Sitting of 11 April 2002

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Railtrack
    Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the involvement his Department has had in the proposed structure of the successor company to Rail track. [44497]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Treasury Ministers and officials have been involved in regular discussions with colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the subject.
    Norman Baker: I am delighted to hear that. Is it a coincidence that on the very day that the Treasury received advice from the Office for National Statistics that the finances of a successor to Railtrack would not be counted as public borrowing, Railtrack was put into administration? Are we running a railway system based on the needs of passengers, or being driven by Enron—like accounting tricks?
    Mr. Smith: This Government are determined that the rail system serves the needs of the travelling public as well as meeting the needs of the taxpayer. The future of the company limited by guarantee depends on the Railtrack Group and the administrator, but we believe that it will offer a more efficient service, better aligned to the needs of this country's travelling public, because it will be able to focus on engineering efficiency and excellence in the network service that it delivers.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the evidence given by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to the Transport Committee yesterday, when he outlined how savings will be made to meet some of the additional costs
    132
    of Railtrack receivership? Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend on the work that he has done and the efficiency that he has applied in bringing rail services back to something like normal?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I am very pleased to congratulate my right hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right that enormous benefits to rail users and savings to the taxpayer are to be gained from an early exit from administration—quicker efficiency savings, reduced performance penalties, faster progress on the 10-year plan projects and earlier introduction of the right incentives for managers to get the network rail system delivering to the travelling public in a way that was not possible under the flawed privatisation for which Conservative Members were responsible.
    Chris Grayling: Before the Government's recent announcement about Network Rail, was the Treasury told by the team preparing the Network Rail bid that without it administration for Railtrack would last until at least the later part of next year?
    Mr. Smith: We have the same information as anybody else on the likely length of administration. I am aware of recent speculation that without an early exit as a result of the CLG bid, administration could go into November. There has even been speculation that it could go into next year. Ultimately, of course, that timetable and those matters are for the administrator and not the Government.
    Caroline Flint: There has been some concern that payments to shareholders might impact on Government spending in other areas. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will not be any impact on areas in which we want to invest as a result of payments to shareholders?
    Mr. Smith: The £500 million—the £300 million from the Strategic Rail Authority and £200 million from the CLG—is not compensation to shareholders. As I have been explaining, it is an offer that has been made in appreciation of the value to the travelling public and the taxpayer of an early exit from administration. My hon. Friend can be assured that that is not an additional cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, because of the savings, there will be enormous benefits for the taxpayer and the travelling public.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The House will be aware that under the proposals for Network Rail to purchase Railtrack, it will need to borrow £9 billion, mostly to finance Railtrack's debts, of which I believe £4.4 billion constitutes the Treasury-guaranteed loan. In turn, that will have to be guaranteed by the Strategic Rail Authority, which is itself an arm of government. Will the Minister please confirm whether under Eurostat requirements that will be accounted for as a public sector liability? If it will not, will he candidly explain the Enron off-balance-sheet accounting trick for not so doing?
    Mr. Smith: The technical position is that the £9 billion is a debt that Network Rail expects that it needs to raise to finance the purchase of the company and to repay the company's finance creditors. It is a contingent liability,

    133
    which will be called only in the unlikely event of all alternative means of refinancing the bridge borrowing falling through. The money does not score unless it is called. I have to say that we would not be having to do this if the Conservative party had not privatised Railtrack in such a flawed way, doing such enormous disservice to taxpayers and the travelling public.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Colin Challen: What fiscal measures are being considered to assist the renewable energy industry reach the Government's target of 10 per cent. of energy being sourced by renewables by 2010. [44498]
    Lynne Jones: If he will use the forthcoming Budget to help increase investment in renewable energy. [44508]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government are already putting in place significant support for renewables, not least through the renewables obligation in England and Wales. Most forms of renewable energy are already eligible for exemption from the climate change levy. Hon. Members will appreciate that, for obvious reasons, this is not the time to speculate about future measures.
    Mr. Challen: Is it not evident that the Government have done more in the past five years for the renewable sector than the nuclear neanderthals on the Conservative Benches did in the previous 18 years? Nevertheless, perhaps because of that inheritance, Britain, which has the greatest wind energy resources in Europe, does not have a single wind turbine manufacturer. I urge my right hon. Friend to follow in the footsteps of the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group and the Environmental Audit Committee and speak to the German economics ministry and consider the measures that it has taken which, by 2025, should generate a quarter of all German electricity needs from wind.
    Mr. Boateng: That was a breath of fresh air on the debate. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We are always happy to learn lessons from Germany. It, too, has a lot to learn from us in terms of reducing the burdens of business taxation, not least on its manufacturing sector, and in terms of the rate of growth of the economy. But it is always important to keep such matters in mind and we certainly shall.
    Lynne Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend is happy. I want him to be sunny. By 2005, Japan will have 370,000 solar roofs and Germany 140,000. Under current policies, Britain will manage only 4,000 to 5,000 and we need 15,000 a year to justify manufacturing capability. Will my right hon. Friend consider fiscal and other measures to ensure that building projects automatically consider the incorporation of photovoltaics? Not only will that help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but it will give a boost to manufacturing investment in innovative technologies.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point that has already formed the subject of a considerable volume of Budget submissions in this area. She will know
    134
    that we have already put in place a programme of support for measures that increase the use of solar panels, but she makes a powerful case for fiscal measures and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bear that in mind in due course.
    Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister will be aware that to obtain the full benefit of wind and wave energy it may well be necessary to extend the national grid, particularly to the north and west of Scotland. Has the Minister given any thought to public investment in so extending the national grid?
    Mr. Boateng: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gives that matter thought from time to time. It is important to recognise the importance of the national grid in that area, and also to recognise, as the performance and innovation unit's report did, the ramifications of the new electricity trading arrangement in terms of renewables. The Government are considering the PIU report and we will make our views known in due course.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister explain why he made particular reference to England and Wales in his earlier response although wind and wave energy are also vital within Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is it a question of co-operation? In that context, will the Department be having discussions with local planning authorities, especially in England, which have been hindering the development of such proposals?
    Mr. Boateng: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, my noble Friend Lord Falconer has brought forward a raft of proposals in relation to planning and they will undoubtedly have ramifications for renewables, and wind farms in particular. My omission of Northern Ireland was an oversight for which I apologise.
    Miss Anne Begg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister for Industry and Energy is to establish a Government agency in Aberdeen called Renewables UK? This is the first opportunity that I have had in the House to welcome that initiative. It will make a huge difference in helping to steer some of the energy companies—I do not want to call them oil and gas companies—currently operating in Aberdeen and in the North sea towards renewable energy. Obviously, any help that the Treasury can give in next week's Budget in ensuring that the fiscal regime is helpful to those companies to diversify into renewable energy will be helpful.
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that further Budget submission. She will be aware of the not inconsiderable support that we are already giving in terms of renewables, but she makes an important point and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take it into account.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the conclusions of the final Wanless report. [44500]
    Mr. David Laws: When he plans to publish the final report by Mr. Derek Wanless on the future funding of the national health service. [44512]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On Mr. Wanless's conclusions, his interim report states that there is no evidence that any alternative financing method to that of the UK would deliver a given quality of health care at a lower cost to the economy. Indeed, he says that other systems seem likely to prove more costly. His final report will be submitted to me shortly, and he will also publish a study commissioned by his review on international health care systems, considering health systems in individual countries around the world.
    Mr. Swayne: Given that expenditure on the NHS in Scotland has already reached the Prime Minister's target of the EU average without providing noticeably better services than are to be found elsewhere in the United Kingdom, what reforms does the Chancellor think will be necessary to ensure that greater expenditure leads to a better service?
    Mr. Brown: Reforms have already been put in place and are being implemented now. Only a few days ago, the primary care trusts were implemented in England, and we have also established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which deals with standards. There is now greater provision for audit and inspection, and around the country, hospitals have more autonomy. Money was paid directly to health trusts. Those measures are making a difference: waiting lists are down; half a million more operations are being done; and there are 10,000 more nurses in the system and 7,000 more doctors. As a result, for example, in relation to cancer, 10,000 more operations a year are being done, and in accident and emergency, 200,000 more people are being seen.
    The question posed by the hon. Gentleman is this: what is the best system for funding health care for the future? I have asked people in the past few months to put their views to us about what they believe would be the best system for the future. The Conservative party has not yet put its views to us in detail. The hon, Gentleman signed a motion in the House some years ago saying that it was time to think the unthinkable and go for private health care insurance systems. We now find this morning that the Conservative party is planning the dismantling of the national health service. It is time that it was honest with the House.
    Mr. Laws: In the Chancellor's speech on 20 March, he undertook to use his Budget statement next week to put the national health service on a long-term stable financial footing. In an environment in which Governments come and go, is not the only way of achieving that goal for the long term to introduce either a dedicated health tax or a system of social insurance for the national health service?
    Mr. Brown: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's views, but they are clearly not those of his party. They are distinct from those advanced earlier this week by his shadow Chancellor, who urged continued funding of the existing health care system. It is right that we need a long-term system of funding for health care in this country. That is why the Wanless review was asked to deal with a 20-year perspective and is considering technology,
    136
    demography and rising expectations—issues that, as he will agree, must be looked at so that we can find the basis for a long-term system of funding.
    I return to the issue raised by both questions: what is the best system of funding health care for the future? We have looked at private health insurance. In America, it covers some people some of the time, but it certainly does not cover all the people all the time. We have also looked at charging, which is called "self pay" in the document in which we find this morning that the Conservative health spokesman has been involved.
    Tim Loughton: Rubbish!
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should read the transcript of the tape. [Interruption.] Indeed he has; and he will agree that when the issue of charging arises, it is called "self pay". It is a new term that the Conservatives have invented, just as they used to call private medicine personal medicine when they were trying to make it a softer version for the public.
    I come back to this question: does not a system of charging or self-pay mean that the sick pay for being sick, and that they pay more when they are sick? We have looked at health care systems around the world, and at social—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Beard.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interim conclusion of the Wanless report—that anything other than general taxation is likely to constitute a more expensive way of providing a given level of health care—should eliminate political controversy from this issue? Does it not illustrate the absurdity of statements such as that of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who said that the national health service is a Stalinist creation, and of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who described the health service thus:
    "An unreformed, Stalinist structure now in crisis"?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is not in order. I call Mr. McFall.
    Mr. John McFall: May I ask the Chancellor to use next week's Budget to invest more money in the national health service, and to convince people that a publicly funded NHS is the only way forward for the well-being of everyone in this country? Does he have some sympathy for the shadow Chancellor, who wants to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, while the shadow Health Secretary—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I need questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to the shadow Chancellor.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who points out that the decision that must be taken is whether we invest more in health care to get the doctors, the nurses and the improvement in the service, backed up by reforms, or whether we invest less. If we go with the proposals that this Government have put forward, we will

