, but he let the cat out of the bag when he said that if plan B is necessary and the Irish referendum does not turn Irish opinion round, we will have to come to other means of carrying forward these mechanical arrangements.
We feel that this is the wrong way to achieve the greater European unity and the re-unification of Europe that is now within our grasp. We are not convinced that giving a fair wind to the whole treaty, with all its warts and difficulties, is necessarily the best way to achieve that objective.
In the light of a number of comments, I shall not press Amendment No. 34, but I understand that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has another view on his Amendment No. 34A, which he will no doubt utter in a moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 1, line 12, after "Protocols" insert "(other than the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union)"
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my questions, but I remind the Committee that the Nice Treaty is dead at the moment. We are debating a treaty that is null and void, so it is
1076
sensible to start again and see how it might be better drawn up. The Irish people may be asked to look at a very different treaty—as may we all. It may not contain all the centralising proposals that we have been discussing during the past two days of debate. It may be more tightly drawn. Agriculture is a central block on enlargement. If enlargement is what everybody wants, agriculture will have to be dealt with in the treaty. I have not had enough reassurance on that, so I shall test the opinion of the Committee on my amendment. I beg to move.
7.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74, Not-Contents, 140.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor, V.

Luke, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Biffen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Mar, C.

Bridgeman, V.

Marsh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L.

Monson, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Noakes, B.

Caithness, E.

Northbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Onslow, E

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigavon, V.

Patten, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rogan, L.

Goschen, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jopling, L.

Strange, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Waddington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Billingham, B.

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ahmed, L.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brennan, L.

Amos, B.

Brett, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bach, L.

Brookman, L.

Barker, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Burlison, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

1077

Carter, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Maddock, B.

Chandos, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morgan, L.

Dholakia, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elder, L.

Northover, B.

Ezra, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkland, V.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Radice, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rennard, L.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goudie, B.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Greaves, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Greengross, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grocott, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon, V.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hoyle, L.

Thornton, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turnberg, L.

Jones, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Uddin, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Varley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Laird, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walpole, L.

Lipsey, L.

Warner, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wigoder, L.

[Teller]

Williams of Crosby, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Privy Seal)

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee begins again not before nine.
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Cleaner Coal
7.58 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the case for a cleaner coal demonstration plant.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after I had applied for this debate, I was alarmed to read a front-page article in the Yorkshire Post on 8th November, headlined,
"Britain 'to pull plug on coal industry".
I have no way of knowing how factual was that report, but it certainly set the alarm bells going in my mind.
Today I feel that I am just going over the same ground as I have done for many, many years. My mind goes back to the Energy Select Committee in another place, which in 1991 took evidence and produced a report on clean coal technology. I do not have time to detail the recommendations of that report, but regrettably, like many Select Committee reports, it was pigeonholed and, I suppose, is now covered with dust.
The West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil is being eclipsed by growing dependence on gas from non-OECD countries. The security implications are massive and predictable. Natural gas is a premium fuel that can be used very efficiently in household applications, in commercial plants which generally combine heat and power and in vehicles to reduce traffic pollution. Yet the UK has depleted its own reserves on a brief foray into power generation. In 1990, the remaining lifetime of total UK gas reserves stood at 36 years. By 2000, this had fallen to 14 years with just six years of proven reserves. The UK will soon become a net importer of gas and by 2020 will import between 50 and 90 per cent of its requirements.
Coal offers long-term security and a diversity of supply at an affordable cost. The UK has at least 50 years of reserves and internationally traded coal is available from politically stable countries around the world. I believe there is a logical choice for the UK: we can become dependent on gas from Russia and the Middle East; we can turn back to nuclear; or we can embrace clean coal. I suggest that the latter is the sensible thing to do. I could turn my Question on its head and ask what will be the implications for our nation if Her Majesty's Government fail to support the case for a cleaner coal demonstration plant.
Looking ahead to 2020, I suggest that there will be three such implications: first, an acknowledged overdependence on imported natural gas from regions that are less than politically stable; secondly, an inability to reduce our pollutant emissions to the targets agreed in international protocols, and certainly no possibility of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the levels demanded by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; and, thirdly, high energy prices slowing economic growth and leaving too many people suffering from continued fuel poverty.
I address those issues in turn. The oil companies tell us they can supply the UK's gas needs from Norway, Russia and more distant regions such as North Africa and the Middle East. I understand that it would cost 35 billion dollars to build the Yamal pipeline from Siberia, and that the UK would be at the end of it. One can only guess at the future price of that gas and how often the supply would be interrupted by the action of producer cartels, disgruntled transit countries or, God forbid, terrorists. It will not be cheap and it will not be secure. Gazprom in Russia and the Iranian National Oil Company control half of the world's gas reserves. Should we become dependent on those powerful companies?
As regards emissions, the Government bask in the glory of past energy policies that leave us able to meet our immediate targets more easily than other countries. However, coal-miners suffered from those policies. I believe that it will be the public at large who will suffer next if the UK becomes dependent on foreign gas in the same manner that the USA is now dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
The Prime Minister spoke on climate change at the Labour Party Conference in 1997. He presented a vision of the UK shining out as a beacon to the world. With clean coal technologies we have the opportunity to be that guiding light. The technologies exist to build coal-fired power stations with near-zero emissions. That includes elimination of carbon dioxide. We are not looking at futuristic technologies. Carbon dioxide can be captured from gasified coal prior to sending hydrogen gas to a gas turbine or fuel cell for power generation. In the UK we have an economic use of carbon dioxide—to enhance the recovery of North Sea oil. Two million tonnes per annum will be needed shortly to extend the life of the massive Forties field. All the components are in place to establish a demonstration project that would indeed be a beacon showing the world how coal can be used to provide energy security and affordability with minimal environmental impact.
Affordability should not be ignored. It is all very well liberalising energy markets and claiming that that is good for consumers because prices fall. That is the case in the short term, but what of the longer term? Free markets do not properly value energy security until it is too late. In California, a mixture of poor regulation and environmental Nimbyism led to a short-term investment climate that favoured natural gas, but consumers could not afford that so it ended with power cuts.
The UK Government cannot ignore their responsibility under the Utilities Act,
"to protect the interests of consumers"
and
"to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply".
We must press ahead with clean coal projects that lead to near-zero emission power stations. The Government have it within their power to encourage such development with financial incentives. I believe that now is the time to exercise that power.
I understand that the steering committee overseeing the DTI's cleaner coal technology review met yesterday for the last time. Conclusions from the review point towards a longer term need for clean coal and power stations with carbon capture. The possibilities of recovering oil from the North Sea, using that carbon dioxide, feature strongly. That is good news. However, we must not ignore the energy security value of coal. In the short to medium term that means encouraging the commercial deployment of clean coal technologies. With a clean coal obligation on suppliers, the UK could continue to benefit from affordable electricity while meeting our environmental objectives. I suggest that after many years of pressure on various administrations the Government now have no alternative but to act if they want to protect our energy needs for the future.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Lofthouse and to congratulate him on securing the debate which is both timely and relevant. As a number of us know well, my noble friend has deep knowledge of the coal industry, a long involvement in it and, as a political representative of a Yorkshire constituency, he has maintained that knowledge and used the experience he has amassed over the years. Like me, my noble friend will from time to time over recent decades have looked at the many forecasts of energy supply and needs that are regularly published. I believe that we are not alone in having recognised that usually they are entirely wrong, even in the short term. As for long-term estimates, they are frequently proved to be ridiculous.
But whether or not the forecasts are accurate, I think we can all agree that we need energy, it has to be provided and we need to ensure that it is both produced and used cleanly. However, we must also recognise that, whatever is said in Westminster, the world will use vast quantities of coal as far ahead as one can see. Today, two-fifths of the world's electricity is provided from the combustion of coal. Two-fifths of the electricity in this country is also provided from coal. Unfortunately, it is often burnt crudely and the atmosphere suffers. Therefore, in my view, it is beyond all doubt that both here and abroad we should be moving rapidly into clean coal combustion, as that can achieve a great deal. It would be useful if we recognised that the move to clean coal combustion was essential and that in this country it would provide substantially for the engineering industry, which can make use of such a move.
I am reminded of Mr Ian McGregor—later, Sir Ian McGregor; I believe that he was rewarded for his service, limited in scope and vision, to the industry. I and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, attended an enormous exhibition held at the National Exhibition Centre where the British mining engineering industry demonstrated the machinery and inventions which its engineering and technological skills had produced.

1081
I attended a lunch which was to be addressed by Mr McGregor. There, to the slavish adulation of those who wished to maintain his favour, he pronounced the theory that there should be no coal reserves unless it could be proved that, today, they could be mined profitably. That was the most myopic and irresponsible statement that I have ever heard from a leader of an industry. Even if we were to say that we would mine coal reserves today, there would be a lead time of up to 10 years before coal was produced. Not even Mr McGregor could decide what the price of coal would be in five or 10 years' time.
At that time, I was chairman of my party's energy committee, and we took a deep interest in this matter. I remember going to Grimethorpe to look at fluidised bed combustion. That project was supported by British Coal and internationally, but it stopped. I went to Fife to see British Gas's research into gasification. I found it most interesting because the day that I visited they were examining samples of coal from collieries in my own constituency. The results were of real interest. However, all those pits closed within a very short time, sometimes locking away substantial tonnages of coal. That coal is locked away forever unless, of course, we develop underground gasification. That is another area of research which should receive substantial support and, again, it offers substantial opportunities in world markets.
However, the price of coal from abroad is highly volatile. Earlier this year, Australian coal prices rose by 23 per cent in one month. Not only is such coal highly volatile in price, but it is not necessarily secure in terms of guaranteed supply. We should be unwise if we were to become dependent on imported coal. We certainly could not replace coal with oil and gas. Even on Mr McGregor's estimates, we have four times as much coal as gas or oil in and around these islands. We certainly cannot rely on nuclear power. We could perhaps do so in our country because we are stable, but in a large number of countries in the world we could not advocate a development of reliance on nuclear power. If Mr bin Laden were able to escape the CIA, one wonders whether he would seek to become a member of a board in a privatised nuclear industry.
We are talking about serious problems in a century which may come to be regarded historically as the century of terrorism and instability. There is stability in being reliant upon home-produced energy such as lies beneath our feet. However, I do not want that coal to be burned dirtily. I spent a great deal of my life in keen support of energy conservation and of conservation generally. I want to see clean coal technology.
I turn to the latest information available from the British Coal Authority, which has, I hope, adequately briefed my noble friend. The authority tells me—I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm it because I would not claim in any sense to be a technologist—that a coal gasification plant which feeds a combined cycle gas turbine can produce the goods and can compete with renewables. The
1082
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme of the International Energy Agency suggests that approximately £40 a tonne can be attained in going along the route of using equipment of the type that it envisages, whereas I believe that the Government gave a figure of £85 per tonne in relation to qualifying renewables.
I am a little uneasy about renewables. Sometimes programmes that appear to be very attractive are not very popular. They may be fashionable but they can also be harmful. I do not want to see local communities having to accept large wind farms which would spoil the view and would certainly damage their quality of life. I do not want to see large wind farms on the migratory routes followed by birds. I do not believe that people would wish to see huge bird mortality as the large windmill sails turn round.
We must go along the clean-coal route and we must go along a route which is sensible for our own nation's energy requirement. That is why I believe that we must ask the Government to do four things. First, they must urgently pursue the provision of a demonstration plant of clean-coal technology. In order to facilitate that development, they must ensure that action is taken very soon so that, for example, planning consents are obtained.
Secondly, we need to ensure that the Government, both in this country and in the review in Europe of energy requirements up to the year 2050, take more urgently into account the need not only to sustain the UK and European coal industries but the clean burning of that coal.
Thirdly, I believe that the Government need to understand that the economic opportunities are substantial. Therefore, in relation to the British mining engineering industry they should seek to ensure that adequate research takes place in engineering, technology and clean coal combustion. They should also ensure that the tremendous improvement in productivity in the British mining industry, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, began years before Mr McGregor's time and has continued in an almost unimaginably powerful way in recent years, is maintained.
I come to my fourth and final point. In considering the matter of clean fuel, we should look to an early advance in the utilisation of coalfield methane. When one takes into account that it could very quickly provide one gigawatt a year of electricity at virtually no cost, prudence suggests that there is advantage in that field just as there would be wisdom and advantage in the pursuit of clean-coal technology.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lofthouse on initiating this debate. It is a subject that he has followed for many years and it is still worth listening to him on this matter.
The question before us is: do the Government support the case for a cleaner coal demonstration plant? In 1968 I was Minister of Power, during the