    137
    invest more. The prior question that must be addressed by those who want to put forward alternative systems is whether they are more efficient and equitable than the current funding system. On charging, such alternative systems would involve the sick paying for being sick, and in terms of social insurance, employers would pay an average of £60 a week for an employee, as happens in France. Such systems would not provide the full coverage that the health service in this country provides. The issue that the Opposition will have to address at some point is that we want to invest more and they want to invest less.
    Matthew Taylor: Before the Chancellor is cut off again, perhaps he could tell the House whether he regrets the fact that it took six years and two general election campaigns before he was prepared to ask an expert to tell him what was staring everybody else in the face: that if the NHS is to be put on a healthy footing, a tax increase is necessary to raise the money for the doctors and nurses who are obviously still missing from the NHS. According to the Wanless report, they are still not being trained to fill the gaps.
    Mr. Brown: In 1997, the Liberal party advocated the spending of an extra £500 million a year for the national health service, but we are spending an extra £5,000 million a year. Since 1997, we have taken tough and difficult decisions that the Liberal party never supported. We raised interest rates, cut back on the national debt and initiated a welfare-to-work programme. Those decisions were taken to reduce debt interest payment and unemployment, and they have enabled us to pay more for health care in this country. However, if we want a health care system for the next 20 years that is worthy of our country, we must also take long-term decisions on funding. I hope that, for once, the Liberals will face up to some long-term decisions.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I urge my right hon. Friend to carry on, regardless of those who think the unthinkable or speak the unspeakable, and not to be deterred from accepting the fact that, as we all know, long-term, sustainable investment and good management is the right answer for the health service? At a convenient time, will he find extra resources to establish centres of excellence, which can train managers who care and who are engaged not just in the private sector, but in the public sector?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. A public sector leadership programme is being run for the health service and, indeed, for education authorities. He is absolutely right that resources need to be matched with proper reform. Many reforms are already in place, some are being introduced this month and many will have to be introduced in future years. Matching money to modernisation is the way forward, but the question that we must resolve is this: what is to be that long-term system of funding for the health care system? It is no good people three, five or 10 years down the line saying that they thought that they might have had a good idea if they have not put it forward. We must resolve those questions over the next few months for the sake of the health service.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The Chancellor's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for New
    138
    Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was astonishingly complacent. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that lung cancer survival rates are lower in England than in France and Germany; that 25,000 lives could be saved every year if the United Kingdom were as good at treating cancer as the best in Europe; and that in Germany waiting lists do not exist? Does he still think, as he told the Social Market Foundation last month, that we have no lessons to learn from the way in which health care is provided elsewhere?
    Mr. Brown: I did not say that. What I did say was that I reject the social insurance system as proposed for France and Germany, I reject private insurance as in the United States of America and I reject the policy that the Conservative health spokesman is now putting forward—it is called self-pay, which is, effectively, charging for medical services.
    If the shadow Chancellor wants to achieve improvements in the health service, he has to support the additional doctors, he has to support the additional nurses and he has to support the investment in new hospitals. He cannot support that if at one and the same time he wants to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of national income—a £50 billion cut in public spending, which the public find unacceptable.
    Mr. Howard: The Chancellor continues to misrepresent and distort our position. We have no target along the lines that he falsely suggests, but we do need a proper debate on those issues. It is already clear that we have an open mind on them; he has a closed mind. His idea of the debate is the speech that he makes when he looks at himself in the mirror.
    Mr. Brown: First, the shadow Chancellor cannot get off with the fact that in 1997 he said:
    "I believe that our aim should now be to reduce the proportion of national output now taken by the state towards 35 per cent.".
    That represents a £50 billion cut in public spending. He also cannot get out of the fact that the shadow health spokesman has been quoted this morning as saying that he wants to replace the national health care system by charging and private insurance. As long as the Conservative party supports those privatisation measures, it will have no chance of support from the British public.

    Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
    Phil Sawford: What recent action he has taken to assist heavily indebted poor countries. [44501]
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the Commonwealth education fund. [44511]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Last month, Sierra Leone reached decision point, qualifying for nearly $1 billion of debt relief from the international community, including the United Kingdom writing off 100 per cent. of all its debt owed. That means that 26 countries—22 from Africa and four from Latin America—will benefit from $62 billion in debt relief, with potentially $100 billion in prospect. Last month, the Monterrey conference moved forward the millennium development goals. Last month, to mark the Queen's golden jubilee, the Government launched the

    139
    Commonwealth education fund with a grant of £10 million to promote primary education in Commonwealth developing countries. Further details of the action that the Government are taking on debt relief and primary education are set out in the annual report to Parliament on the UK and the International Monetary Fund, which we are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
    Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the work that he has done, but I am sure he agrees that a tremendous amount still needs to be done to alleviate crippling poverty in those countries. Many are experiencing AIDS epidemics and lack education opportunity, proper health care and the basic necessities of life. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to take a lead on those matters. Will he put as much pressure as possible on the international community to address those very serious issues?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in Kettering to publicise the case for debt relief. Many Members on both sides of the House have done the same in their own constituencies. There are now 26 countries getting debt relief, which means that money is going to health and education. Taking the case of Uganda, it is now possible to say that every child will be in primary education over a period of time as a result of the debt relief provided by the international community. However, we must do more and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, we must now build on what we achieved at Monterrey. Next weekend, I shall go to Washington for IMF and World Bank meetings, where we shall discuss the next stage of moving debt relief forward and meeting the millennium development goals, which include every child receiving primary education.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: May I, too, thank the Chancellor for his record and that of the Secretary of State for International Development? We have reason to be proud of what the Government are doing on the international scene.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will match pound for pound money collected by individual organisations such as Comic Relief towards primary education in Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Brown: We shall, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend, too, for the work that she has done in her constituency in Wales to promote those issues. We shall match pound for pound the money raised by Comic Relief's sports day, which will go directly to education projects run by non-governmental organisations, particularly in Commonwealth countries in Africa. Equally, in the Queen's jubilee year we shall match pound for pound money raised by businesses through corporate donations to help promote education in Africa and elsewhere. We shall thus be able to move further and faster towards good economic policy, which is also desirable for social opportunity, so that every child gets the chance of primary education. In the Commonwealth today, 75 million children are not going to school. We owe it to them to move faster to ensure that there is a school for every one of them and that there are teachers who can give them the education that they need.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Chancellor deserves considerable praise for the forceful
    140
    way in which he has championed this issue internationally, building on the excellent foundations that he inherited from the John Major Government in the 1990s.
    Has the Chancellor had a chance to look seriously at the proposals for an international bankruptcy procedure that have been put forward by Jubilee Plus and strongly supported by the UN Secretary-General and by the champion of free markets, Professor Jeffrey Sachs? That procedure would bring some order to those issues in the poorest countries of the world, and would enable them to continue trading without serious damage to their social infrastructure.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If this country could achieve all-party consensus on this matter and move as one in the international community to press for more to be done, I would welcome that, and I hope that all hon. Members would support it. I acknowledge the work carried out by the previous Chancellor in terms of the debt relief proposals put forward before 1997.
    On the hon. Gentleman's question about an international bankruptcy court, he may know that the International Monetary Fund is looking at those very matters. Such a court would have to be part of a large restructuring of the way in which the IMF and other international organisations deal with the bankruptcy, insolvency and illiquidity of countries faced with those difficulties.
    In my view, the procedure is probably more relevant to emerging market economies than to African economies. The best way to help economies that are in debt is, first, to get rid of unpayable debt so that we can build afresh; secondly, to insist on corruption-free policies, allowing stability to be pursued by monetary and fiscal transparency; and, thirdly, to open up investment and trade. That must be backed with the offer to provide substantial additional resources if those steps are taken. That is why I say that it should be the international community's aim to provide $50 billion a year extra in international development aid to back up that new deal for the poorest countries in the world.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: While I acknowledge the Chancellor's considerable efforts in this area, does he agree that there is growing disillusionment among many debtor countries with the extreme rigidities of the present scheme? Does he acknowledge, for example, that there is no low-cost mechanism to help debtor countries cope with new shocks, such as rising oil prices and no specific mechanism for post-conflict countries? Without radical reform, the HIPC scheme is in danger of producing debt reduction that is not sustainable in the long term.
    Mr. Brown: It is true that the IMF and other international organisations are looking at how we can deal with shocks to the international system. We said in the last G7 communiqué—indeed, in the IMF communiqué—that there must be greater flexibility in the operation of the HIPC programme.
    I paid tribute to the previous Chancellor, but it is true that by 1997 only one country was likely to go through the debt relief process, whereas now there are 26. It surprises many people that we have managed to get so

    141
    many countries through in that period, but that is absolutely necessary. I believe that we can achieve $100 billion of debt relief, but we need a far better framework for the longer term.
    The problem is not simply one of flexibility to respond to shocks. There must be a new relationship between the richer and the poorer countries, whereby we are prepared to give poor countries additional aid in return for their adopting policies that are in their interests, such as poverty reduction plans on which they consult their communities. Flexibility is one factor, but a far greater change is required. I hope that we can make progress at the April meeting of the IMF.

    Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: If he will make a statement on the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises of the recommendations of the Competition Commission. [44502]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): My statement to the House on 14 March made clear the Competition Commission's conclusion that competition in the market for banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises is not working properly. The Competition Commission's recommendations, which the Government have accepted in full, will bring competition into the market for banking services to small businesses.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When he announced in the House several weeks ago the results of the Competition Commission's inquiry into banking services for SMEs, many hon. Members were delighted to hear that the liberalisation of banks would lead to £500 million being sent back to small and medium-sized enterprises. What further initiatives can those companies expect in the forthcoming Budget to ensure that they reap the rewards of their ventures?
    Mr. Brown: It might be more comfortable to announce the Budget in the House when there is a far more friendlier atmosphere than I will perhaps find next week, but I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I hold the Budget announcements for the appropriate time—next Wednesday.
    As for banks and small businesses and what more we can do to back them up, competition grounds led me to support the Competition Commission's report on banking for small businesses. We want to see competition in that sector, because for too long there have been only a few big players and the service has undoubtedly not been as good as small businesses want. My hon. Friend will know that we have also announced that we want to do more to simplify VAT and to help small businesses starting up. We also want to help small, high-tech businesses, and I hope that we can build on that over the next few months.
    Mr. David Ruffley: The Chancellor will recall being advised by Mr. Ed Balls on post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory. We now read that Mr. Balls has a new big idea called progressive
    142
    universalism. [Interruption.] It is jargon. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the principles of progressive universalism influence Treasury policy on competition?
    Mr. Brown: By helping all banks and those who have suffered most as a result of the operation of a monopoly in the banking market. It is a universal requirement that all banks be given good service, but the small business community, which has suffered most, must have the redress that we have proposed and that the Competition Commission had originally recommended. It would repay the hon. Gentleman to read all Mr. Balls's speeches.
    Roger Casale: What direct representations has my right hon. Friend received from small and medium-sized enterprises on the steps that he is taking to increase competitiveness? Many SMEs in my constituency recognise that the Government are on the side of business; that we shall continue to take appropriate measures to increase profitability; and that we want small businesses to succeed. Is it not the case that, as well as providing secure economic stability and promoting enterprise, we consult small businesses almost daily through the Small Business Council? By contrast, the Conservative party never listened to business and was not aware of its needs. The last Conservative Government will probably go down as the Government most inimical to the interests of business in recent years.
    Mr. Brown: Most Members have between 3,000 and 5,000 small businesses in our constituencies, so the reaction of small businesses and the importance that we attach to them is vital to us. I was gratified that the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed the decision that was made on the Competition Commission. It said that we had made the "right and proper decision". The British Chambers of Commerce welcomed the help for small businesses that would come from the Competition Commission's recommendations. The Institute of Directors, which is not known for always supporting what the Government do, said:
    "Two cheers for Government response to competition banking review."
    It is true that circumstances in which long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years and inflation is also low compare dramatically with the state of the economy when the shadow Chancellor was Secretary of State for Employment and interest rates were at 15 per cent.

    Taxation
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on changes in the burden of taxation since 1997. [44503]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The figures for net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product are set out in table B22 of the pre-Budget report.
    Mr. Amess: After that hogwash, will the Minister confirm that the amount of tax raised each year is now £100 billion greater than it was when this rotten Government first came to power? Will he explain why the Government have broken their promise not to increase tax without reforming services, particularly the national

    143
    health service? Finally, will he now admit the truth—that taxes are going up while, because of Government incompetence, public services are being driven down?
    Mr. Smith: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman approaching the issue with his characteristic objectivity and good humour.
    I, of course, stand by the figures in the table to which I referred. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we made the tough decisions. We sorted out the public finances; we invested more in public services; and we kept every promise that we had made on tax. The hon. Gentleman's party wrecked the public finances, cut public investment and broke all its promises.
    Derek Twigg: The burden of taxation is a key issue. Constituencies such as mine, which is one of the most deprived in the country, want that burden to be shifted from the poorest people. I hope the Minister and the Chancellor will do more next week to ensure that it is. My constituents also want the money raised in tax to be spent specifically on education, health and transport in deprived areas such as mine. I urge the Minister to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern—indeed, determination—to ensure that while everyone in the country benefits from our policies, those who need help most of all benefit the most. That is what is happening as a consequence of the record investment that we are already making in the NHS, and the increased investment in fighting crime and in transport. As a result of the Government's decisions on personal taxation and benefits, the poorest fifth of the population—the poorest fifth of families with children—are £1,700 a year better off. Of course we hope to build on that in the future.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: One of the most damaging burdens of taxation that the Government have introduced applies to pension funds. That, compounded by the problems of the market and of annuity rates in particular, means that many people approaching retirement face it with grave misgivings.
    Tomorrow the Government will have an opportunity to put matters right, when the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill is before us. Will the Minister guarantee that neither his Front Benchers nor his Back Benchers will talk the Bill out, or dissemble in any way? That would deprive people who are very concerned about their income in retirement, for which they have saved. Will the Minister ensure that Labour Members support a Bill that is backed by the Opposition and by other Members on both sides of the House, so that pensioners can heave a sigh of relief in the knowledge that the Government will not penalise them any further?
    Mr. Smith: Of course we are all concerned about the future of pensioner incomes, and it would be good if there could be a cross-party consensus. I look forward to hearing the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends support the Government's proposals for the pension credit, which will do an enormous amount to reward those with savings who were penalised under the Conservative party.
    144
    My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has published a full consultation document on annuities. I shall read with interest what the hon. Lady says on the subject.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend will have read in this morning's newspapers that a multi-billionaire receives more from the Treasury than ever he pays. Will he ensure that after the Budget such people pay the appropriate amount of tax?
    Mr. Smith: As a matter of long-established practice, we do not comment on the individual circumstances of taxpayers. I shall take the general thrust of my hon. Friend's question as a Budget representation and refer it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Has the Chief Secretary also seen the figures reported today, calculated by the United Kingdom's largest financial adviser, which show that British families now face a higher tax bill than those in France, Italy or Spain? Is the Chief Secretary proud of that?
    Mr. Smith: The overall tax burden, which is what the question was about, is lower in this country than in France and Germany. Moreover, as a consequence of all the changes made by the Government, a typical family with children is £1,000 a year better off. Furthermore, the tax burden, which fell last year, is falling this year as well.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the operation of the climate change levy. [44505]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The climate change levy is designed to promote greater energy efficiency, and to be revenue neutral. Part of the levy revenue is being recycled to provide enhanced energy efficiency advice to business and to provide support for energy efficiency investments. We are on target to meet our Kyoto obligations to reduce carbon emissions.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response, but will he look again at those companies that do not qualify for integrated pollution prevention and control status and thus cannot take advantage of the rebates introduced by the Government? I refer particularly to a company about which my right hon. Friend may have heard during his recent visit to Barnsley—Potters Ballotini—which uses 100 per cent. recycled materials. It seems anomalous that a company using recycled materials should suffer from having to pay the full climate change levy. Will he look again at the operation of the system?
    Mr. Boateng: I learned very intimately from meeting business people in Barnsley of the interest and concern that my hon. Friend takes in these matters. Such a company would be well placed to benefit from the considerable advice and financial support that the Government are making available to those who want to make energy efficiency savings. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the tax is on energy; it was designed by Lord Marshall to help us to meet our Kyoto

    145
    obligations, and it is doing that. It is benefiting businesses through the reduction in national insurance contributions and through the advice and assistance of the Carbon Trust. I hope that the company to which my hon. Friend referred will feel able to approach the trust and ourselves for any advice that it might require.
    Mr. David Lidington: I should have more respect for the Financial Secretary if he were prepared to take responsibility for the Government's decisions rather than to hive it off to Lord Marshall or anybody else they have hired to give advice. Surely his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made an extremely important point, which is relevant to the interests of a large number of manufacturing businesses throughout the country that do not qualify, under IPPC regulations, for taking part in a climate change agreement. What answer does the Financial Secretary have for a company such as Plastic Technologies of Smethwick? It tells me that it faces an annual climate change levy bill of about £61,000 but that it will receive national insurance rebates of just over £4,000. Is not the truth that the Government have picked a complex and bureaucratic method of taxing companies which will deliver small environmental benefits but which has already distorted markets and is placing burdens on British manufacturing companies that their foreign competitors do not have to bear?
    Mr. Boateng: The benefits are real and tangible. They are appreciated by a range of companies and, indeed, the citizens of this country because they are designed to enable us to respond to climate change—to enable us effectively to deliver a response that cuts carbon emissions. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to sneer at the care and detailed attention that was paid to consulting industry. Lord Marshall, a distinguished leader in industry, was extremely helpful in enabling us to get the right solution to a very real problem.
    It ill behoves Opposition Members to make wild promises in their election manifesto to abolish that tax without making even one minute suggestion—one iota—on how emissions might otherwise be reduced. They wish the ends but are completely bereft when it comes to the means.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that every energy user, such as the glass and paper industries, still feels disadvantaged, despite Government moves to meet their requirements on the climate change levy? They feel that they are at a disadvantage with their competitors. Does he also recognise that they feel more concern about the massive increase in gas charges, which mean that they are paying far more than those on the continent?
    Mr. Boateng: We do indeed recognise that, and the Government will respond in due course to the performance and innovation unit report on the issue. It is important that we continue our dialogue with industry. We have met the CBI and continue to work with its officials on the IPPC definition, about which we have heard. We have a tax that is sound in its essentials and is delivering the objectives that the whole House surely seeks.

    Manufacturing (North-West)
    Dr. John Pugh: What assessment he has made of trends in manufacturing output in the north-west since January 2001. [44509]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government's latest assessment of developments in the manufacturing sector, based on all relevant factors, was published in November's pre-Budget report. An updated assessment will be published in the forthcoming Budget on 17 April.
    Manufacturing in the north-west, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, cannot have expected to remain immune from the sharp slowdown in the world economy last year. However, the leading indicators from business surveys suggest that a recovery in manufacturing is under way.
    Dr. Pugh: With regard to the application of state aid rules to manufacturing in the north-west specifically, is the Treasury, in its monitoring role, satisfied that European rules are being applied in the same way throughout Europe? Will Ministers investigate any allegations from north-west manufacturers that they are not? Will they seek in the Budget to give the same support as their French and German counterparts give their regions?
    Ruth Kelly: What we need is not more state aid, but state aid that is well directed and focused on helping manufacturing across the United Kingdom. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been arguing so strongly in Brussels that we should have a system that tackles market failures and puts in place, for example, regional venture capital funds across the country that can support growing and thriving manufacturing businesses. That is the way forward, and we will continue to argue our case in Brussels. I am confident that we are making progress in this area.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What discussions are taking place between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry about the future of Marconi, with particular reference to Liverpool? Does my hon. Friend realise that employment at Marconi in Liverpool has halved over the past year? Does she accept that were that plant to reduce further, it would be a blow not only to manufacturing but to the skills base in Liverpool and the north-west?
    Ruth Kelly: As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult for me to comment on the specific case, but the regional development agency is working with my hon. Friend and others with an interest in the problem. Manufacturing across the north-west and throughout the rest of the UK will have benefited significantly from the Government's tax cuts in the corporate sector. Corporate rates have been cut by 3 per cent; they are the lowest in the history of the United Kingdom and lower than those of any other industrialised country. We are also giving significant support to boost the manufacturing sector and I am confident that we will begin to see the fruits of a recovery in the manufacturing sector later this year.

    National Health Service
    Tim Loughton: What assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of extra tax revenues being spent in the NHS. [44510]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): These are matters for consideration by the Chancellor prior to the Budget and the spending review. The outcome of the Budget and spending review will be announced in due course.
    Tim Loughton: That was a disappointing answer, but perhaps the Paymaster General can give me a fuller answer without reference to some of the desperate fantasy stories that her spin doctors have placed in The Mirror. Does she recall her Government's official answer that, in 1997, there were 196,700 managers in the NHS and 210,520 beds? Now, there are 224,030 managers and the number of beds has fallen below 200,000 for the first time—a ratio of 1.15 managers to beds, and a ratio that has widened most in the last year. Does she think that that is a cost-effective use of tax revenue in the NHS, and are we to be subjected to yet more of the same after next week's Budget
    Dawn Primarolo: I recall from the reports that we have 28 more hospitals, more beds and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has demonstrated, there have been improvements in the number of patients being treated and the time in which they are being treated. I recall that the hon. Gentleman is on record as supporting the use of charging and privatisation in the health service. I also recall that the Conservative party is determined first to undermine the health service and then to challenge it and introduce privatisation—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is out of order.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Has the Paymaster General seen the report on the front page of today's Financial Times that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating six pharmaceutical companies that might have defrauded the national health service of £400 million? Does she agree that this shows that there is great need for the NHS to improve the way in which drugs are procured and that there is great scope for savings to be made in the NHS drugs budget?
    Dawn Primarolo: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but all abuse should be rooted out. If anything is going wrong, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown that we will address it.