1083
course of which I began to raise moneys for a research and development project to, it was hoped, develop a cleaner technology coal-burning plant. My ministry was strapped for cash. Therefore, I approached the Americans and, between us, we helped to finance research in Leatherhead to develop a fluidised bed concept—a cheaper, more efficient, cleaner coal-burning plant. The research proved sufficiently encouraging to sanction in 1975 an experiment at Grimethorpe Colliery near Barnsley to test its commercial and economic viability.
Foreign interests became involved—Americans and Swedes—and primarily a German and British consortium was involved. Work was carried out until 1985. Unfortunately, the consortium broke up and then the Central Electricity Generating Board and the British Coal Corporation carried out more test work. However, soon afterwards, the project closed down. We were in those days, in research and plant test development, ahead of the world.
Much of the interest in this work was taken up by ABB Carbon in Sweden. Since then, it has achieved a significant degree of development, and it has been applied to a number of demonstration and commercial power plants. This history has been a tale of failure to exploit an early UK technological lead due to official indecision and a reluctance in industry at that time to commit funds for investment. Therefore, today the market for pressurised fluidised bed combustion plant and related equipment is led by ABB Carbon.
A 1991 report, Clean Coal Technology and the Coal Market, by the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy highlighted the wrangling between British Coal, the Department of Energy and industry partners. The problem was still going on. My noble friend Lord Lofthouse was a member of that committee. On cleaner coal technology, the committee stated,
"that a prerequisite for a satisfactory UK clean coal policy will be significant assistance towards demonstration plants"—
by that is meant significant financial assistance. I doubt whether the £4.3 million allocated to clean coal technology would satisfy that prerequisite.
What of the situation now? The DTI's recent paper, The UK Cleaner Coal Technology Programme, states that the policy is: to encourage cleaner coal technologies; to protect the global environment through the Kyoto Protocol; to respond to the Foresight Initiative, which is bringing together business, the science base and government, and to the emerging opportunities in markets and technologies; and to exploit the market potential.
That is where we are now; we have the Foresight Initiative and we are setting up panels and study groups and exploring opportunities. I ask the Minister whether we can catch up. We are facing considerable competition in this field. Can we even meet our Kyoto targets? Are the vast markets of China, India and North America being researched and tapped? Indeed, what have we to show in terms of practical technological development?
1084
Words from the conclusion of the DTI's policy paper are not very encouraging. It states:
"Government support for demonstration is not"—
I emphasise that word—
"perceived to constitute value for money in a country with surplus coalfired capacity that is moderately efficient. However, the Foresight Taskforce has identified a case for demonstration after about 2005".
To the coal-mining industry, power plant manufacturers and all who are involved in research and development in this field, that is not very much encouragement.
I conclude by quoting from the House of Commons Energy Select Committee report of July 1991. That report, Clean Coal Technology and the Coal Market, states:
"Without Government assistance no demonstration plants will be built. Without demonstration plants, the United Kingdom's clean coal projects cannot proceed towards commercial implementation. Without commercial implementation, the United Kingdom's research and development in this field will have been largely futile".
That was said in 1991. I ask the Minister: how far have we advanced in the past 10 years?
8.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am delighted to speak after three noble Lords who have played such an eminent part in the coal industry's long, illustrious and difficult history. I have to declare an interest. I have been actively involved in the energy sector since 1947 and have recently started a new company—one is never too old to start a new company—called Micropower, which promotes the small-scale generation of electricity. That is of some relevance to this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, pointed out in his emphatic and positive speech, cleaner coal technology has to be seen in a wider context. That wider context is currently being considered in the PIU energy review—it is that we as a country will shortly no longer benefit from the abundance of the North Sea. The noble Lord pointed out that the PIU estimated that if present trends continue, by 2020 we could be importing as much as 90 per cent of our increasing demand for gas. There will also continue to be a substantial—and increasing—importation of oil. In that circumstance we should think again about how we should in future resource ourselves in terms of energy. I hope that the PIU study will reflect that. That consideration has been dramatically heightened by the unfortunate events of 11th September.
The question of the role that coal can play in all of that has been much debated. The trend in the usage of coal has massively diminished. In my time in the coal industry, we were supplying up to 80 per cent of the coal used in power stations. The figure is now between 30 and 40 per cent. The DTI estimates that by 2010 the figure could fall to 15 per cent or lower, and could gradually fade out entirely.
In the new situation it must be asked whether that is sensible. However, there is another aspect to the matter; that is, technology. The way in which coal is currently used in power stations is based on pulverised

1085
fuel. That technology was developed some 40 or 50 years ago, and has not changed much since then. It is about time that we introduced a new technology for the use of coal in power stations. That technology is at hand through the cleaner coal processes and CO2, recovery. Those processes are now widely adopted—no fewer than 74 projects use CO2 recovery in the United States—and the resultant product that is combusted can be virtually free of CO2. That would put coal on the same basis as renewable energy. We would have in coal a new source of renewable energy and it would be available in unlimited quantities. Considerable skills are required to produce it but, fortunately, we still have them. As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, pointed out, we should add to that the possibility of using recovered CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The degree of enhancement can be as much as 10 or 15 per cent.
What an extraordinary combination of circumstances we now face. We are becoming short of the self-sufficiency from which we have benefited in the North Sea and we will have to depend increasingly on importing gas and oil. However, we now have an opportunity of looking once again at coal, which can provide us with a source of energy that is virtually free of CO2 and that CO2 could be used to enhance our rapidly diminishing oil resources.
That is not a pipedream. I turn to the report of the International Energy Agency. There are many enhanced oil recovery plants in operation, and the report mentions one; that is the Weyburn project in Canada. The report states:
"CO2 captured in a large coal gasification project in North Dakota, USA is to be transported 200 miles by pipeline and injected into the Weyburn field in Saskatchewan. Initially 5,000 tonnes per day of CO2 will be injected".
If a project of that sort, transporting CO2by pipeline for such distances, can be undertaken, in our situation, where the distances are much less, where the need for enhanced oil recovery is much greater and where the need to find another source of energy that we can control is also greater, surely we should seize that opportunity.
Noble Lords have mentioned the long delay in getting ahead with cleaner coal technology plants. There has been a very long delay. I was much involved in the Grimthorpe project to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred and I much regretted its closure. But now we must come to terms with the situation. I found the DTI consultative document on clean coal technology plants to be extremely good. I believe that it fairly states the position.
On 22nd October I attended a workshop that the department organised which looked at the matter closely. In my opinion, what came out of that workshop was that we should proceed with a demonstration plant of sufficient size—there is a project at Kellingley, for example, that could meet that requirement—to utilise the most advanced form of clean coal technology associated with CO2 recovery. That cannot be put in hand without some support. There was much debate about the form of support.
1086
The unanimous conclusion was that a direct injection of government funds into a particular technology was not desirable—it should be left to the market to decide—but that some framework of support was required.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, mentioned, a clean coal obligation on similar terms to the renewables obligation would appear to be the most desirable way. That would put no costs onto the Exchequer; it would be borne initially by consumers who ultimately would benefit by the increased security that would arise from such processes.
I conclude by saying to the Minister, whom I know is sympathetic to these matters, that now is the time for decision. We have spent too long waiting. We now have a great opportunity, particularly in the light of the greater risks that we run in our energy supply in the future, to move ahead with a new technology that will bring an old form of energy back in a new form.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for having introduced this important and particularly timely debate and to say how much I have enjoyed listening to all the contributions from noble Lords who have so much experience in this area.
The debate is timely because recent events have again focused minds on the need for what is loosely called the West, and particularly the USA, drastically to reduce its dependence on oil from the Middle East. But the phrase "cleaner coal" is a contradiction in terms. It admits that coal by its very nature and composition is not clean. Coal is largely made from carbon, with the addition of oxygen and hydrogen. When it burns the carbon combines with its own oxygen and oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide—the infamous greenhouse gas—which inexorably produces an ecological disaster that will affect the entire world. It also produces in large quantities the poisonous oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, to which I shall refer again in a moment.
Burning coal produces another phenomenon of which we have heard little lately as global warming, rising seas and encroaching deserts have impinged themselves on the public conscientiousness. I refer, of course, to acid rain, which was, and presumably still is, decimating large areas of forest and grassland.
The dangers of burning coal are not well publicised or generally known. As long ago as 1975 a US Senate Committee on air quality reported that every coal-burning plant produces 25 deaths and 60,000 cases of respiratory disease as a result of the pollutants that it emits, and that is apart from the property damage those pollutants cause. That is why this debate about a cleaner coal demonstration plant is so very important and timely.
Coal, which is stable and the safest fossil fuel to transport and store, is in abundant supply. Unfortunately, I fear that even if the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, induces the Government to give more support to research into the development and use of