    Stamp Duty
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the impact of stamp duty on labour mobility. [44514]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): We keep all taxes under review, including stamp duty on property. The number of property transactions in 2001 was the second highest since 1989.
    Mr. Kidney: The pace of house price inflation is so great that in some parts of the country jobs cannot be
    148
    filled because people cannot afford to live in those areas. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that difficulty, and has any modelling work on stamp duty been done to see whether a different application of stamp duty would alleviate the problem?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which no doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will hear as a Budget representation. We have sought to focus the cuts in stamp duty on areas in most need. We have exempted all transactions below £150,000 in 2,000 disadvantaged areas. That undoubtedly will encourage investment and help the very people about whom my hon. Friend rightly expresses concern.
    Mr. Mark Field: In relation to stamp duty in central London and the very high cost of property, what are the Minister's thoughts on how labour mobility, especially in public services, will be enhanced by the high level of stamp duty? The fact that it is introduced at particular thresholds means that it applies to a different level of housing tenure in London and the south-east than it does in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Boateng: We took those issues into account when we set the levels. Some areas in London will undoubtedly benefit from the measures that we are taking in relation to stamp duty in disadvantaged areas. We have also taken an initiative on starter homes, and above all house purchasers have benefited from the fact that as a result of the policies adopted by this Government and the economic stability that is delivering more success, mortgage payments are at their lowest for many years. They are now running at £150 a month less than they were at their highest. That is a real achievement, which is down to the sound policies adopted by this Government, in stark contrast to the ones supported by the Conservatives.

    Manufacturing (West Midlands)
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on support the Government are giving manufacturing companies in the west midlands. [44515]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This Government are committed to the success of manufacturers in every region of the UK. The best support that Government can give is a stable macroeconomic framework, giving firms the confidence to invest for the future. We have delivered low interest rates and low and stable inflation. We are better placed to deal with the downturn than any other economy in the developed world, and we are doing so.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Many manufacturing companies in my constituency report improving trading conditions and order books filling up, but they also report difficulty in recruiting skilled people. What further measures can the

    149
    Government take to help manufacturing address the skills shortage? That will be particularly important as general conditions for the industry improve.
    Mr. Boateng: The issue is being dealt with by the proposals that we have announced in relation to skills,
    150
    science and technology. It is also being dealt with as a result of the enhanced assistance now available for the regional development agencies. The position is looking good and firms will be able to benefit from the expected upturn as a result of the sound macro- and micro-economic policies on which the Government have embarked.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader for the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I would be delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 APRIL—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 16 APRIL—There will be a debate on the middle east on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 18 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 19 APRIL—Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 22 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 23 APRIL—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
WEDNESDAY 24 APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose an Humble Address to celebrate the golden jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen, followed by Second Reading of a Bill, the nature of which I will confirm next week.
THURSDAY 25 APRIL—There will be a debate on international development on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 APRIL—There will be a debate on the quality of life in local communities on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I am aware that many hon. Members are interested in the future of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which had to be dropped earlier this week. I assure the House that we shall bring that Bill back at an early opportunity, and we are confident that we can take it through in this Session.
Mr. Forth: Are you?
Mr. Cook: I note the right hon. Gentleman's observation.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 23 April 2002, there will be a debate relating to total allowable catches and quotas 2002 in European Standing Committee A.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 24 April 2002, there will be a debate relating to food hygiene in European Standing Committee C.
[Tuesday 23 April 2002]:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 14130/01, draft Council regulation fixing for 2002 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups offish stocks, applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels in waters where limitations in catch are required; 15238/01, draft Council regulation fixing for 2002 the
152
fishing opportunities for deep-sea stocks; 6918/02, draft Council regulation establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks; relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 152-x, HC-152-xviii, HC 152-xxii, HC 152-xxiii (2001–02).
Wednesday 24 April:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: 10427/00, draft Council regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs; draft Council regulation laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin; draft Council regulation laying down detailed rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption; draft Council regulation laying down the animal health rules governing the production, placing on the market and importation of products of animal origin intended for human consumption; draft Council directive repealing certain directives on the hygiene of foodstuffs and the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending directives 89/662/EEC and 91/67/EEC; 15475/01, Commission communication on the withdrawal of the proposal for a regulation laying down detailed rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption; relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 28-iii (2000–01), and HC 152-xxxx (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader for giving us the business for next week and a hint of what lies beyond.
Yesterday, at column 42 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) raised the issue of the traffic chaos surrounding the Palace of Westminster. Indeed, I believe that, as a result of that chaos, the Leader of the House was delayed in getting to the House yesterday to chair a Committee. We have chaos on the roads and chaotic railways, and, just recently, we had completely chaotic airlines. Who is the guilty man behind all of this? Can the House guess what is the common thread between chaotic roads, chaotic railways and chaotic airlines? I suggest to the Leader of the House that he try to identify that guilty man, bring him to the House and have him answer all these questions.
Talking of airlines and airways, did not we all tell the Government that what they were doing to air traffic control would be a disaster? Even many Labour Members said that it would be a disaster. The fact is that air traffic control has run out of money. Apparently, it is running out of runways and, now, it is running out of aeroplanes as well. We were told before 1997 that the air was not for sale. It now appears that the air is not for flying either.
I was talking of guilty men. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions appears to have sneaked out yet another announcement, this time—disgracefully—under cover of the funeral of Her Majesty the Queen Mother. The odd thing about this one is that it appeared on something called a website but apparently without an accompanying press release. Uniquely, we seem now to have the Jo Moore memorial non-press release. However, we no longer have Jo Moore or that nice Mr. Sixsmith to blame, so who does the Leader of the House imagine is to blame for all this
Is it not clear that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions must step forward and take responsibility for this recidivism, as he seems unable

153
to give up committing this offence repeatedly? We ought to get to the bottom of the matter and understand the right hon. Gentleman's psychology, since he needs help.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was asked about post office closures. Memorably, he answered:
"No, it is not correct that 3,000 offices are scheduled to close. What is correct, however, is that there needs to be a major programme of change within the Post Office."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002: Vol. 383, c. 125.]
We need a debate on this matter to flush out the truth. Are there to be 5,000 closures, or nearly 3,000, or will the number be completely different? Does the Prime Minister have a clue about how many offices will close, and does he care? When asked a specific question about a matter of great importance to people in both town and countryside, the Prime Minister was, as usual, quite unprepared to give any sort of answer. Can we therefore please have an urgent debate on what is going to happen to our post office network? If the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer that question, perhaps another Minister will come forward and do so.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful questions. If I were to attempt to parade before the House the guilty people responsible for the difficulty of air traffic chaos, I should have to produce many members of the previous Administration. I do not know which planet the right hon. Gentleman inhabits when he is not here in the Chamber, but I routinely and regularly fly between Edinburgh and Heathrow and I can tell him that difficulties with air traffic control computers did not begin in June 1997.
As for the eccentric idea that this Government should have adopted the Conservative Government's plans for involving the private sector in air traffic control, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those plans amounted to complete privatisation, in which all responsibility would have been handed over to the private sector. That would have left us in a worse position than at present. We are involved in seeking a way forward so that we can find a solution.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: A final solution?
Mr. Cook: The phrase that I used was "find a solution", and I hope that the record is correct on that point.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst accused the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions of having sneaked out a report on its website yesterday. That report was a private paper from private sector consultants to an official seminar at which there was no ministerial attendance. The Department was under no obligation whatsoever to publish the report at all. Indeed, if the Department had wanted to suppress the report, it would have been simplest not to publish it, as there is no requirement to do so. It is to the Department's credit that it pursues a policy of transparency. Every month, 200 documents are placed on its website—many more than was the case under the previous Administration.
154
If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst really wishes to raise questions about people who have sought to conceal from the public what they wish to say—
Mr. Forth: I can see what is coming.
Mr. Cook: I am glad, but the right hon. Gentleman should have seen this coming before he raised the question. He may wish to have a word with his party's health spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He told a private meeting of Conservative doctors that the advantage of speaking to them was that he would not read about it afterwards in The Mirror. I am delighted to say that we can find a full account of the meeting in The Mirror. It fully displays the intentions of Conservative Members to dismantle the NHS, if they ever get their hands on it. In the very week when we have shown dramatic reductions in out-patient and in-patient waiting lists, the Conservatives' health spokesman has told the nation that the national health service cannot work and will not work, and that they intend to dismantle it and replace it with private health care.
On the Post Office or Consignia—whichever term the House wishes to use—
Mr. Forth: Post Office.
Mr. Cook: I am happy for the right hon. Gentleman to live in the past, and we shall accept his terminology when it comes to Consignia.
The Prime Minister is right that there has to be substantial change within Consignia or the Post Office. The Post Office is losing millions of pounds, which amounts to a heavy annual debt. I have a simple question for the Conservatives, which I note the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer: how do they propose to pursue their policy of cutting taxation and public spending if they are not prepared to embrace the case for change in the Post Office?
Miss Anne Begg: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to ignore the sedentary comment by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to the effect that there is no hurry to reintroduce the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill? There is an urgent need to ensure that advertising of tobacco products is outlawed for the thousands of people whose lives can be saved by not being encouraged to take up that appalling habit.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I assure the House that it is the Government's intention to reintroduce the Bill. We adopted it when it came from the House of Lords precisely because we are fully committed to it. Indeed, it reflects the text of the Bill that we introduced in the previous Session. I assure hon. Members that it will be timetabled in a way that enables it to be passed this Session.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I warmly welcome the statement by the Leader of the House on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, introduced in the other place by my colleague Lord Clement-Jones?
I was also delighted to hear the robust exchange on the Post Office and the reference to the question put to the Prime Minister yesterday by my right hon. Friend the

155
Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to some of the serious problems in the Post Office? Our office received a letter today—I cannot read the exact date on the envelope because it is smudged—addressed to David Lloyd George, which suggests that there are delays in the postal service that need to be urgently addressed.
On a more serious matter, I notice that yesterday the Lord Chancellor said in the other place that he hoped to publish the responses to the White Paper on Lords reform shortly. How shortly is shortly? In addition, may we have a general discussion soon, although obviously not within the next two weeks, on a review of the constitution? I am sure the Leader of the House is well aware of the great public and media interest, especially over the past few days, in the role of the monarchy in the 21st century. That is part of the tripartite nature of the British constitution—the two Houses of Parliament and the sovereign.
Given the conventions on discussing the monarchy in this place and our responsibility for monitoring some of the statutes that affect the monarchy—notably, the Act of Settlement of 1701—surely it is time to review the unequal rights of women and the ban on Roman Catholics in the succession, and to reconsider the transparency of the allocation of the civil list, for which the House is responsible. There is talk in the media about the publication of an annual report. Do the Government have a view on that?
Will the Leader of the House address that issue seriously and urgently? I hope he agrees that it is ridiculous that the pubs, clubs and media of this country can discuss the important topic of the future of the monarchy, yet here in the House of Commons we are prevented from doing just that.
Mr. Cook: I fully apologise to the Liberal Democrats if they have only just received a letter to David Lloyd George. All three major parties represented in the House must share the blame for that, since it plainly transcends Governments led by them all.
I acknowledge the work carried out by Lord Clement-Jones on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to complete that work within this Chamber.
I, too, want the responses to the White Paper on the reform of the House of Lords to be published as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I said at a previous Question Time that the bulk of those responses show support among the public for a substantially elected second Chamber.
The Government have no proposals, no intentions and no plans—I want to leave no room for misunderstanding on this—to change the monarchy. As Foreign Secretary I had the privilege of serving with the Queen on a number of foreign visits and I want to record my immense respect for the way in which she fulfils a very difficult and delicate role. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we are to maintain the relevance of and respect for the monarchy, it is important that we take sensible, modern steps towards modernisation. If the House can develop a consensus on these matters, we will be willing to respond to it, but it is not an issue on which the Government should be taking a lead.
156
As the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of equality between the sexes, I think that all hon. Members will wish to applaud the leadership role played by Princess Anne during the recent royal funeral in demonstrating the importance of that equality among members of the royal family.
Paul Flynn: Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to study today's article by the distinguished journalist Nick Davies, in which he reveals the surprising fact that the richest family in the United Kingdom pay next to no income tax? In fact, they make a profit out of the tax system because the subsidies that they receive from their farms bring in a greater income than the tiny amount that they pay in income tax. Should not we take a look at a regime under which families with low or average earnings pay under a very efficient pay-as-you-go system, but billionaires and millionaire farmers pay under a pay-if-you-like system?
Mr. Forth: Good soundbite.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is right; I congratulate my hon. Friend on his soundbite. I read the article with interest this morning—I try to read all articles before the business statement—and reflected that I might wish to contact the family concerned for advice on my tax return, as they are doing substantially better than I am.
The tax returns of an individual household are of course a matter for it and for the Inland Revenue, but I am sure that my hon. Friends who are in charge of the Inland Revenue will note my hon. Friend's comments.
Sir Michael Spicer: What has been the outcome of the discussions between officials in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and in that of the Lord Chancellor about the implications of the data protection legislation for Members of Parliament?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that is of grave concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I fully share those concerns. We have got into a position in which the data protection provisions are being applied in a way that nobody anticipated or intended when the Act was passed. It is rather strange to be told that if we take up the case of a constituent who has come to see us we are breaching their privacy, even though they approached us for help in the first place. We are exploring ways in which we might resolve the matter, possibly with the Data Protection Commissioner by means of guidelines; if not, I stand ready to ensure that we amend the law to protect the rights of hon. Members and their constituents.
Julie Morgan: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to bringing back the Tobacco and Advertising Promotion Bill at an early date. That is very good news.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about homelessness among young people? Next week, three young people from Wales will come up to Westminster to show hon. Members a film called "Cold Light", which gives their experience of homelessness, generally caused by violence in their homes, drug addiction and many other tragic circumstances.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming my comments on the tobacco Bill.

157
Homelessness is a grave and serious issue for those affected by it, and it is important in the overall context of rising housing and property prices that we should not forget people who are squeezed out of safe, secure and affordable accommodation. My hon. Friend will be aware that the matter has been actively under consideration in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for the past two Sessions, and I hope that we may be able to bring it before the House again in the not too distant future.
Mr. Roger Gale: In his earlier response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Leader of the House referred to a meeting held at the Conservative party conference in Harrogate. He referred to it as a private meeting; it was not. Not only was it a public meeting, but a member of the Labour party was there by invitation, as a courtesy. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discover the nature of the "free at the point of delivery" health service over which his Administration is presiding, perhaps he would like to visit North Thanet to meet some of my constituents who are currently paying for hip, eye, cataract and other operations that they cannot get under this Government.
Mr. Cook rose—
Mr. Gale: Whoa, I have not finished yet.
In February, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would name the companies on whose behalf he had written to other authorities. In a written parliamentary answer, he declined to do so and referred me to another answer, so I wrote to him on the subject and asked him to answer the question that I had actually asked. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Prime Minister saying that he has written to other people on behalf of many companies that he is not prepared to name, pleading exemption 13 of the code of practice on access to Government information.
I have read section 13 of the code of practice, which mentions
"confidences, trade secrets or intellectual property whose unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party."
I do not believe that that code of practice was designed to protect the Prime Minister from disclosing support for his cronies. Can we please have an early debate on the code of practice on access to Government information, so that we can amend it if necessary?
Mr. Cook: I do think that there is a danger that the hon. Gentleman is getting totally out of touch with reality. Frankly, it is to the Prime Minister's credit that he has written on behalf of many companies in Great Britain to promote their interests, and it has been the practice of Prime Ministers over the years to do so. Indeed, if my right hon. Friend refused to write on behalf of companies to pursue their commercial interests, there would be a wave of criticism from the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches.
On the health service, of course I fully understand, as all Labour Members do, that people have been waiting too long in some cases. That is why we want to reduce the waiting list times, and I am delighted to say that the
158
report of the chief executive of the NHS this week showed that the number waiting for more than 15 months has fallen from 80,000 at the last election to only two in the present context.
We intend to continue that enormous improvement, but it would, of course, be totally thrown away if we ever ended up with the Conservative health spokesman in charge of the health service, given his own view that the NHS cannot work and will not work and his statement at that meeting—I gather that the hon. Gentleman is aware of it—that the big growth market in the United Kingdom is in people paying for health care from their own savings. That is the perfect dividing line between us—under the Conservatives, people will pay from their savings; under the Labour Government, we will pay for the NHS from taxation.
Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that we will have a debate on the quality of life. I hope that there will be an opportunity in that debate to discuss the fact that many people's quality of life is ruined by the antisocial behaviour of a handful of their neighbours. That happened in the Westfield estate in my constituency during the Easter recess. While we were discussing a response to those issues, a great welcome was expressed for the statement, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, that he intends to give local authorities and other landlords greater powers to evict in those circumstances, as well as the Home Secretary's statement that he will speed up the ways in which antisocial behaviour orders can be obtained. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity in that debate to express our concerns on those matters and press for the introduction of those reforms as quickly possible.
Mr. Cook: All hon. Members will be aware from their constituency surgeries that the issue that my hon. Friend raises is a pressing one in so many areas, not only rural as well as urban, but suburban as well as in city centres. He obviously has an excellent contribution to make in the forthcoming debate and—with respect to you, Mr. Speaker—he will be guided on what is appropriate. The debate is to take place on a motion for the Adjournment; it can be wide ranging, and we hope that it will provide an opportunity to explore the ways in which we can improve the quality of life in local communities.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange time for the House to debate the suitability, or otherwise, of the well known Australian property developer and pop impresario Lord Levy—who masquerades as the Government's envoy to the middle east and who caused the right hon. Gentleman such trouble by meddling in the middle east during the period when he was a distinguished Foreign Secretary—to continue in that role without being in any way accountable to Parliament at one of the most difficult and serious passages of international affairs for many years? Will the right hon. Gentleman see what he can do to bring him before Parliament?
Mr. Cook: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one point that he made—[Laughter]—indeed, on several points that he made. Lord Levy did not cause me any

159
difficulty during my time as Foreign Secretary. Indeed, he and I worked very closely together. [Interruption.] We certainly did. He travelled with me on a number of occasions in the middle east and throughout the week that I spent there in October 2000 at the start of the intifada. He was of immense value at the meetings that I attended on those occasions.
This is a time of grave trouble in the middle east—worse than I have ever known. The hope of a resumption of peace is weaker and more faded than at any time I can recall. It is therefore very important that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office should use all the resources and assets available to them. Lord Levy has a range of contacts which he is able to use with great skill and diplomatic charm.
Mr. Soames: Lord Levy is a great nuisance to all the ambassadors.
Mr. Cook: I have never met an ambassador anywhere in the middle east who in any way has resented what Lord Levy has done. On the contrary, he has opened doors to many of them that would otherwise have been closed.
Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend will know that I, many of my hon. Friends and Members across the House are concerned about the problem of the participation of young people in the political process and the small numbers who apparently take an interest in the affairs of this House. Will he consider when talking to his hon. Friends and others whether it would be possible in organising the business of the House to provide a slot—perhaps 10 minutes—to discuss issues relating just to young people, as we have in respect of issues relating to women? Would not that be an incredible symbol to the young people of this country of the importance that we give to matters of concern to them?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has written to me with his proposition and I responded by saying that I fully understand the reason why he suggests that we should have a distinctive and separate slot for questions on youth policy, but since the Home Office is responsible for youth policy, the first call on the matter must remain with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as it would be out of that Department's Question Time that such a slot would have to be found. The issue would have to be looked at in the round and the consequences weighed, although I fully appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised an interesting point which underlines his interest in youth policy.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House noticed that a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends have taken to addressing him just as "Leader"? Is there any significance that we should attach to that development?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Don't tell Gordon.
Mr. Salmond: I hope that Hansard caught that.
On a serious issue, the Leader of the House will have seen the publicity in Scotland about Dungavel detention
160
centre and early-day motion 1060, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), which expresses concern.
[That this House notes with concern reports of conditions in the Dungavel Detention Centre for asylum seekers, with the lack of privacy and no freedom of movement effectively creating a prison environment for people who are guilty of no offence, including young children; further notes with concern the reported suicide attempt by Nigerian asylum seeker Mr. Dotun Adeosun in Dungavel; and calls on the Home Office to accede to requests by human rights groups, such as the Friends of Refugees in Ayrshire, to have wider access to visit and meet asylum seekers at the Dungavel Centre and provide them with support, and to inspect conditions for detainees.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread concern that people who have committed no crime, including children, are effectively being held in prison conditions? Given that we are some distance from the next Home Office questions, will he arrange a statement for next week or at some other suitable moment on whether the conditions in detention centres are appropriate and on the rights of inspection by human rights groups? There is substantial concern that he should be addressing.
Mr. Cook: I shall overlook the hon. Gentleman's characteristically mischievous opening line, and tell the House that I am delighted—
Mr. Forth: Flattered.
Mr. Cook: I am far too humble to be flattered. I am perfectly happy in my present role and would not wish any Member to suggest anything that should remove me from it.
The particular point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is of course a devolved matter, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Scottish Executive and to the Home Secretary.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware of yesterday's lobby of the House of Commons by postal workers, which closely followed reports last week, particularly in Tribune—a newspaper known and loved by Labour Members old and new. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps it is known and loved on the Opposition Benches too. The reports were to the effect that the Department of Trade and Industry had been planning to flog off the Royal Mail to the Dutch post office, TPG. Those reports followed the statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the effect that the Post Office could cut thousands of jobs but there was nothing that the Government could do about it. In view of the shoddy treatment meted out to postal workers and, frankly, the Secretary of State's inadequate response, could we have another debate on the Post Office?
Mr. Cook: As the Leader of the House, I am under no illusion about the fact that that is a matter of grave concern to Members on both sides of the House, and that it will also be raised with them in their constituencies. I am fully aware that the House will wish to discuss it and have reports on it in the future, and I assure my hon. Friend that I expect that to happen.