1087
cleaner coal, it may not do our domestic coal-mining industry much good. Increased coal consumption is likely to be supplied from countries where the extraction and export of coal, even allowing for transport costs, is cheaper than in the United Kingdom.
Three main types of clean coal technologies are used to produce material for the generation of electricity. I want to look at the Government's record in this area. In July 1998 the honourable Member for Wansbeck secured a debate in the other place on clean coal technology. In response the Minister for Science Energy and Industry said,
"I assure my hon. Friend that the Government support the development of clean-coal technology".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1081.]
That was in 1998. In 1999 Britain's leading share in this technology in the world market fell from 12.5 per cent to 11 per cent. In the same debate in the other place, the Minister said:
"Clean coal technologies have an important part to play"—
in reducing the emission of greenhouse gases—
"We are keen to support cleaner coal technologies".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1081.]
Two-and-a-half years passed by and in a debate in the other place on 22nd November 2000, almost a year to the day before today's debate, the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe said:
"Several hon. Members have raised the issue of cleaner-coal technology … We are conducting an analysis and will do so in even more detail as we proceed with examining the technology". [Official Report, Commons, 22/11/00; col. 405.]
Have any of your Lordships ever come across a more meaningless piece of waffle? What does it mean? In that same debate, my honourable friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton reminded the Minister that in 1996, when Labour was in opposition, they promised that Labour would seriously consider offering clean coal technology as part of the existing £400 million subsidy for renewable energy.
The extent of the Government's so-called serious consideration when they came to power was that they said that they would contribute to a £60 million portfolio of research and development projects over the next few years. I believe that that was a typical piece of creative bookkeeping, double counting and double speak. It is not £60 million from the Governments coffers. I quote from the DTI energy paper 67 which says that it is merely a contribution,
"forecast to generate projects worth £60 million".
The £60 million is revealed to be merely £12 million over three years. In other words, the contribution from the £400 million fund promised in 1996 when the Government were in opposition, boiled down first to £60 million and then down to £4 million a year for three years.
Between 1991 and 1997, the last Conservative government funded clean coal research to an extent that never fell below £6.8 million per annum and an average rate of £8.15 million. Between 1997 and 2001 the Government's expenditure was a maximum of £4.3 million and an average of a £3.2 million. As can
1088
be seen, the Government did not even keep their promise of £4 million a year. What the Minister told the other place was that,
"our ability to pay aid is constrained by fairly concrete rules and that means cleaner coal technology is not included. However, my Department funds research into cleaner coal technology and is anxious to see the maximum uptake of schemes that promote it".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/00; Col. 385.]
Those are fine words. That means, translating the gobbledegook, that the Treasury will not part with the money in the form of various forms of tax on fuel it claws from the pockets of motorists, householders and industry—tax that is being increased by the climate change levy, which the Government are clearly not going to use to reduce the output of noxious emissions by Britain and to help us meet our commitments under the Kyoto agreement.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate we shall hear less about the penny-pinching of the Treasury and more about tangible assistance to long-term investment in the environment, in supporting our shrinking coal mining industry and in making us less vulnerable to economic pressure, possibly in furtherance of the political agendas of oil producing states. Above all, I hope that we shall hear more about government support for an industry which once was a world leader, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, remarked, in exporting technology, but which, as so frequently happens, is slipping down the world ratings due to apathy—I suppose that that is the best word to use.
I was heartened by the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, felt after attending the recent workshop. I wish that I had also had the opportunity to attend.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for the debate given by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse. The noble Lord is a great expert in this area, as indeed were all the other speakers today. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will not mind if I say that the only two people who are not world-class experts in this area are the two Front-Bench spokesmen. We have therefore had a very interesting discussion of this key issue.
It is a timely issue, as the Government are now nearing the completion of their review of the case for supporting cleaner coal technology demonstration plant. This review has been running in parallel with the Performance and Innovation Unit's review of wider energy policy. The PIU is due to report to the Prime Minister in December. The two review teams have been keeping in close touch throughout this process. I am sure that everyone appreciates that I cannot, therefore, in the light of these two reviews give definite answers today. I shall try to indicate the key issues and questions that need to be addressed.
It is for the PIU review to examine the extent to which the Government should be concerned about the likely future energy mix in electricity generation. We all recognise, and the matter has been raised a number of times today, that the security of energy supplies is a

1089
key objective of our energy policy and that that must be kept to the forefront. Whether or not there is a case for government to intervene to influence the components of the energy mix depends on the way the electricity generation market develops and how it meets the multiple objectives of cost, security and environment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lofthouse that affordability is not the only criteria, although we should never underestimate that when we are talking about the very important issue of fuel poverty.
We shall wait to see what the PIU concludes on this question. I have no doubt that it will listen carefully to the arguments that have been advanced here today. I shall ensure that this debate is brought to its attention, in particular, the question of how content we are to depend on a large amount of our energy supplies coming from natural gas from abroad.
Our current projections envisage coal playing a part in electricity generation for many years to come, even without any specific intervention to rebalance the energy mix. Coal has many merits. It is plentiful and cheap. We have large indigenous reserves, although costs limit the extent to which those can be exploited. It is easy to transport and to store. Coal-fired power plant is a highly mature technology. Although much is already tens of years old, it can relatively easily and cheaply be refurbished, allowing the life of coal-fired plant to be extended to all intents and purposes indefinitely. I say to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse that whatever the Yorkshire Post may say, there is no question of the Government pulling the plug on the coal industry.
Against this, however, new coal plant is relatively expensive to build and operate compared to gas, even without cleaner coal technologies. That is why no new coal plant has been commissioned for many years and why it is unlikely that generators will commit to such new build in the foreseeable future while current price differentials hold. But even more importantly, coal has a big disadvantage in that it is not a clean fuel when it is used in conventional power generation. It emits a number of gases which, if not controlled, damage the environment. The Government are therefore committed to reducing or eliminating these emissions.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Government are committed to reducing greenhouse gas levels by 2008 to 2010 to 12.5 per cent below the levels in 1990. While we are broadly on course to meet these targets, a major reason for this is the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation over the past few years. CO2 emissions from gas plant are about half of those of conventional coal-fired generation.
It is clear from the points made by noble Lords today that there is a broad acceptance that if coal is to continue to play a significant role in the future, it will need to be used much more cleanly than now in terms both of acid emissions and of CO2. If there is to be a new coal build, it will need to involve cleaner coal technologies. If the existing coal-fired power stations
1090
in this country are to continue to play a significant part in the longer-term energy mix, they will need to adopt cleaner coal technologies over time.
There are already a number of measures in place to limit emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from coal-fired generation, for example, through the implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive. The environmental challenges of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are now largely manageable, albeit at cost, with technologies such as flu-gas desulphurisation to sulphur dioxide and selective catalytic reductions for nitrogen oxides. Flu-gas desulphurisation is already fitted or being fitted to some coal-fired stations here. But it is carbon dioxide that presents the particular challenge to coal.
In this respect there are two main technologies that can improve the efficiency and hence the carbon effectiveness of coal use. One strand involves supercritical and ultra-supercritical pulverised fuel boiler technologies. These technologies can offer 15 to 20 per cent CO2 savings in terms of the emissions per kilowatt hour of generation. They can also, at least in part, be retrofitted to existing plant.
The second strand depends on the gasification of coal and the processing of the consequent synthetic gas in an integrated coal gasification combined cycle or IGCC. This offers similar CO2, efficiency gains. It also offers the potential to produce high-quality streams of hydrogen which may be valuable for future use in fuel cells if and when these start to mature as a technology.
A third group of technologies, to which I shall turn later, involves the capture and storage of CO2 produced from coal plant. That can be applied to either of the main technologies. My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath mentioned the potential of underground coal gasification as a possible future technology. That remains an area of interest, but it is widely recognised to be still at the research and development end of the scale rather than something yet ready for development.
In looking at the case for a cleaner coal technology demonstration plant, the department's review team has consulted widely with people in an variety of industries with a interest in using coal more cleanly. The team has established a steering group made up of experts who have met regularly over the past three months. In addition to this, the team has held a technical workshop, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra mentioned and indeed was an active participant in. The team has therefore ensured that it has taken evidence from a wide variety of interests.
What is clear from the review is that the two main cleaner coal technologies—supercritical and gasification technologies—are already largely demonstrated in projects overseas, and much is already known about what works and what does not work in different practical applications. That suggests that there is unlikely to be a strong case for the Government to invest further to demonstrate these concepts. We also need to ask what role there is for government to support the construction of a new demonstration plant if it is unlikely, all other things

1091
being equal, that the generators would invest in new coal-powered methods in the medium term. It would seriously undermine the value to be gained from such a demonstrator.
The review team will be considering those issues in more detail as it brings its work to a conclusion in the coming weeks. That relates of course to the PIU report on the likelihood of coal fired generators in the future.
There is another strand to the issue. There are some technologies, largely in relation to supercritical pulverised fuel where there may be value in demonstrating components that can be relocated to existing plant rather than whole new plant. That suggests that there may be a case for the Government to look again at the scale of their research and development programmes to see whether a relatively modest increase in resources might produce real benefits. There are some UK technologies which, with some help or demonstration through to existing UK kit, may prove themselves to be of particular value in promoting their use in the UK and in supporting export sales to China and India, for example.
I was recently in China and one of the main issues that the Chinese Minister of Science wanted to discuss was how we could co-operate—indeed, we are co-operating—on clean coal technology and how to push that agenda further and faster forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, raised the question of economic opportunities. From the preliminary trip that I made, I believe that there are possibly substantial opportunities, but obviously that requires to be examined in more detail. If there is a lack of opportunity to demonstrate those components, that stands in the way of potential exports. It should then be a case for government help, which is a matter that the review team will be considering further.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the question of carbon capture and storage. I wish to say something about that technology, which is of great interest. Given that CO2 is the most significant challenge facing coal use in the future, the review team also looked at the possibility of securing even more significant CO2 savings for carbon capture and storage. It is, in effect, a potential third technology that could be applied to either supercritical or IGCC plant. It would increase the carbon saving from 15 to 20 per cent to as much as 80 per cent. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he thought that all the CO2 could be recovered. A substantial amount but not all of it can be recovered.
Capturing the CO2 and locking it away underground in depleted oil reserves, for example, offers potentially the prospect of a material saving in the carbon impact of coal. It could also have added advantages in the medium term in that the CO2 could be used to help in the recovery of oil in our declining North Sea oilfields. Evidence to date indicates that CO2 can be used to flush out some of the oil that it would otherwise not be possible to extract. The oil companies have an interest and in the longer term we might be able to use the depleted North Sea reserves to lock away the CO2. A great deal of work still needs to be done in this area.
1092
The team will also look at measures that might be taken to create an incentive to make carbon savings from coal use. The noble Lords, Lord Lofthouse and Lord Ezra, raised the question of a cleaner coal or sustainable energy obligation, which is a possibility. But we need to think carefully about the right mechanisms to create incentives in industry.
Your Lordships will understand that I cannot give precise answers to a number of questions until we have the outcome of the PIU's review of energy policy and my department's review of the case for supporting cleaner coal technology demonstration plant These matters should be much clearer early next year when both teams have published their reports. I know that both teams will reflect carefully on the many points that have been made by noble Lords in this interesting and informative debate tonight. I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return in due course.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. I suggest that the House reconvenes at 9 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.56 to 9 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 1).
The noble Lord said: We come to Amendment No. 35 which is concerned with Declaration 1 adopted by the conference. While these declarations are part of the command paper and are included in the treaty document they are not part of the treaty itself. This amendment is concerned with the first declaration which focuses on European security and defence policy. It states that,
"the objective for the European Union is for that policy to become operational quickly. A decision to that end will be taken by the European Council as soon as possible in 2001 and no later than at its meeting in Laeken"—
which is a few weeks ahead but still in 2001—
"…on the basis of the existing provisions of the Treaty on European Union. Consequently, the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice does not constitute a precondition".
Nevertheless, the declaration is included in the command paper, and I hope the Committee accepts that the issues it raises are relevant to the Bill and the treaty.
The word that catches the eye in the declaration is "quickly". The Belgian Government and many others are particularly anxious that these matters should be taken forward rapidly. Since the horrors of 11th September a great deal has been said about the need for European defence co-operation to be strengthened. That is something that we have never opposed; indeed, we have actively supported it. To me