161
I have now had an opportunity to study the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and I see that the detention centre that he referred to is for asylum seekers, so that is not, of course, a devolved matter. None the less, if he will allow me, I will still take up the matter both with the Home Secretary and with the Scottish Executive.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully endorse the views expressed by the Leader of the House about the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, who happens to be the colonel-in-chief of the regiment with which I served, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). She is a magnificent person, and plays a major role in the life of the regiment.
May I also ask the Leader of the House a question following on from the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer)? A substantial lobby came to Parliament yesterday, representing postal workers throughout the country, including two postal workers from the sorting office in Macclesfield. I share their concern that the universal postal service could be eroded. We now have collections seven days a week, and deliveries five days a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that service, which is critical to people's quality of life, particularly in rural areas, will continue? If he cannot find time for a debate, will a Minister of the Crown come to the House to give an assurance that the universal postal service will continue?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Princess Royal, Princess Anne.
I am sure that we will have other opportunities to discuss the postal service at length in the House, but I stress straight away the Government's commitment to the universal postal service. The universal service obligation is the Post Office's prime obligation, and in our dialogue with the regulator, Postcomm, we are making it clear that any changes that it proposes must be consistent with that obligation.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Further to the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) to the involvement of youth in politics, may I remind my right hon. Friend about the UK Youth Parliament, of which Mr. Philip Carey is the member for Hastings and Rother? To encourage young people, would it be possible—during the summer recess, perhaps—for the UK Youth Parliament to use this Chamber, thus encouraging their involvement in politics?
Mr. Greg Knight: Disgraceful.
Mr. Cook: I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) that I could not envisage this Chamber being used for any purpose other than the sitting of the elected House of Commons. Indeed, strictly speaking, it is an act of treason to take a seat in this Chamber without being elected to it. [Interruption.] I think the shadow Leader of the House is going a little far; we are seeking to encourage rather than discourage youth. I fully sympathise with my hon. Friend's
162
observation that we should try to encourage young people to have an interest in their civic duty and in the political democracy of their country. We did have a gathering of young people from each constituency in Scotland, but that met in Westminster Hall, which does not raise the same sensitivities—
Mr. Forth: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman's robust views on Westminster Hall are well known—and because of such robust views, it might cause less controversy if my hon. Friend were to aim at having such a gathering in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Leader of the House aware of the concern in all parts of the House about the changes in disability living allowance introduced in regulations on 8 April? They mean that people who suffer fear and anxiety out of doors will be prevented from receiving the lower rate of the mobility component—nearly £15 a week—unless they can demonstrate that their fear and anxiety arise from severe mental disability. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time for an early debate on the Floor of the House, early-day motion 1054 has been tabled, including the appropriate prayer:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 648), dated 11th March 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be annulled.]
Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation to consider those matters? Reasonable concern has also been demonstrated by the Social Security Advisory Committee, so important issues concerning those changes remain to be discussed.
Mr. Cook: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely and speaks with authority on behalf of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, and I shall draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Should an opportunity present itself for the statutory instrument to be debated, I shall obviously take on board what he says.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend, with his renowned powers of total recall, will remember that at the last business questions I asked him about bringing the Foreign Secretary to the House to disavow the speech made by George Bush on "the axis of evil." My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave a rather uncharacteristically unsatisfactory response, more or less suggesting that my question was about withdrawing support for the action in Afghanistan, which of course I had not intended. Does my right hon. Friend accept that unless that speech is disavowed, there will continue to be major concern among Labour Members about any action in Iraq, because that will be seen as the first stage of an activity which extends beyond Iraq to Iran, North Korea and any other country which might be deemed to be part of that so-called axis of evil? Therefore,

163
I ask my right hon. Friend again: will he ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House in order to disavow the "axis of evil" speech?
Mr. Cook: I must apologise to my hon. Friend if I misrepresented his question in the answer that I gave to it. I am always keen not to misrepresent any Member of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will address the House next Tuesday. It is right that we should be given a day for a debate on the middle east at an early opportunity after our return from the recess and I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will want to take that opportunity to question my right hon. Friend and to make their own contributions.
I fully understand the different views taken on Iraq in the House, but I hope that all of us can find common ground by first recognising that weapons of mass destruction should not proliferate within the globe; that we shall live in a situation of greater difficulty and danger to ourselves, never mind to the neighbours of the countries that acquire them, if we permit that to continue; and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right when he says that we have to take action in order to prevent those weapons of mass destruction remaining in the hands of people such as Saddam Hussein, who in the past have shown a willingness to use chemical weapons. How we proceed from that is a matter that we shall now discuss with our allies and our friends in the United Nations, and I hope that a way forward can be found. But I hope that we can all proceed from the same starting point: that we want to see an end to those weapons of mass destruction.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has just announced a four-day debate on the Budget statement, which I welcome. Will that not be the first time since the Queen's speech nearly a year ago that the House will have debated in Government time key issues such as public expenditure and taxation? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to move away from this feast and famine approach to debates on the economy and ensure that the House has an adequate opportunity throughout the year to hold the Government to account on those key issues?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recognition that we are about to have a feast of debates on the Government's handling of the economy and their record in achieving a sound economy in Britain which has the lowest inflation in Europe, the lowest unemployment in a generation and a secure and stable economy whose growth rate compares with any other within the G7 economies. All those are matters that we can debate at length over those four days. In fairness though, I would say that there was an extended discussion of public expenditure when the Chancellor presented his autumn statement only last November and he regularly appears before the House to be held to account by the House. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, I heard his voice on my way into the Chamber.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware of the welcome announcement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions designating nine pathfinder areas in the north-west and
164
the midlands to tackle housing in areas of abandonment. Will the Leader of the House give maximum opportunity for the House to make representations on the need for a properly funded housing markets renewal fund so that those pathfinder areas can be meaningful? Does he agree that this is a regional issue and that it should also be discussed at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the progress that is being made at local and regional level by my colleagues in ensuring that we tackle issues of urban regeneration and housing shortage. It is worth noting that throughout the country, where such initiatives have been taken on urban regeneration, they have evoked wide support and interest from the affected communities. In a number of ballots related to our progress on urban regeneration, a higher turnout has been achieved than for elections to the House; notably, that happened in Glasgow only the other week. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall convey her welcome for the measures to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and that we will continue to take all the action that we can to build on the success that we are securing in urban regeneration.
Peter Bottomley: At column 20 of yesterday's Official Report, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question on standards in government that most of what was being raised by Opposition Members was "complete nonsense". When early-day motion 1112 is published tomorrow, will the Leader of the House talk to the Prime Minister and see whether there will be an opportunity for a debate in the House on standards of government and the ministerial code, as well as whether the Prime Minister is interested in upholding that code, whether there is a complaint and whether the Government will make a submission to the Wicks Committee on this and related issues?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having stumped my Parliamentary Private Secretary, who cannot produce an early-day motion that is to be published tomorrow, as opposed to one that is currently on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, understand if I cannot comment on the motion. On standards in government and public life, I have always said that we should keep the matter in perspective. I believe that standards in public life in Britain bear comparison with those in just about any other country that the hon. Gentleman might care to name. We should not contribute to the agenda of some of those in the press who wish to discredit the standards in public life in this place or elsewhere. I intend to make a submission to the Wicks Committee, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will study it with care.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 725 and the cross-party support for it?
[That this House notes that the widows of police officers who retired after 5th April 1978 and subsequently married are entitled to a pension under the Police Pension Scheme, that the widows of police officers who retired before 5th April 1978 and subsequently married

165
are not entitled to a pension under the Police Pension Scheme, and that the widows of a marriage entered into before retirement would receive a pension under the Police Pension Scheme whether or not the retirement was before 5th April 1978; believes that this creates an inequitable and arbitrary position for police officers' widows; and further believes that the Government should take urgent action to remedy the situation and to ensure appropriate entitlement to pension provisions for the widows of all retired police officers.]
Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the plight of widows of police officers who remarried, but retired before 1978? Such widows do not receive a pension, despite contributions having been made to the pension scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate The Mail on Sunday on its campaign on the issue?
Mr. Cook: I will not do so; there are some things that hon. Members can ask me to do, but it is a step too far to ask me to congratulate The Mail on Sunday on anything. The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of great sensitivity, and I appreciate its importance to the people who are caught up in the situation that he describes. Of course, there is a downside, as any extension of pension rights must be paid for. It is a matter of judgment for the members of any such scheme as to whether they are willing to pay and accept the additional contributions that would be necessary. Within that limitation, I fully accept that we should be moving to a situation in which pensions are not withdrawn on remarriage.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Three months ago, as the Leader of the House will obviously recall, I asked him whether he would find time for a debate in the House on the two Green Papers published by the Government making radical proposals for changes to our town and country planning system and major inquiries. He fairly pointed out that there was a consultation period and that any changes would have to be brought before the House. I think that the Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House would find helpful a debate in which we could inform the Government of our views and opinions before they make definite proposals for approval by the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman says. Having sat through the past 45 minutes of questions, he will be aware that I am not short of bids for time and debate in the Chamber or elsewhere in the precincts. I understand that he makes his observation in good faith and with a genuine wish to help. I anticipate that we will return to the matter on a number of occasions in future; whether we can do so in the near future is a matter of judgment that I shall have to consider.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: While it was unfortunate to say the least that the accident-prone Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was yet again caught giving out controversial information at a sensitive time, does the Leader of the House agree that an even more serious issue is at stake? At a time when there is terrific congestion both in our cities and on our motorways, our constituents will fail to understand why the Secretary of State for Transport,
166
Local Government and the Regions has not come to the House to make a statement and why the Leader of the House has not organised a debate on transport and congestion, which has increased so much under this Government. When will that happen?
Mr. Cook: As I have said before, I do not think that there is a member of the Cabinet who has been more willing to make statements to the House than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I am sure that there will be many future opportunities for us to debate transport policy.
The hon. Gentleman reminds me that the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), expressed concern about the impact on Parliament square of yesterday's traffic disruption. I share Members' concern about that issue, and we will pursue with the authorities the need to ensure that Members have reasonable access to the House of Commons.
Mr. McLoughlin: In the previous Parliament, I initiated an Adjournment debate, to which the then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) replied, on improvements to the A50—the M1-M6 link—and the associated dangers. An intolerable burden has been placed on the A515, which has not been improved at all, and residents along that road now live in fear. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House on road safety and the associated problems?
Mr. Cook: I am confident that my hon. Friend gave an excellent answer in the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot promise an oral statement to the House on that precise topic, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's observations to the Secretary of State's attention.
Mr. David Heath: Before we debate the provisions in this year's Budget, can we examine the implementation of some of the measures in the previous one, particularly the aggregates levy? One justification for the sustainability fund was that it would go some way towards mitigating the environmental effects of quarrying. Why, therefore, will the three counties that produce the greatest part of the aggregate in this country—Somerset, Leicestershire and Derbyshire—not receive a commensurate sum from the sustainability fund? In fact, they will end up as losers as a result of the fund's operation. Will we have an opportunity to debate that issue?
Mr. Cook: I regret to say that I have not been briefed this morning on the aggregates levy, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that oversight. He asks a fascinating question to which I do not have the answer, but I shall ensure that somebody writes to him with it.
Mr. Mark Francois: May we have an early debate on the state of our railways, not least in light of an article by Libby Purves that appeared in Tuesday's edition of The Times? She wrote:
"What an extraordinary country this is. The railways are in tatters and hospitals in crisis: clearly we can't run a whelk stall. Then at a few days' notice we put on a vast, immaculate procession of brass and plumes and pomp, timed to the second…If the Royal Horse Artillery fancy taking over Railtrack, I'm for it."

167
The state of our railways is a matter of concern to all our constituents. When can we have an early debate on the fact that the Government have still failed to lift Railtrack out of administration?
Mr. Cook: The timetable for Railtrack's removal from administration was set out long ago. That process will necessarily take some time, given the need for legal and accountancy procedures. In the first instance, it is the administrators, rather than the Government, who must assess the alternatives to Railtrack. That said, it is well known that the Government welcome the fact that a company limited by guarantee is available to take over Railtrack. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he is in any doubt, he should talk to the travelling public, who greatly welcome seeing the last of Railtrack as a private company. Railtrack constantly struggled with the question whether to put first the interests of the travelling public, or private payments to shareholders. We have removed that conflict from the minds of those who run Railtrack.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The situation has got worse.
Mr. Cook: On the contrary, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the latest figures, I think that he will find that the situation is getting better.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I ask the Leader of the House to respond robustly and positively to calls for a debate on congestion. Is he aware that disruption to freight operation through the channel tunnel is costing freight operators £500,000 a day? By the end of March, the total cost of disruption had reached £15 million. Curiously, however, French operators are still functioning, and it is British operators who are losing out.
In addition to a debate on guilty men, will the Leader of the House also invite the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—a guilty woman—to debate the demise and collapse of ITV Digital, and the resulting awful effect on sport and on football clubs across the country?
Mr. Cook: I fully share the hon. Lady's concern about the impact of the collapse of ITV Digital, but, with the greatest respect, that cannot be laid at the Government's door. I hope that those involved in the discussion are able to find a way forward that does not leave football a casualty of a failure by the commercial television sector.
The hon. Lady has diligently raised freight transport via the channel tunnel at three successive business questions. I again repeat that my colleagues at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions are fully engaged with the matter and continue to make representations on a disruption that of course stems primarily from the French side of the tunnel, not the British.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I associate myself with the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for an early debate on the operation of the aggregates tax? The Leader of the House will be aware that it came into effect on 1 April, perhaps appropriately, and it is already threatening to bring the aggregates extraction industry in my constituency to a grinding halt. It is also causing a
168
great deal of concern in the agriculture industry, in Orkney in particular, because of the suggestion that it will apply to sand used for liming agricultural land. May we have an early debate to assess, in the light of experience, the disastrous effects that the tax will have, before it is too late for small rural and island communities such as those that I represent?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that, since 1 April, we have had sufficient time to make a mature assessment of how the system will work in practice, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I shall draw the attention of the relevant Minister to what has been said in the House.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the weekly parliamentary Labour party meetings to be held in the Chamber, notwithstanding what he said to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) about the dignity of this place? If he does so, we could all see the endemic divisions in the Labour party on Iraq, missile defence, private finance in the public services and so on, instead of having to read about them in the newspapers the next day.
Mr. Cook: Had the hon. Gentleman been present at the PLP meeting, as I was, he would have been impressed, as I was, by the thunderous and warm applause given to the Prime Minister. However, I am pleased to respond to his contribution on bringing serious debate to the House. If we continue at the next general election on the trajectory that we set at the last two, the PLP will occupy this Chamber entirely.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I refer the Leader of the House to the Prime Minister's reply on Sea Harriers at column 16 on Wednesday 10 April. Judging by the Prime Minister's response to a straight question, it is perfectly obvious that he did not have a clue about the answer. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that he would not know what a Sea Harrier looked like if one landed on the lawn at Chequers. If he is to deploy our armed forces round the world, should he not at least first properly do his homework on our capabilities? Does the Leader of the House agree that, until a credible alternative is in place, withdrawing the Sea Harriers from commission would be an absolute disaster?
Mr. Cook: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is knowledgeable in military matters, so he is aware that the Sea Harrier is an air-sea defence weapon whereas Harrier GR7s and GR9s are principally weapons to be used to support ground offensives. It is in support of such ground offensives that we have found the carriers most useful. That is what we shall require if we are to intervene to carry through the actions against terrorism and to make sure that we secure the world, which is why we propose to upgrade the Harrier offensive system from GR7 to GR9. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, if he wants to support international action.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a debate at an appropriate time on the possibility of establishing a permanent public memorial to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother? Such a debate would enable the official Opposition to make common cause

169
with the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, who is reported to have made the excellent suggestion that a statue of her be erected in Trafalgar square. Acting on that suggestion would give the public an opportunity to subscribe to such a statute, even if that upsets those of the chattering classes who have been filling the empty plinth in Trafalgar square with their perverse, self-indulgent and inconsequential offerings in recent months.
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to stand in the way of any rapprochement between those on the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Benches at a time when we are all concerned to promote world peace. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting suggestion, on which I am sure both parties may wish to build. I am not sure that I see the case for the House spending a day debating that matter, but plainly, should a consensus gather, the Government would naturally want to be part of it. [Interruption.] This is an issue on which we should proceed with a consensus; it should not be a party political issue.
I sat through the entire debate last week in which the House paid tribute to the Queen Mother, and [I thought that the House distinguished itself with a moving and very touching celebration of the Queen Mother's strength, humour and commitment to duty. I am content that the House was able to play its part in celebrating her life.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to the heroic achievements of the chief executive of the NHS. Earlier this week, I received a letter from a lady who, having reached the politically sensitive threshold of having waited 18 months for an operation, was telephoned and asked whether she wanted to take up the opportunity of having the operation carried out by another NHS trust. She accepted, and when some three months later she inquired as to when the operation would be she was told that, as she had been waiting for only three months, she did not have a prayer. The trick was that the clock had started again when she moved to the other trust. May we have a debate on those heroic achievements so that we can scrutinise precisely how they have been achieved?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health with the details of that case, we shall certainly pursue it. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that if he looks at the figures—produced by the chief executive of the NHS, not by Ministers—he will see that we have made dramatic progress in both in-patient and out-patient waiting times. We have also reduced by a quarter the delay in discharge resulting from bed blocking. Those are substantial achievements and the chief executive was right to say that we should sometimes congratulate NHS staff on the progress that they are making instead of constantly knocking them.

Armed Forces Personnel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate on armed forces personnel, I draw the House's attention to the following documents, which are relevant: Second report from the Defence Committee, Session 2000–01, The Strategic Defence Review: Policy for People: Government response thereto; Fourth special report from the Defence Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 462; Minutes of Evidence taken by the Defence Committee on 6 and 13 March 2002, on Ministry of Defence reviews of armed forces pensions and compensation arrangements, HC 666. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
1.28 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Today's debate on armed forces personnel matters provides an opportunity for me to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother on behalf of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. The magnificent part that so many members of the armed forces—from all three services—played in last Friday's ceremonial procession to Her Majesty's lying-in-state and in her funeral on Tuesday provided the most eloquent tribute possible.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother had long-standing and close links with the armed forces. She was an inspiration to many during the first world war, when she helped to tend the wounded who were being cared for at Glamis castle. With His Majesty King George VI, she was an inspiration to many more, both civilians and those serving in the United Kingdom, as well as those fighting overseas, during the dark days of the second world war.
Her Majesty was the Commandant-in-Chief for women in both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. The men and women who have served aboard HMS Ark Royal have taken considerable pride in the fact that she was the ship's sponsor and presided at the launch of all three aircraft carriers that bore that name, including at the rededication ceremony in November last year.
Her Majesty was the Colonel-in-Chief of eight regiments in the Regular Army, Royal Honorary Colonel of three units in the Territorial Army, and Colonel-in-Chief of five Army units from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Perhaps the most affectionate of her relationships with Army units was with the Irish Guards, who had the privilege of providing the bearer party on both Friday and Tuesday. Her Majesty was also Commandant-in-Chief of the RAF central flying school and Honorary Air Commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I know that service men and women throughout the armed forces, and their Commonwealth counterparts, will mourn her passing.
I want specifically to mention that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother was Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Anglian Regiment. The 1st Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment is currently serving in Kabul as part of the international security assistance force, and held its own memorial service on Tuesday as a mark of respect.
Tuesday was a sad day for the Royal Anglians for another reason. Tragically, one of their young soldiers was killed after an accident while he was out on patrol in

171
Kabul. I know that the whole House will join me in extending their condolences to the soldier's family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Today's debate is the first opportunity that the House has had since the events of 11 September to consider and discuss issues affecting those who serve in the armed forces. Before I deal with specific issues, I would like to bring right hon. and hon. Members up to date on the most recent developments concerning operations in Afghanistan. A number of Members of this House have recently visited British troops deployed there, and have seen the excellent work that they are doing.
I shall begin with the international security assistance force. The United Kingdom agreed to lead ISAF at its inception for a limited period. We took on that responsibility because our forces had the knowledge, experience and ability to organise and establish a multinational expeditionary deployment. They have done just that, with genuine distinction. ISAF has been a significant success, and has provided considerable support to the Afghan Interim Administration as they have taken the first steps in rebuilding their country. We can be proud of the contribution that the United Kingdom's armed forces have made.
Now we must look to ISAF's future. We remain committed to its success. In all probability, the United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the force will be extended, so that ISAF can remain in place beyond June. We support that entirely, as there is still work for it to do.
Although British troops will continue to play a part in ISAF, it will not remain under our leadership. Following his meeting with Hamid Karzai on 4 April, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit made it clear that the Turkish Government intend to take over as lead nation. I know that the House will welcome that good news.
We have still to agree the exact date on which we will transfer leadership. It is now unlikely that we will be able to hand over to Turkey at the end of April, as we had originally hoped. We may well remain as lead nation until June, probably until after the interim Loya Jirga, although we anticipate that, before then, Turkey will continue to build up the already considerable number of troops that it has deployed.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What financial arrangements are being made with the Turkish Government to enable them to undertake this task? What contribution are the United Kingdom Government making?
Mr. Hoon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that at this stage, before all the arrangements have been finalised, it would not be appropriate for me to go into any detail. Appropriate financial support will be made available. The agreement has not yet been finalised, and I do not want to anticipate those practical arrangements, but if the hon. Gentleman asks me that question again in due course, I shall be able to provide him with a more comprehensive answer.
I make no apology for the fact that the United Kingdom may remain as lead nation until June, rather than the end of April. It is far more important that ISAF continues to do its vital work than that we stick absolutely to the letter of our original aim and end our period as lead nation at the end of this month.
172
Turkey expressed interest in taking on this responsibility from the very start. We have always been candid in our discussions with the Turkish authorities, and have set out very clearly the complexities involved in leading ISAF. We very much welcome the statement by Prime Minister Ecevit.
We have always made it clear that the size of the British contingent serving with ISAF would reduce over time, particularly once it had been established. Our contribution has now reduced in size. We currently have about 1,500 personnel serving with ISAF, rather than the 1,800 who were out there at the start. We now expect those numbers to reduce still further, as Turkey takes over as lead nation. I should emphasise that our commitment to ISAF will continue, and that a significant number of British troops will remain in Kabul under Turkish command.
ISAF is only one strand of the United Kingdom's contribution to operations in Afghanistan. We are also working with our allies, as we have from the very start, in continuing operations to defeat al-Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters. Those operations have been remarkably successful, but we need to remain vigilant and committed to completing the task. That is why we have decided to deploy 45 Commando Group and the headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade to Afghanistan to take part in operations against the remnants of the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban.
Overall, the deployment is going well. Five hundred members of the force have now arrived in Bagram. Although it will be the end of April before all the members of 45 Commando Group will be in Afghanistan, they will soon be ready to conduct operations against remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Mr. Michael Weir: When the Secretary of State made his statement about the deployment of 45 Commando, he was not able to tell us what the remnants of al-Qaeda consisted of. I realise that he cannot be too specific, but has he received any further intelligence about the numbers that 45 Commando and other troops will face in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: I went into as much detail as I considered appropriate about the nature of the operations that would be carried out, and about what we expected would be found. Part of the purpose of the operations, however, is to seek out and find those elements. Obviously it is vital to me to have confidence, as I do, in the number and skill of the commandos who will be engaged in the task; but I cannot be precise, and it would not be appropriate for me to be so even if we had the information. This is about ensuring that we have the right quality of people—which we have—to perform a difficult and demanding task.
Mr. Mike Hancock: In a parliamentary answer given to me yesterday by the Ministry, it was suggested that the remnants of the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan amounted to several thousand people who would have to be hunted down in one way or another. Will the Secretary of State explain where that figure came from? Was it based on intelligence from forces still in Afghanistan, or on intelligence from forces going back and forth across the Pakistan border?
Mr. Hoon: It was, inevitably, an estimate based on information from a wide variety of sources, including