1093
and many of my noble friends, it has long appeared vital that a much stronger contribution by the European powers to the overall defence effort of Europe within NATO is essential and that the continuing lack of compatibility and interoperability of defence capabilities in Europe is highly undesirable.
Perhaps the point at which differences between my noble friends and the government Benches arise is the precise nature of the reaction to that challenge and how it should be met. One proposition that is strongly aired with renewed vigour by Mr Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence, is that the rapid reaction force project should be pushed forward more rapidly and the whole idea given a high-level flavour. I remain confused—perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to clarify the position—as to the aim of the rapid reaction force. Is it to be an expeditionary force that can operate out of area, as the Secretary of State for Defence appeared to hint at this morning and as many others have indicated, or is it intended for more low level humanitarian peacekeeping tasks? Without intending to be derogatory, is it to be a glorified travelling policing operation? One minute one sees talk, as in the Financial Times this morning, about the need for precision guided missiles; the next minute there is talk about its capacity for law enforcement, social care, rehabilitation and so on. For those outside the process it is very hard to focus on precisely what is planned.
I have no difficulty with the objective of a stronger European end of NATO. It is only when one comes to the proposition of autonomy that all the difficulties begin. I sometimes wonder whether they are all worthwhile. I understand that originally it was to please the French at St Malo, but has it carried forward the tasks any more rapidly? Certainly, the general view is that matters are proceeding rather too slowly. Klaus Bühler of the Bundestag is quoted in this morning papers as saying,
"We still have not seen any progress on precision guided missiles, anti-air defence or forces protection".
I am not even clear about the numbers. I understood that 60,000 troops were to be put in the front line, but this morning it is said that so far 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships have been pledged by members states. Presumably, that means that those facilities have been earmarked, double-hatted or whatever is the technical phrase.
Perhaps the real signal we seek that something is happening and this is not just talk, or to do with other objectives—for example, a European identity—is extra spending. Is there to be a radically increased defence spending programme throughout the EU membership which I understand Her Majesty's Government believe is necessary? The figure of an additional 25 billion dollars over 10 years has been mentioned, but at present one sees very little sign of it. Here we have a good defence programme, although some say that it should be stronger. We are ahead of the game as compared with the rest of the European Union where defence budgets have been progressively cut. The Committee would be greatly helped if the
1094
noble Baroness could reassure it, particularly in view of reported statements by the Secretary of State for Defence as to the precise aims and goals of the new force. Are they still Petersberg tasks, or something more? Perhaps the noble Baroness will reassure us about whether the defence spending necessary to make it work will occur.
We believe that a force of some kind within the NATO framework is vital for the security of an enlarged European Union. However, we question whether the force which the declaration appears to want to become operational quickly will, as a political project, avoid duplication, division and debate and instead deliver the defence and security that Europe needs. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to know one thing about the European defence arrangements. There must be worry in the minds of some, particularly in the Armed Forces, about where the additional troops will come from. From the figures I have seen, our troops are already fully committed in Germany, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland and Cyprus. That adds up to the 65,000 operational troops available. We shall now apparently send a force of at least 6,000—it may be 12,000; we do not know—to Afghanistan. We do not know how long they are likely to be there. It is essential to know where the troops are coming from and that when they are available they will be properly equipped and financed. As I stated in another debate, that has not been the case for quite a long time.
Those are the questions I wish to ask about the new defence arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist me.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Perhaps I may comment on the context of the declaration. We know that there is some pressure from the Belgian presidency to make a declaration at the Laeken European Council that the rapid reaction force will have become operational. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will resist any such declaration when it comes to the European Council unless there is clear evidence of substantial pledges of further assistance from other governments including in particular the Belgian Government who have taken a large number of defence cuts.
Perhaps I may be a little mischievous. When we first debated the clause in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to plans to develop a European army, with its own marching song. What progress has been made on the marching song? What language will it be in? What will the tune be?
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord will be sadly disappointed. I cannot give him any further information on the marching song. It is an interesting point. If further information is available, I assure the noble Lord that it will be his very shortly.
I am well aware that the matters relating to the European rapid reaction force have been the subject of considerable debate for quite some time. As a Minister

1095
in the Ministry of Defence and now in the Foreign Office, I have addressed them on a number of occasions. However, let us deal with their place in this discussion. The Nice conclusions make it clear that the goal for the EU is to have a rapid reaction force operational as soon as possible—that is, one which can be called upon. I stress that it is not a standing rapid reaction force. It is not a Euro-army or any of the other wrong classifications given by those who have sought to give such a complexion to what we have tried to draw up in regard to what is now necessary in Europe in terms of some sort of military capability when NATO does not wish to be engaged.
To that end, both the Swedish and the Belgian presidencies have made progress on two fronts. The first is the establishment and validation of the permanent structures and crisis management procedures. The second front is the pursuit of discussions with NATO with a view to establishing arrangements between the European Union and NATO, which is obviously an important point of liaison.
The Political and Security Committee and the EU Military Committee were established under the Swedish presidency. The process of ensuring that they function well and of testing EU crisis management procedures has continued under the Belgian presidency during the second half of this year. The EU and NATO have reached agreement on elements of their permanent relationship and working to agree what is termed as "detailed Berlin-plus arrangements" for EU access to NATO assets. Those EU/NATO agreements will also need to be validated and exercised. Thus these are matters which are being discussed regularly with NATO colleagues. We have here a dual effort seeking to ensure that no duplication of effort takes place between the two.
As the noble Lord indicated, of course we share the objective of making the EU operational for military crisis management as soon as possible. However, the "possible" is far more important than the "soon". Perhaps I may put it in this way: the issue is far too important to be rushed or tied to an artificial deadline. The goal is for the EU to be capable by 2003 of undertaking military operations across the spectrum of the Petersberg tasks. That requires efficient EU structures, effective relations with NATO—on which a great deal of time has been spent—and improved capabilities. Noble Lords will know that the capabilities conference is under way. We are pursuing those three aspects, all of which are crucial.
At Nice it was also agreed in a non-legally binding declaration that the ESDP would become operational quickly and that the decision would be taken by the Laeken Council. We share the objective of making the EU operational for crisis management as soon as possible but, as I have said, we have to get this right. It must form the underlying bedrock of our efforts. We cannot rush towards the deadline of Laeken and we cannot commit to a decision which remains to be reached at that conference. It must be the right decision and I personally believe that it will be taken at Laeken, but of course it is for the members to decide.
1096
The noble Lord has pointed out that it is vital for a much stronger contribution to be made to the overall NATO capability. He is entirely right to say that both interoperability and capability are important. We believe that the rapid reaction force will work better for NATO and better for fulfilling those Petersberg tasks in which NATO does not wish to become involved. The noble Lord asked what exactly are those tasks. They are expeditionary forces, out-of-area forces, low-level humanitarian forces and peacekeeping forces; namely, they provide humanitarian operations. I have cited examples such as assisting flood victims, as we were able to undertake some 18 months ago in Africa.
Other crises may arise which would be difficult to define at the moment, but they would be ones in which NATO would not wish to become involved and where the territorial integrity of the NATO signatories would not be at stake, or peace-keeping or enforcement. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that we have long lived with the definition of Petersberg tasks in relation to the WEU. Indeed, it is those Petersberg tasks that we still refer to in relation to the rapid reaction force. We have been over this ground many times. I am sure that the noble Lord will be tempted to quote many commentators from Europe and elsewhere who have cast doubts and perhaps have pointed to certain more high-flown ambitions. However, I should say to the noble Lord that what really matters is what is said by those who are taking the real decisions as regards the aims of the force, as well as what is said by our major ally in NATO, the United States.
The United States has been the principal player in NATO and NATO remains our cornerstone. I remind the noble Lord of what was said by President Bush when he and the Prime Minister met at Camp David:
"We support the efforts of NATO's European members and other European nations to assume greater responsibility for crisis management in Europe by strengthening NATO's capabilities and developing the ability to manage efforts where NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged".
I could not put that more plainly than the President of the United States. He seems completely to have grasped the point and has put his confidence in what we are doing in Europe.
The noble Lord asked about extra spending. The Government have put extra funding into our defence budget. We believe that that was right, given the commitments of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the noble Lord will acknowledge that the Government instituted the first increase in defence spending for some 10 years, as I recall. We have done that because it was necessary. It was not a direct response to the European rapid reaction capability. We are exhorting our European colleagues to look not necessarily and entirely at extra spending, although it would be very welcome if some of them did, but to look at spending where it is really needed. That is what the capability conference is about.
The European initiative is about the European nations improving the practicalities and the real capabilities, with better armed forces capable of quicker reaction and more effective deployment.

1097
European defence will really make NATO stronger. I am constantly disappointed that the Benches opposite do not acknowledge that what we are doing here will make NATO stronger by improving the European capability. Of course, NATO will remain essential to our collective defence and our first choice in managing crises. It is only when NATO chooses not be engaged that the European arrangements kick in.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised the question of additional troops. They are not additional troops, but a question of troops that can be made available. At its worst, over stretch was running at about 40 per cent of the deployment of our Armed Forces. That was reduced to under 30 per cent. I say to the noble Lord that we always have to prioritise when operating under a NATO umbrella and it is no different from having to do so when we operate under an EU umbrella.
The noble Lord told us earlier this afternoon that the Prime Minister had done magnificently in holding his corner against too much centralisation and singularisation of foreign policy in Europe. I agree that the point that he made was about foreign policy. But I believe that the same can be said about what is happening on the military front. The fact is that we have kept an absolute veto for the United Kingdom on these issues.
We turn now to the question of whether or not we are going to be rushed into any decisions. I assure the noble Lord that we are not. We would like to stick to the timetable and we believe that we shall be able to do so. But I assure the noble Lord that the Government's priority is to get this right.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Obviously, her assurances are reassuring and bring additional clarity to a situation which, after a few days, tends to become clouded again. I hope that this time the clouds stay away.
I confess that I will still need constant reassurance, as will members of the public, and certainly your Lordships, about the humanitarian tasks. In the noble Baroness's phrase, the "what is it all about?" question will need constant clarification, and rightly so. These are military resources backed by taxpayers' money. People have a right to know what any new forces are for. If they are for flood relief and humanitarian tasks and matters yet difficult to define, one is left wondering how flood relief will be secured by 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships. That sounds more like the expeditionary force of the Greeks against Troy except, presumably, they would not have had aircraft. That is a very big operation, yet the noble Baroness is describing much lower profile operations. That is not quite what the Secretary of State is reported as saying this morning. I have not checked the original text, only the newspaper reports.
All the time there is a desperate need to keep in focus and state with precision what this additional force is for and to ensure that it meets the criteria laid down by everybody, including the Prime Minister in some statements and President Bush, but not, from time to
1098
time, various other European statesmen, generals and so on, who clearly have something different in mind. So I am reassured.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, rightly raising his eyebrow at the thought of a marching song, I freely state that I took it from a pamphlet of a very reliable and learned columnist, Mr Irwin Steltzer. But perhaps feeling that it was not enough to rely on him I did check with the authorities connected with the European Commission. Rather like the noble Baroness, I received a kind of silence, followed by a feeling that they had no record of the idea of a marching song related to the rapid reaction force—which, after all, so far has not marched anywhere—but that it rang a faint bell in relation to the Euro Brigade. Further conversation—not of the totally thorough kind which the Committee deserves—indicated to me that the Euro Brigade did and does have a marching song. So it may be that I was confusing the Euro Brigade with the RRF, which, I recognise, are two very different organisations. I apologise if there was confusion as a result of my remarks.
I have nothing more to add at this late stage. I am grateful for the further reassurances—although I should say, slightly gloomily, that I suspect that before we are through we may need still more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 35A:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 2).
The noble Lord said: We turn now from the clarity of military operations to the fog of the law. The Tampere European Council in October 1999 agreed on the establishment of Eurojust. At Nice it was agreed that the Council "shall promote co-operation through Eurojust" in three main areas: to enable Eurojust to facilitate co-ordination between the prosecuting authorities of member states; to promote support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime; and to facilitate close co-operation between Eurojust and the European judicial network, especially to facilitate extradition requests.
We on these Benches, of course, support improved co-ordination in these areas; but we oppose any move beyond that. I observe that, in the course of the proceedings of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny that led to its sixth report, the Government undertook not to accept any operational role for Eurojust in national criminal investigations or prosecutions. In this context, moreover, the report also expressed some anxiety about the content of certain draft documents. In particular, the report stated:
"The requirement that a prosecuting authority in a Member State should be obliged to account to Eurojust for its reasons for not complying with a request to prosecute, or for not complying with a request to co-ordinate prosecutions with those of another Member State, suggests to us that Eurojust is intended to have some influence over prosecution discretions: otherwise there would seem to be little point in asking for the reasons to be stated".
Our concern is that Eurojust may prove to be the first step towards a European Union public prosecutor. Unreassuringly, for example, Commissioner Victorino said:
"A provisional judicial co-operation unit, which will serve as a kind of laboratory, enabling us to conceive and simultaneously test Eurojust, will take up its work soon. We may in the longer term also agree on the concept of centralised prosecution as a further logical step along the path of co-operation and coordination within the Union, at least for a number of sectors of particular European relevance".
And the explanatory statement in the Gebhardt report, voted in the European Parliament last November, said:
"Eurojust must&be so constituted that it can be regarded as a forerunner of a future European public prosecution service designed to strengthen the European Union's judicial dimension in relation to criminal law".
We need to be sure that, by inserting treaty articles in this area, the EU is not paving the way for a journey beyond co-operation, to a new form of acquis communautaire. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: If one has a de facto federal public prosecutor, as foreshadowed by the commissioner quoted by the noble Lord, will that not lead inexorably to a federal bureau of investigation—even if under another name—whose agents have the power to go anywhere, with or without the knowledge and permission of the local police, and bear firearms if they require them? Further, persons caught by such agents, prosecuted and convicted could serve their sentences in a federal penitentiary.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Article 31(2) lays down means by which the council shall encourage co-operation through Eurojust. However, the declaration that is the subject of the amendment merely records that member states agreed some time ago the role of Eurojust and where and when the decision to establish it was taken.
Speculation about what might happen is not as important as what the declaration says about Eurojust:
"A unit composed of national prosecutors, magistrates or police officers of equivalent competence detached from each member state, having the task of facilitating proper co-ordination between national prosecuting authorities and of supporting criminal investigations in organised crime cases".
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reminded us that the decision to establish Eurojust was taken by the Tampere European Council in October 1999. The declaration makes clear that the intention was to improve co-operation between national prosecutors aiding national criminal investigations into serious organised crime. Eurojust is not a supranational European police force but an arrangement to cover intergovernmental co-operation for the good of our citizens across Europe.
We are only too painfully aware that organised crime stopped long ago respecting any kind of national boundaries. The UK Government strongly support Eurojust and the benefits it will bring to
1100
tackling organised crime effectively. Improving judicial co-operation across the EU will also help to ensure that serious organised crime is properly investigated and prosecuted.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that Eurojust will not mean—as he saw reported—interference by the European Union in national investigations and prosecutions. Neither will it mean an end to British legal tradition or be a body that investigates and prosecutes in its own right. Eurojust will not be a centralised European public prosecutor. It will be a means by which investigations will continue to be conducted by national authorities. Eurojust's role will be to aid cross-border investigations through co-operation between national authorities.
Eurojust is a network designed to crack down on international organised crime, to help put an end to the misery caused by traffickers in drugs and human beings, and to bring money launderers to book—something that all members of the Committee should be able to support.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which I find greatly reassuring. Last night, we debated at some length the question of the European warrant. Those who attended that debate will recall that we are about to be faced with a new regime whereby an important part of the criminal law of our country will come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I am much relieved to hear that that will not be the case for Eurojust. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: Not-Content!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In that case, I must put the Question, That this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not-Content!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think that the "Not-Contents" have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 22)"
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment because I am a little concerned that there is a change to the holding and the venues of future European Councils. It seems that, from 2002, one European Council per presidency will be held in Brussels and one

1101
in member states holding the presidency; and that when the Union reaches 18 members, all Councils will be held in Brussels.
I cannot understand the reason for this. It merely provides further evidence that the final purpose is to create a unitary state—a country called Europe. Although holding Council meetings in Brussels may be administratively expedient, the idea tends to undermine the concept of the European Union as an organisation of nation states, and gives further credence to supra-nationality by adding to the existing symbols of statehood that of a permanent capital city where the real power resides.
Peripatetic presidencies at least maintain the illusion of nationhood. I should have thought that it would have some propaganda value for the Euro-spinmasters that at least some meetings are held in the member countries—for example, in this country, in London, Cardiff or Edinburgh, or perhaps even in Belfast. I cannot quite understand why it has been necessary to alter that arrangement. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I have a great deal of sympathy with a part of this amendment. The declaration is nonsensical. This was not done in order to build a centralised state; it was done as a particularly "dirty deal" between the French presidency and the Belgian Prime Minister at a late stage in the early morning declarations. I strongly suspect that the Belgians will come to regret this change when the cost of holding European Councils in Brussels gets through to them. We do not support the removal of the provision, but I regret to say that it is one of the least glorious aspects of the way in which treaties and their declarations are negotiated. I would much rather that it were not there.
Lord Blackwell: Whatever the intent behind the declaration, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that its effect would be in due course to establish a permanent centre of government for the European Union. If we are clear that it is a union of nation states and that the Council of Ministers is the primary council, which involves nations coming together to agree from time to time, an important part of that symbolism is that the nations are the hosts for those meetings and that all European Union member states have their turn at hosting them. The only symbolism and effect that can come out of having a permanent location is to strengthen the power of the central machinery. Regardless of whether the intent was to create a European government, it is de facto a move that would lead in that direction. For that reason, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in objecting to the declaration.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The European Council—the heads of state and government of the member states—now meets often. In recent years, there have typically been two or three European Council meetings per presidency. At least one formal
1102
meeting is always held at the end of each presidency, as will be the case when the Belgian presidency hosts the Laeken European Council next month.
In recent years there has been a second formal European Council meeting in the first half of each year—for example, the meeting in Lisbon in spring 2000 to launch the new economic reform process. That was followed up by the European Council at Stockholm in March this year, under the Swedish presidency. There is also traditionally an informal European Council meeting every autumn which does not reach conclusions. Last month's meeting in Ghent is the most recent example.
In addition, the European Council has met on other occasions when circumstances have warranted it—for example, the extraordinary meeting on 21st September which decided the European Union's response to the terrorist attacks in the United States of America. All, or most, of those meetings have been held in the country holding the presidency.
However, as the European Council has grown in importance, it has brought with it increasing burdens on the host. Those burdens are not just financial and practical—although those aspects can be considerable. There are also very important security burdens. The scenes at the Gothenburg European Council in June, where the meeting was seriously disrupted by protesters, are still fresh in our minds.
The measure is not merely window dressing, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, implied. The system genuinely needs reform. That is what we agreed at Nice. We decided on two points. First, from 2002, one European Council per presidency will be held in Brussels. That will still leave presidencies free to hold a second formal meeting and an informal European Council in their own country, should they wish to do so. Secondly, once the EU enlarges to 18 members, all European Council meetings will be held in Brussels. That applies to all formal meetings. The possibility of the presidency holding informal meetings in its own country will remain.
That is a genuine and sensible reform. Once the European Council has its own permanent venue, organisation and security will become a matter of routine rather than a matter requiring months of planning and great expense by the presidency country. The Belgian authorities have long experience of handling international meetings, as all your Lordships will be well aware.
That is particularly relevant following the events of 11th September. Security is a real issue now for such meetings. This is a sensible change, designed to deliver efficiency. The amendment would overturn all that. That is why, I am sorry to say, we have to reject it.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Blackwell, for their support. I must confess that I was surprised to receive support from the Liberal Front

1103
Bench—we are making progress—but I was sorry not to have received support from the Labour Front Bench as well.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I understand her reasons but I am not at all sure that what is proposed is wise. It is necessary: the Government have said so; the EU has said so; even the Commission has said so. We must inform people about what is happening in the European Union and what it is all about so that the EU will receive more support and be better loved.
Frankly, the way to do that is not by centralisation but by decentralisation. Although the Minister may think that peripatetic meetings are unimportant, I assure her that they are not. I understood her to say that for various reasons it was better to hold them in one venue rather than in various capital cities throughout the EU. I am sorry if I misunderstood her.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not wish to trespass further on the Committee's time, but my point was that, although there are important practical and cost considerations, the Government believe the security question to be far more important. I hope that the noble Lord will take that on board.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand that. The Minister may like to know that I have been holding counter-conferences—counter-intergovernmental conferences and what have you—in various cities, so I have observed what happens.
The Edinburgh Council was in fact a great carnival. There were flags and banquets everywhere. Edinburgh was delighted to host the European Council. I also went to Cardiff. Cardiff had never experienced anything like having all those great potentates in that great city. M Chirac told the United States that his objective was to ensure that the euro gained first place from the dollar. People thought that that was great.
I also went to Nice. I must confess that I was a little worried because Nice was a city under siege. I have never seen so many soldiers with guns; and I have never seen such a remote and unprotected organisation.
Lord Tomlinson: They heard that you were there, then.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As a matter of fact, they did not. Unfortunately, they would not agree to see me or my delegation. I am sorry about that, but it did not happen.
Although I appreciate the new security situation—although perhaps it has always existed—it may well be that centralising the meetings in one place may worsen, not improve the security problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, it may well be that the Belgians will regret the centralising of Council meetings as Brussels becomes the hated capital of the European Union.
1104
It would be absurd for me to press the amendment but it is a serious one. I shall certainly think about the matter between now and Report and I hope that the Minister will also think about it before Report because the European Council may very well be doing completely the wrong thing and it will regret that later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 23 (5))"
The noble Lord said: Our concern here is with sub-paragraph (5) of the declaration we have just discussed. That sub-paragraph concerns the status of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is an appropriate moment for me to seek to clarify a confusion that arose about which the noble Baroness wrote to me. She wrote to me on two matters and I replied to her today on one of them. She may wish to read my reply before she raises it again. However, I hope that we can clear up the other matter that worried her.
On Second Reading the noble Baroness said of the charter that,
"It was not incorporated; it was not even attached to the treaty; and it is not referred to anywhere within the treaty".—[Official Report, 1/11/01; col. 1626.]
At which point she then made a further comment not germane to that issue and I intervened and said,
"I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. This may be a pedantic point, but the charter is referred to at page 78 of the treaty".
The noble Baroness then generously said that she would give her officials a hard time the next day if that was the case. In fact, what I said was marginally wrong. I should have used the words "attached to the treaty" and not "of the treaty". Attached to the treaty the document certainly is in the Command Paper on the Treaty of Nice, which includes the protocols with the final acts and declarations.
I apologise for having used the words "of the treaty" and not "attached to the treaty" However, I must slightly qualify my apology as, if the noble Baroness is to give her officials a hard time, she might still possibly do so for not including in her brief the point that, even though the charter is not attached to the treaty and it is not referred to anywhere within the treaty, a reference to the charter is attached to the treaty. That is a pretty fine point if I may say so. If she will accept that point in the spirit in which I make my apology I shall be content. As regards the other matter I mentioned, I hope that she will study my letter as that matter is not straightforward and no doubt we shall have to try to sort it out on another occasion.
I turn to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I think that most people fear—perhaps some people welcome—the fact that the charter will become mandatory law. Already there are indications of that. Voices in the world of the European Court of Justice

1105
have indicated that they would take it into account in reaching their decisions. An excellent report by the European Union sub-committee of your Lordships' House made clear that the charter has been so drafted that it could easily be adopted in legally binding form. I believe that at one stage a Minister of State in the Foreign Office said it was no more important than Beano. Assurances have been given that it is just a reassertion of rights and a shop window and so on. Nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that there is a real desire in various European institutions and perhaps also in European member states to make this a mandatory set of rights.
We believe that that is the wrong approach and we consider it to be an unconstructive approach for a number of important reasons. One is that it seems to confuse—we have touched on this in earlier debates—two sorts of rights. There are, indeed, great and important basic rights for humankind: rights to free speech, rights concerning the rule of law, freedom from arbitrary arrest, liberty under the law, the right to participate in free elections, and so on.
Those are the necessities under which free societies and free markets operate and they are incorporated in the UN and other conventions. They are incorporated in the European Convention on Human Rights. They are the territory, if I may express it in that way, of the Council of Europe, which was set up under the inspiration of British Ministers, including the late Lord Kilmuir, in the post-war period. No one could object to those rights being reasserted. Whether the European Union feels that, on top of all the other assertions of these rights, it is necessary to join in the chorus is a marginal matter; I should have thought that it was a distraction from a now unnecessary addition—a fifth wheel, if one likes, on the coach.
However, that is not where the charter stops. It then goes on to refer to a whole series of other, very important rights. However, they are rights which many of us would contend are important social priorities which should be settled—many are one group's priorities at the expense of another group—at national level through the legitimate democratic process. That is why people elect to send their Members of Parliament, in our case, to the other place and why we are mandated to seek to have a scrutinising and improving role in what comes out of the other place.
Many issues which the European Charter of Fundamental Rights proceeds to elevate to the institutional supranational level are the stuff of our normal debates. If those rights are to be challenged, as often they are, it is our democratic, political process that should challenge them. They should not be frozen into some loftier and more remote arrangements and then woven into the law of the European Union and subsequently, of course, into our own laws by the back door. I refer to the rights to education, to conduct a business and to asylum and to rights for children, for the elderly—I become more and more interested in that as times goes on—rights to worker information, to worker consultation, access to placement services,
1106
paid parental leave, environmental protection, consumer protection, the right to petition and various other rights-based issues. They are all very important.
In the pattern of our politics, and to some extent in this rights-based age in which more and more decisions are reached on the basis of claims of rights rather than through the more traditional ways of democratic politics—that is probably the fault of politicians, but it is the case—these are very much the currency of our debates and of our national politics.
I cannot see, and I do not believe that many of my noble friends can see, why there is a need to turn these issues into a gigantic new charter, carrying all the declarations of rights into the centre of the European institutions and, via that, into the heart of the affairs of the various member states. I do not believe that that adds very much to the preservation or furthering of rights, good or less good, selfish or universal.
The charter says:
"Nothing in [it] shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms".
I believe that in adding this superfluous list, some checks, damages, adverse effects and restrictions are placed on the unfolding and unending process of establishing people's rights and preserving their freedoms. It is my belief that, by pressing the concept of rights at far too remote a level, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not merely adding nothing; it is damaging to the debates which in modern politics are becoming more and more dominated by rights-based issues.
Behind all of that is a different agenda which we have hardly discussed today, although it will come up increasingly in the coming weeks, and which was triggered by the Nice Council. That agenda involves the new goal of having a new European constitution. Ministers are already close to agreement on the composition of the relevant convention. We have been told—I am afraid that that is all—that the convention will be composed of representatives of national Parliaments (two representatives per country), governments of EU countries (one representative per government) and the European Parliament and the European Commission (one representative seat; I suppose that that is per country). Apparently, it has been agreed that the European Parliament will have 16 seats; that appears to involve one seat for the European Parliament and 15 for the countries. I suppose that some such arrangement is involved.
It is a nice, cosy arrangement on which we have not really been consulted at all. Moreover, it will not work in that there has not really been a democratic exchange about how the shape of Europe should unfold; the arrangements will be more or less set on tramlines before the convention takes place. The arrangement will not be adequate in terms of parliamentary representation or involvement from this country; that would be achieved only if Ministers came back to this House and the other place regularly and continuously and told us what the debates were and how the arguments were going. However distinguished are the two Members who we send from our national

1107
Parliament, they will not be in a position to represent our concerns or views or to reflect the full span of our debate. The arrangement involves nominal not real democracy.
Just a few weeks previously, the chairman of the convention will be chosen at Laeken. Various people have demanded that they should be that chairman. That argument continues—or it may have been settled by now; I am not up to date. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is intended to give shape to the new constitution.
I believe that the concept—I am not universally supported in this—of trying to get a fixed constitution with a fixed set of barriers or lines that define competencies at the various levels of the EU, underpinned by the charter, involves a hopeless task. That is because life, conditions and issues change so fast that matters that are within the proper competence of the central European institutions one week or one month may be more appropriately dealt with by agencies or committees that are not at the institutional level. Alternatively, those matters might be dealt with in one institution rather than another, by agencies that are manned by national and institutional personnel or at the national level. The flow is ever more rapid in a network world. The chances of freezing the situation with competencies, charters and assertions of rights is forlorn and a distraction of energy from the other, more important, task that we have been discussing. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The discussion that the noble Lord initiated on the Charter of Fundamental Rights struck a note with me. We have to be careful before we call everything that one wants a "right". My view is that a right is very specific whereas a wish-list is quite different. I look forward to the Minister's response on that matter.
I turn to the rest of Declaration 23.5, which would be eliminated by the amendment. If the amendment were agreed to, we should lose from among the tasks that the European Council has to take on the requirement that:
"The process should address … how to establish and monitor more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and the Member States, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity".
I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would be in favour of that. We should also lose the requirement to address,
"a simplification of the Treaties with a view to making them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning".
I should have thought that that, too, was rather desirable. We should also lose a discussion on,
"the role of national parliaments in the European architecture".
I deplore the use of the word "architecture", at least they do not call it "choreography" which is an even more modern word for such a matter. The role of national parliaments in the European architecture may also produce some rather interesting discussions into which those who wish to do so could put their all.
1108
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howell, can tell us what he will do about the parts of the subsection that he may like as well as the parts that he plainly does not like.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I love a good debate, but occasionally my eyes float down towards the actual text of the amendment. Perhaps I can deal with the two points. First, as regards the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will be pleased to hear that I share the view that we should not put the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaty, now or later. I share his view on the substance of that point.
I believe that the amendment is rather convoluted. Its effect would be that all the declarations that do not have treaty force would be carried into the European Communities Act 1972 under the definition of treaties. Declarations do not have treaty force, so I do not believe that that could be done. That would be the effect, except for this one paragraph. The rest would go into the European Communities Act 1972, although they are not actually treaties.
We would simply have a little part left out, but the rest would remain there, including the conference in 2004. If this amendment were adopted, there would be no guidance at all for that conference. History has shown that intergovernmental conferences do far too much anyway, but this would give them the freest rein possible. It gives no indication at all about the issues that they may be asked to consider.
The consequence of the amendment itself would be to create almighty confusion in the way in which our law operates in relation to treaties and declarations and to avoid giving any substantive guidance to the intergovernmental conference in 2004. For those reasons I do not believe that the amendment makes a great deal of sense. Of course, the point that was raised in debate is a substantive one and one to which we should pay attention, not just now but in 2004.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for tabling this amendment. There may be certain matters wrong with it, but it has enabled us to discuss the issue of the charter of fundamental rights. It is most unfortunate that that should have been brought forward. I cannot believe for one moment that Her Majesty's Government are happy that the matter has been discussed. I sincerely hope that they are not happy about M. Chirac's suggestion that it should be written in treaty form, not in 2004, but before then.
I am sure that the Government will understand that the essence of this charter, the ideas behind it and its drafting are for the purpose of imposing a written constitution on the nations of Europe, including Britain. Such a written constitution runs completely contrary to our flexible constitution that gives people freedom to pursue their own affairs, constrained only by statute and the common law which can be altered to meet changing times and circumstances. That system has already been modified—I understand that—through the various EU treaties and very often, if not always, to the detriment of the British people and their constitution.

1109
One cannot go into all the provisions of the charter. But there are some that are patently absurd. For example, Article 2 states:
"Everyone has the right to life".
I thought that that was God's prerogative. Surely the EU will not apply the acquis communautaire to that as well? Then there is Article 48. That states:
"Presumption of innocence and right of defence. 1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".
The EU has made that impossible because under the sex discrimination laws the burden of proof is on the employer. In other words, he is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent. So there are a number of absurdities. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, read a few of them out. I just wanted to give those two as an example. But the whole charter is riddled with absurdities. I sincerely hope that that will never be written to in any treaty. Indeed, we do not need a charter at all. We have so many damn charters that I do not think the lawyers can keep up with them in this country or worldwide.
I turn to the discussions that will take place about the future of the European Union. It is all very well to say that there will be two representatives from each national parliament, but how will the people be represented? That is what I want to know. I feel quite sure that the two people who go from the British Parliament will be in favour of the European Union and its further development. There are at least 33 per cent of British people who would come out of the EU tomorrow. How will they be represented? There is a sceptical voice. How will that be put? It is no good people running away from that. It has been put in this House tonight as well as in the House of Commons and up and down the country in discussions, in people's homes, in pubs and in all kinds of places, and in public meetings which some of us are good enough to arrange. There has to be some other point of view put. I should like to know exactly how that will be put and by whom.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Howell's amendment. I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the Government's position on the charter. That is usual Euro-guff which appropriates to itself rights which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, are given by God or by existing laws of the nation states. It is absolutely nothing to do with the European Union whatever whether people's "Human dignity is inviolable". Is that anything to do with the European Union? Of course it is not.
"Everyone has the right to life".
That is nothing to do with the EU either.
"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity".
What on earth is the European Union talking about? It goes on and on.
"No one should be held in slavery or servitude".
1110
Thank you very much Brussels. Then it rather pathetically states:
"Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service".
I do not know what that means. But it surely is not a fundamental human right given by the European Union. All these rights are either given by the nation states in their own laws or are rights which are agreed by the United Nations. It is nothing to do with the European Union. But it seems to be gathering them to itself. I think the suggestion by Mr Keith Vaz was to then put them on little plastic cards on his "Your Britain, your Europe tour" with Mr Eddie Izzard. We would all get little cards saying how wonderful the European Union is because it is giving us all these rights.
Of course it is nothing to do with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned these conflicts of interest.
Article 21 refers to non-discrimination. It states:
"Any discrimination based on any ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief … shall be prohibited".
Article 23 states that,
"the principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex".
That seems to me to be giving people the right to discriminate. I look forward to the answer on that.
This is a frightfully sorry mish-mash of a wish list. The European Union is trying to tell the luckless citizens that it represents that they should be grateful to the European Union for giving them those rights. It is a summary of rights that all the other member states in the European Union already have. We might divide on this amendment. We might be able to vote on it; it certainly should not be part of the treaty, but I am not clear about the technical position.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: I wonder whether half of the noble Lord's objection to these sentiments, which he may call banal but which are certainly laudable, stems from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, earlier. He said that we hated the European Union and everything that comes out of it. As everything that is coming out of it is obviously laudable, presumably he cannot support it for that reason.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: The point is that these rights are given not by the European Union but by the nation states. The wool is being pulled over our eyes yet again.
I am so grateful for being interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, because I missed a further point, which deals with property rights. Article 17 states:
"No one may be deprived of his or her lawfully acquired possessions except in the public interest … The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest".

1111
How will that be interpreted and dealt with? Someone may decide that it is in the public interest that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, be deprived of his property. Would that be right? Who will decide what is in the public or general interest? The whole charter is shot through with contradictions and flaws. Frankly, it is total rubbish and we should reject it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Since the noble Lord has been good enough to mention my position in this matter, perhaps I may put a few questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, if she is the Minister who will reply. I was not sure whether the noble Lord would pick up this particular hot potato. I am in a muddle as to who will reply. If the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is to reply, I am sure that the Committee will be grateful. I look forward to her reply in due course and the answers to the following questions in particular.
I concur with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that it would be interesting to know the Government's attitude to the charter. Why is it necessary? Is it in addition to the European Convention on Human Rights, or will it compete with it in some way? Is it envisaged that there should be some kind of union of the two charters and the jurisdictions of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts? In other words, are the two charters competitive or will they come together?
If the charter is to be enacted will it take precedence over our law? The Minister may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that it should not become law, but if it does will it take precedence over our law, as has been suggested by people who are rather nervous of it?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to help the noble Lord and the Minister. If it becomes part of the treaty it will become justiciable in the European Court of Justice, in which case it automatically overrides British law under Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is an authority on these matters, but, if that is the case, I should prefer to hear it from the Minister because that will carry more authority in this Chamber.
Next, which are the precise provisions of the charter that are superior to British law as it stands? If enacted, what rights does the charter give us which we do not already have? Do we really need lectures and charters on so-called human rights from bureaucrats in Brussels and the other nations of the European Union? Is this not an area in which we lead the world?
I hope that I can give the Minister some hope by quoting an article from the proposed charter which is to be found in volume one of the brilliant analysis of the Treaty of Nice by the British Management Data Foundation. The Committee will be aware that the foundation has produced analyses of the Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht which are the only versions that one can understand. One cannot understand the blue document that has been produced
1112
by the Foreign Office deliberately so that one —let alone the people—is not able to understand it. One cannot see what new bits are added by the Treaty of Nice to what was there before. I commend volume one to the Committee. I have placed a number of free copies in the Library so that anyone who wants to have it can do so. One sees produced in black and white, not Technicolor—that is a step forward—the glorious Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
If true, Article 41 is a colossal step forward for humanity in these days when our democracy is clearly being strangled by bureaucracy. It gives us the right to good administration. Does the noble Baroness believe that that will happen? Article 41 provides in paragraph 1 that,
"Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union".
Pull the other one! It goes on to say in paragraph 2 that,
"This right includes:
the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken:
the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy"—
and presumably also of the bureaucracy—
"the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions".
Paragraph 3 states:
"Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States".
Paragraph 4 states:
"Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language".
Bearing in mind the present situation in which the democracy of the United Kingdom has become entirely strangled by bureaucracy and bogged down in all manner of bureaucratic obfuscation, does the Minister believe that there is any hope in that clause? If it comes to pass it would be a glorious advance.
My final question to the Minister is perhaps the most important. Once you have a declaration of this kind attached to the treaty, whether it is on page 78 or referred to elsewhere, is not the Luxembourg Court of Justice already taking into account in its judgments the content of this charter? The Luxembourg Court has already said that it is doing so. Therefore de facto the wretched thing is already with us. Is that so or is that a gross exaggeration which the Minister would like to put to rest?
Lord Lyell: I have paid close attention to the marvellous arguments of my two noble friends. Will the Minister point me in the right direction? Paragraph 2 of Article 17 refers to industrial property rights. A quarter of a century ago, I and others were dealing with the renewal of the law of patents in your Lordships' House. Can the Minister say—it may not

1113
be today—whether industrial property rights cover what I call intellectual property rights dealing with industry products? I think in particular of the pharmaceutical industry. I presume that the reference in Article 229a might well be dealing with patents which have gone through various stages in your Lordships' House, let alone in Europe. But does the reference to industrial property rights cover intellectual property rights?
Lord Grenfell: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, spoke of rights enshrined in the charter that he would dismiss on the grounds that perhaps they would not be fulfilled. Do the following words ring a bell: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of justice? On those grounds, would he be ready to tear up the constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights?
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The actual phrasing is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I think that it is in order for me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. It is difficult to do so quickly within the parameters of a debate such as this. However, I go further than the noble Lord. I query whether there are any such things as human rights when you come to think of it. What there are, of course—they are enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence, the constitution of the United States, and elsewhere—are human privileges which have been acquired with great effort and great sacrifice over many years. When they are enshrined with that sacrifice and endurance in such things as the Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States, they have a real value. When they are simply proclaimed in this airy manner by such a body as the bureaucracy in Brussels and the European Union I fear that they will have no value. They will add nothing to the privileges which we in this country are fortunate to enjoy. I fear that they will override—I ask the Minister to confirm it—the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom with the great privileges which we have built up with great sacrifice over many years. I fear that they are a lot of hot air and very damaging.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: I should like to add one or two points to the debate and to express my support for the intention behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howell. The issue under debate here is not so much the content of the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the nature of the charter. However as exchanges in the debate have made clear, if we were to discuss it, more issues would be raised than we could do justice to at this point in our deliberations on the Bill.
I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to establish the significance or otherwise of mentioning the charter in Declaration 23. Many noble
1114
Lords in the Chamber have far greater legal competence than I, but earlier points raised in discussion on the Bill suggested that there is a difference between the workings of legal processes on the Continent and those of the United Kingdom. Whereas in this country we are accustomed to legal processes which interpret the words of Acts of Parliament, it is traditionally more common on the Continent to interpret the intention behind legislation. I believe that we need to consider what significance may be placed on any words attached to publications from the European Union, in particular what might be used in the courts. That point returns to the final question put by my noble friend Lord Pearson.
I have been struck by the words of the presidency conclusions of the Nice IGC. After welcoming the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the conclusion goes on to state that:
"The European Council"—
surely this must have some weight behind it if the European Council has reached a conclusion—
"would like to see the Charter of Fundamental Rights disseminated as widely as possible amongst the Union's citizens".
It goes on to say that,
"the question of the Charter's force will be considered later".
It is not clear to me how to interpret the fact that the European Council would like to see the charter disseminated widely, then read and adopted, without it being treated as a charter of some significance; namely, forming a part of the intention behind the law as it stands.
I note that the European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorino, also said recently that the drawing up of the charter is an extremely important issue for the European Union because if it was brought forward successfully, it would.
"mark a definitive change in the Community which will move it away from the essential raison d'être of its origins to become a full political union."
Once again, statements made surrounding the declaration by those who must be regarded as having some authority in the dealings of the European Union suggest that, notwithstanding the fact that this intention is tucked away in a declaration, it is intended that it should be disseminated and noted by the people of the European Union. Given that, I endorse strongly the final question put by my noble friend Lord Pearson and would ask the Government what significance, if any, they believe should be attached to this.
Finally, I should like to return to a point covered by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howell. Under Declaration 23(5), it has been noted that the future conference should give consideration to the role of national parliaments in the European architecture. I may be alone on this, but I find it rather strange and worrying that we should be suggesting that a European Council of Ministers should be deliberating, and out of those deliberations presumably intending to produce, some laws or regulations which, from outside the United Kingdom, attempt to define, prescribe or redefine the role of our

1115
national Parliament. What on earth has it to do with the European Union what we choose to have as our national Parliament?
I had a naïve idea that Ministers from the United Kingdom went to these meetings as servants of the Crown and of the national Parliament. I find it very strange to see that in this declaration we are suggesting, and giving precedence perhaps to the notion, that our national Parliaments were in some way subservient to the European Union and the European Council and that they had some prerogative to decide and define what role they were going to set out for our national Parliaments.
I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howell on those grounds as well, leaving aside the issue that we have discussed, namely, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I should like some assurance from the Minister that she sees things in a different light.
Lord Norton of Louth: I hope the Minister has plenty of paper because by now I suspect that the list of questions that have been put to her is growing and she might have difficulty in coping with all them in the time available.
I wish to put two very quick and simple questions to the noble Baroness. First, it is my understanding that the Government themselves are quite clear as to the status of the charter. I was a member of the European committee which produced the report to which my noble friend referred. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave evidence to the committee and he was quite clear as to the status of the charter. If the Government are quite clear on that, why do they believe that an IGC is necessary to discuss that status?
Secondly, could the Minister explain to me the logic of drawing up a charter and deciding its status subsequent to the event?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his opening remarks. The noble Lord is always extremely courteous. I very much look forward to receiving the letter he has sent me. I believe that he will find that the reference to the charter is attached to the final act of the conference and not to the treaty. I do not wish to prolong our exchanges on this matter any more painfully than does the noble Lord. Perhaps we can settle between us the matter of where the provision is attached. I believe that we can sort it out. As regards the other matter, I look forward to receiving the noble Lord's letter.
The declaration on the future of Europe, which was agreed at Nice, encapsulates key commitments for which the United Kingdom Government fought very hard. Nice opens the way for enlargement with no need for further institutional change. Before the next IGC in 2004 there will be a deep and wide debate involving ordinary citizens throughout the European Union. The main agenda items for that conference should be, first, a more precise delimitation of powers between the EU and the member states reflecting the principle
1116
of subsidiarity; secondly, as regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the question of whether, and if so how, it should be incorporated into EU treaties; thirdly, simplification of the EU treaties to make them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning and, fourthly, the role of national parliaments in European architecture.
This debate reflects what I have heard noble Lords from all sides of the House, irrespective of political allegiance, say they would like to see reflected in the way we consider the future of Europe. The declaration also makes it clear that in addressing these issues there is a need to improve the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU and its institutions in order to bring them closer to the citizens of member states. I accept that that last point is not struck out by the amendment, but the four previous points — which are important—would be.
This is the United Kingdom's agenda. By that I do not mean that it is the agenda of Her Majesty's Government but the agenda that I hear reflected all round the Committee in the contributions made by noble Lords on the role of Parliament. Even today we have discussed the importance of making treaties more easily understood and more transparent to individuals throughout the European Union.
This is an agenda which not only this Government but successive British Governments have sought to place at the heart of the European debate. I pay tribute as much to the Conservative Party as to my own party in making that point. It is an agenda that will lead to the more efficient, more comprehensible and more accountable European Union that we want. But the amendment seeks to strike down not only the charter of rights but the whole of the agenda that so many noble Lords have said is important.
The member states are already conducting their national debates on Europe. Some have set up new structures to do so; others, like the United Kingdom, are content with their existing arrangements. We are content because our arrangements are already very effective. In the United Kingdom, Ministers have been setting out the Government's view of the way forward. The Prime Minister did so in Warsaw late last year, and many of the priorities he identified are reflected in the Nice Declaration. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have each made keynote speeches on Europe in recent months. They and other government Ministers will continue to make the points about Europe.
In addition, we have encouraged parliamentary debate on the European issue. There have been several such debates here and in another place since Nice. The debate today is an important part of the overall contribution to the way that Europe should go forward.
We have encouraged the involvement not only of Parliament but of ordinary UK citizens, if I can so call them, through, for example, the activities of my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe, who is travelling round the country to make the case for Britain in Europe and to hear people's views. We have

1117
also encouraged involvement through the Internet, where the Government have been running a series of interactive on-line debates on the FCO website in which people can make their views known.
Lord Norton of Louth: I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness is looking at what is proposed for the next IGC and concentrating on the charter. She is making the point that this is the agenda we want to pursue. Given what her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, is that really the case? In terms of the future of Europe, my understanding is that the Government are approaching the next IGC as a means of looking at the future of Europe and the way it should be going. The items adumbrated here are disparate and discrete items which do not go to the nub of what is the future goal of the European Union; of what is the whole purpose of the exercise.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am addressing the amendment. If the noble Lord looks carefully at the amendment, he will see that it is an amendment which seeks not only to strike out the charter of rights but to strike out how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and its member states. Yes, the amendment goes on to the charter of fundamental rights, but it seeks also to strike out the simplification of treaties and the role of national parliaments.
I am simply making the point that whereas the noble Lord, Lord Howell, concentrated his remarks on the charter of rights, the amendment addresses all four issues—and in doing so it seeks to strike them all out. I was merely making the point to the Committee that, over and over again in your Lordships' House, noble Lords have said how important are the debates on these issues. You cannot say one thing in your Lordships' House and then, when the opportunity is offered to discuss those very matters, say, "No. We are sorry, we do not want it". I am asking for consistency.
Lord Norton of Louth: Will the Minister give way again?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord. He may not like it, but it is the answer.
The conventions will produce options and ideas, but the final decisions will remain where they should be, with member states' governments in the international conference itself. Those decisions will be taken, as the EU Treaty rightly provides, by unanimity among member states and in accordance with their constitutional positions—which in the UK means a ratification procedure involving Parliament, as with the present treaty.
The point that has excited most interest is the charter of rights. The Government believe in human rights, that people need to know what are those rights and that EU institutions must respect them. That is what the charter of rights proclaims it is intended to
1118
achieve. That is a worthy aim and to answer the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—yes, the Government support it. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the charter is a political declaration. It cannot take precedence over our law because it is not the law. It is not in the present EU treaty. Nor is it referred to in the treaty itself.
One can quote a variety of different sources. Perhaps some people would like the charter made law. I freely concede that the Commission and some member states want to make the charter legally binding and to incorporate it into the treaty, but we have not agreed to do that. Nor can there be any change in the status of the charter unless we and all member states agree, because the treaty requires unanimity.
We have agreed that at the 2004 intergovernmental conference, consideration should be given to whether or not to incorporate the charter in the treaty and, if so, how. That is the mandate agreed by the Cologne European Council and the Treaty of Nice and we shall stick to it. I repeat the point that the charter's status cannot be changed without unanimity. The purpose of the present debate about the convention is to get the views of those in all parts of both Houses and to feed them through.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: That still leaves the question of the extent to which the charter in its present form is taken into account by the Luxembourg court when making its judgments. I believe that the Luxembourg court has said that it already takes the charter into account.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The charter is not law but courts may take a wide variety of issues into account. If the court chooses to take the charter into account inter alia, there is no reason why it should not do so. There is nothing exceptional in the charter. Why should it not be taken into account? The point is, the charter is not legally binding.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But the judgments of the court are legally binding. If the court takes the charter, in its present form and with its current status, into account in its judgments, the charter is already beginning to have a binding legal effect in the lawmaking procedure of the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I cannot agree that that follows. The judgments are legally binding but the charter may be one of a huge number of things taken into account and balanced in judgment. It may not always be entirely the overriding issue. Being able to take something into account and its being legally binding are two different things—as we discussed at Second Reading.
Lord Blackwell: The charter may be one of a number of things taken into account by a court, but the question for some of us on this side of the Committee is, what additional weight is the charter given by being

1119
taken into account among many other documents? If the charter is given additional status, weight and political authority by being declared an attachment to the treaty, the weighting concerns us.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: That is a matter for the court and it will be judged on a case by case basis—as I am sure the noble Lord would realise if he were not so keen on trying to persuade us all that this is legally binding. I cannot repeat too often that it is not legally binding. It may be taken into account, inter alia, with a number of other issues, and will always be judged on a case by case basis.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Article 229A refers to individual property rights. I believe that that means that intellectual property rights in the UK are covered. However, I need to check the point. If I may, I shall do as the noble Lord suggested and write to him on the matter.
To sum up, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wishes to consider how the views of those who believe as he does might be taken into account in the convention. If the noble Lord can persuade the usual channels through debates such as this one that there should be some participation in the convention to reflect that, it is a matter for him to pursue. However, the noble Lord's views are given a very fair airing in this place. We are all grateful to him for keeping us up to the mark on all these issues. I did hold a meeting on this matter in this House, which was announced in Hansard before the event. Those who wished to put their views on this point had an opportunity to do so to a Minister at first hand.
The Government very much look forward to the debate about the future of the European Union. We believe that reform of the EU—so that it can continue to deliver what the citizens of Europe, and indeed of Great Britain, want— is very important. We approach the debate with a good deal of confidence. We have learnt since 1997 that our approach, which is pro-Europe and pro-reform, is one that works. The Nice treaty confirms that. So, too, does the agenda for the 2004 IGC which we agreed at Nice.
We believe that the amendment seeks to strike down not only what the noble Lord concentrated on in terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights but a far wider debate, one to which most Members of the Committee have already signed up in the contributions that they have made elsewhere about the importance of Parliament and of treaty reform. I hope that the Committee will see fit to reject the amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: How I miss Lord Shore of Stepney on these occasions. There was no one better than he at eloquently exposing the vanities and conceits of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the inappropriateness of its language and ambitions. But, sadly, he is no longer with us, so we shall have to do without him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, suggested that I had used too scattered a type of shot to aim at this particular bird, and that there was a
1120
danger of shooting down other, more precious and valued wildfowl at the same time. When I heard that, I questioned myself as to why I had sought in the amendment to remove the whole declaration rather than merely the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we have debated in considerable detail.
Then, examining the words of paragraph 5, I began to have more confidence that maybe the shot was the right one. The process with which we are dealing is identified in earlier paragraphs as the deeper and wider debate that we wanted about the future of the European Union. A whole range of issues, many of which we have discussed earlier today, will be relevant to that. Indeed, there are many more problems in relation to European governance and the entire Community method, which is now under criticism, and the relationships between European institutions which will have to be swept up in that debate. One of our main criticisms is that these are relevant issues that should have been tackled at a treaty summit such as Nice but they were not. Instead, they were replaced by many measures that we think continued the old drift in the wrong direction instead of facing the new conditions of an enlarged and different kind of Europe.
Having considered the issues, I thought that my aim had not been as wide as I had earlier feared. Putting aside for the moment the status of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we wanted dropped from the declaration, there are three other goals. First, how can we establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and member states? I spoke to that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, will recall.
I cast some scepticism on the general ambition of freezing for all time the line of delimitation of powers between the Union and member states because the world is not like that any more. Even now, a range of decisions and issues are handled some weeks by European institutions, other weeks by national agencies and committees and other weeks by mixed levels of officials between institutions at the European and national level. I am sure that the noble Baroness has made a study of that. Some superb studies have been produced, particularly by the European Policy Forum, showing how the pattern of decision-making ceases to conform to the hierarchical idea that competencies can be defined at one level or another. The world is no longer like that. That is yesterday's world of hierarchy and static conditions which no longer exists. I should not shed any tears if that was left out of the declaration.
We have dealt with the status of the charter. The third point is the simplification of treaties to make them clearer without changing their meaning. It is sad that the British intelligentsia has failed to engage in the debate that is happening all over Europe. People are beginning to question whether the Monnet Community method, having succeeded for 40 or 50 years, is still right and whether the preamble to the original Treaty of Rome should be frozen in time or whether the debate should be reopened and the

1121
concept of ever-closer union questioned. These questions are not raised just by Euro-sceptics or Europhobes. Highly focused people who want the Europe of the future to unite and work better are engaged in the debate. Stamping that out by putting in the phrases without changing their meaning will close off a range of lively debate that we have a duty to participate in, so I would shed no tears over that.
The final point is the role of national Parliaments in the European architecture. I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. Can the process really do that? Will national Parliaments have a sufficient voice in the convention to have their say? That means more than just being told what their role is by some convention. We need to establish what powers should be returned to them in order that the missing democratic thread in the process of the European initiatives, which are racing forward on every front, can be restored.
The European Parliament has its part to play but, as we have argued repeatedly, that does not satisfy the democratic deficit. That requires more than just talking vaguely about the role of national Parliaments; we have to give power of initiative and of early, pre-legislative scrutiny of community instruments and initiatives back to national Parliaments, where it belongs. Until that happens, the draining away of legitimacy and democratic validation will continue.
Everyone knows that that is happening. Even the European Commission, in its governance White Paper, recognised that process. It went on to make some futile and inadequate propositions about how to stem the bleeding. It is failing and will fail because it is still talking in the language of the hierarchy and of
1122
somehow handing down by subsidiarity or by central view-making to the nation states certain decisions and views as it thinks appropriate.
We know that the subsidiarity idea was well meant but it has failed. It has been said that the only responsibility that has been subject to the subsidiarity process over the several years since Maastricht is the treatment of animals in zoos. That is the one provision or decision that has been subsidiarised. Otherwise, the process has failed to meet the growing concern about the democratic legitimacy of the Union institutions.
I shed no tears that my amendment aims a little wider than was intended and raises all sorts of fundamental issues that we should certainly discuss further. Having said that, I see that the hour is late. We have covered those matters before and will want to consider many of them again in much more detail. Against that background, and with that consideration in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Police Use of Firearms
  Police Use of Firearms
  Youth Justice System
  Youth Justice System
  Afghanistan: Future Government
  Afghanistan: Future Government
  Barnett Formula
  Barnett Formula
  Religious Buildings: UNESCO Website
  Religious Buildings: UNESCO Website
  British Russian and British East-West Centres
  British Russian and British East-West Centres
  Genetic Predisposition to Impairment
  Genetic Predisposition to Impairment
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Minimum Income Standards
  Minimum Income Standards
  Can't Hear, Can't Benefit Report
  Can't Hear, Can't Benefit Report
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Disability Living Allowance Claimants
  Disability Living Allowance Claimants
  Housing Benefit: Lone Parents
  Housing Benefit: Lone Parents
  Physical Agents Directives
  Physical Agents Directives
  Strategic Rail Authority: Powers
  Strategic Rail Authority: Powers
  Heavy Goods Vehicles: Accident Statistics
  Heavy Goods Vehicles: Accident Statistics
  Graffiti Damage
  Graffiti Damage
  Closed List Voting System
  Closed List Voting System
  Mauritania: EU Fishing Agreement
  Mauritania: EU Fishing Agreement
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Environment Agency: Navigation Responsibilities
  Environment Agency: Navigation Responsibilities
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Digital Subscriber Line
  Digital Subscriber Line
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  People's Panel Report
  People's Panel Report
  Northern Ireland Police Service: Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Police Service: Recruitment
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Bill of Rights
  Task Forces and Advisory Groups
  Task Forces and Advisory Groups
  Performance and Innovation Unit Report
  Performance and Innovation Unit Report