173
forces already on the ground. But, as I said on the last occasion, Members must appreciate that we are not talking about a thousand-strong group waiting for offensive operations; these are smaller groups scattered across Afghanistan, but particularly in the higher and more remote areas. That too makes it more difficult to be absolutely precise about the numbers.
Mr. Hancock rose—
Mr. Hoon: May I make some progress?
The deployment of 45 Commando Group has not been without difficulties. Deploying troops to Afghanistan exclusively by air is not easy, as I suspect Members who have visited Afghanistan can testify and as I can testify from my own experience. Nor is Afghanistan an easy place in which to operate. We had originally planned to accommodate the Royal Marines in former Soviet barracks at Bagram airfield, but following further consultations with the Afghan authorities we have concluded that those barracks are not suitable. We have had to build a new tented camp, which has taken time because the welfare of our troops is crucial.
Members on both sides of the House have strongly supported the Government's action in the campaign against international terrorism. They have applauded the steps we have taken to destroy the al-Qaeda network, remove the Taliban regime from power and reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community, ensuring that it will never again become a safe haven for terrorism. We remain committed to completing those tasks.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that we are giving our service personnel in Afghanistan the best possible accommodation and facilities? He will know, as I do from my experience of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, that the facilities and accommodation provided for our service personnel in Bosnia were the worst that I had ever seen. Will he assure me that if we put our personnel in the line of fire—where they may risk their lives—for any length of time, they will be given the quality of accommodation that they deserve?
Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, in the conduct of this kind of expeditionary warfare there is necessarily a trade-off between the best possible accommodation—which of course we would all want to be provided—and the speed of deployment, and ensuring that people are capable of carrying out such operations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect new barracks to be constructed in a place such as Kabul. He understands the needs of expeditionary operations but, within those, it remains important that people have proper accommodation suitable for the tasks that they have to carry out. I assure him that we have constant regard to that; but that is not to say that I do not strongly believe that there are areas where we need to improve the expeditionary accommodation available.
Mr. James Gray: We are delighted that the Secretary of State is going to deploy the best possible accommodation for our troops who will be in
174
Afghanistan for some time. When does he intend to deploy mobile bath units, laundry units and bakeries, all of which are easily transportable on Hercules aircraft?
Mr. Hoon: Again, the same type of balancing exercise has to be undertaken. Different countries make different contributions to the capabilities of ISAF, but it is most important that appropriate facilities are available across that force.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of Afghanistan, he will recollect that some of us expressed misgivings that two strands were involved. One was a peacekeeping role and the other was an operational, offensive role to counter al-Qaeda. Our qualms were based on the fact that the two roles may have been somewhat incompatible. In retrospect, were our misgivings and our qualms ill founded? Has the problem been solved, or is there still incompatibility between those two roles?
Mr. Hoon: I had no reservations so it is a little difficult for me to decide whether I have resolved those of my hon. Friend. I have certainly sought to do so, in that I have explained to the House on more than one occasion how the command and control structure of the different forces works. Indeed, it is right to say that we constantly check to ensure that there is no overlap, nor the possibility of the confusion about which my hon. Friend was concerned. That is a constant part of our effort.
Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to me again.
Will he explain the details of the rules of engagement and how 45 Commando will operate under an American commander? Do the rules of engagement give those forces the right to cross into Pakistan if they are in pursuit of Taliban or al-Qaeda rebels?
Mr. Hoon: We went into that matter on the last occasion that we discussed this subject so I do not propose repeating what I said then. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that our forces have robust rules of engagement that allow them to do their job. It has never been the practice of any Government, when discussing such matters, to go into detail about the nature of those rules of engagement.
Even without the continuing operations in Afghanistan, this has been a particularly busy year for the armed forces and, indeed, for the civil servants who work so closely with them. Service personnel are engaged in operations over Iraq, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Sierra Leone and throughout the world. Operations in Afghanistan have meant that some people have, perhaps, overlooked the remarkably successful deployment of about 2,000 British troops to Macedonia last summer, to collect weapons from Albanian fighters in support of the framework agreement that continues to provide the basis for Macedonia's moves towards greater stability.
In view of the 20th anniversary this year of the Falklands conflict, I should also mention those members of the armed forces who are deployed in the islands. I recently visited the Falklands again and was able to see for myself the excellent work that British forces continue to carry out there.

175
Closer to home, the armed forces have continued their work in Northern Ireland in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, more recently, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They also played a key role in helping to control the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
Our service men and women are obviously busy. About 28 per cent. of the Army are currently committed to operations. That is a high proportion, although not as high as the 44 per cent. committed to operations at the peak of the Kosovo campaign. In addition, 11 per cent. of the Royal Navy and 10 per cent. of the Royal Air Force are deployed on operations.
The armed forces are very busy, but they are not operating beyond what they can bear, although we recognise that a number of units—particularly specialists—and those who serve in them face specific strains. I would like to say something about what we are doing to tackle those issues, but I emphasise that the amount of time people spend on operations and the amount of time they have to recover and spend with their families are key concerns. We are determined to achieve and maintain a balance of commitments. We aim to commit our troops to operations for no longer than is absolutely necessary. We will continue to withdraw them at the earliest opportunity and to press our allies and partners to take on their share of the responsibility.
Our efforts are largely successful. As I have said, the proportion of the Army that is currently committed to operations is well down from the peak of activity in Kosovo. Relevant guidelines for the Royal Navy are largely being maintained. Only 2.3 per cent. of trained RAF personnel spent more than 140 days away from their parent unit last year.
Our reserve forces have an important part to play. They have made a significant contribution to meeting our current operational commitments, reaffirming the emphasis that we have placed on integrating them more closely with our Regular forces and making them still more relevant to current operations. At any one time, some 10 per cent. of our forces in the Balkans are reservists. Reservists have also been called out to support operations in Sierra Leone and the United Nations observer mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reason why so many reservists have been required is the shortfall in the Regular forces? Will he inform the House what the current shortfall is in the Army?
Mr. Hoon: The use of reservists is not a result of the overall shortfall to which I have referred. It is a result of pressure on key specialisations and has involved, largely, the replacement of particular specialists. I know from my visits to the Balkans that the reservists who at any one time make up 10 per cent. of our forces there are often people with particular skills in the civilian world who have been able to make those available to the armed forces. They have done so not least because of the significant contribution that the armed forces are making to the rebuilding of countries in that region. We tend to have manning difficulties in those particular specialist areas, and I am not at all complacent about the importance
176
of ensuring that we have the appropriate manning balance and of making sure that the pressures that we put on those specialists are relieved as much as we can manage.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that the Territorial Army is at present about 1,300 below the strength anticipated at the time of the strategic defence review? Would the Secretary of State care to consider that one way of keeping the reserve forces up to strength would be to revisit what was done in 1999, when the reserve decoration and the territorial decoration were extended to all ranks, but nobody was allowed to put letters after their name any more? Would it not be a tremendous boost to the reserve forces and an incentive for people to renew their commitments if those people who get the volunteer reserve medals were able to put the appropriate letters after their names?
Mr. Hoon: I will certainly look at that practical suggestion, but I will refer later to questions of recruitment and retention. I will set out some of the efforts that the Ministry of Defence is making to ensure that we have the right numbers of people coming in and remaining in the armed forces for as long as we need them.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State has repeated the mantra that we so often hear about the principal requirement for reservists lying in specialists. Will he confirm that in every single year since the Government took office, by far the largest category of reservists used has been infantry?
Mr. Hoon: They tend to be infantry with particular skills, and it is important to recognise that. That is wholly consistent with what the Government set out at the time of the SDR, so that we have the kind of people available to us to do particular jobs. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his own experience, being a member of the armed forces these days is an increasingly specialised role and the levels of skill and training that are required are increasing from day to day. That is something that every Government will have to face up to in the future.
Mr. Mark Francois: May I say quickly that being an infantry man is something of a skill in its own right? Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of the Government's thinking in response to the new chapter of the SDR? They began a consultation exercise on a possible new role for the reserve forces in responding to the events of 11 September. Is there any initial conclusion as a result of that consultation exercise?
Mr. Hoon: I shall address that point in due course, but I am grateful for the contribution that right hon. and hon. Members have made to the discussion document that we published.
Let me return to the use we have made of the specialist skills of our reservists, particularly in the continuing operations against international terrorism. The compulsory call-out of intelligence staff from the Territorial Army and movement operators from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has been vital in helping us to prosecute the campaign against the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban.
In addition, more than 1,700 members of the reserve forces are currently serving in full-time reserve service. This means that they have voluntarily entered commitments to serve full-time for periods ranging from a few months to three to four years.

177
Recent operations have proved beyond doubt that the 1998 strategic defence review and our further work on the changing strategic context have put the United Kingdom in a strong position to respond to the appalling events of 11 September. As the House is aware, however, we are looking at what more we might need to do in the light of those appalling attacks on the United States.
We are pressing ahead with our work on what has been termed a new chapter to the strategic defence review. In ensuring that we have the right defence concepts, forces, and capabilities, we are placing particular emphasis on the impact that any proposed changes might have on members of the armed forces and their families. I consider it very important that we do not make unreasonable demands on our service personnel. The strategic defence review put people at the heart of our policy. That is where they will remain.
Our emerging thinking on the new chapter was set out in the public discussion document that the House discussed during the defence policy debate on 14 February. There has been a positive and constructive response to the paper. By last month's deadline we had received more than 300 responses from hon. Members, local authorities, academics, and members of the public.
The responses cover a wide range of issues, but a number of key themes run through them. There has been strong support for the strategic defence review and the work on the new chapter. There has also been strong support for many of the emerging conclusions of our work, including the armed forces' focus on operating abroad; the recognition of the importance of rapid effect and high readiness; the armed forces' role in preventing terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom and the contribution that the Territorial Army could make to home defence; the importance of cross-Government co-ordination; and the role that international organisations such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union have to play in combating international terrorism.
We are taking account of the views, ideas, arid opinions that have been expressed as we take this work forward. Although the formal deadline for responses has passed, this should not be the end of the public debate. These issues will face us for months and years to come, so we continue to welcome views and ideas.
Our intention is to publish conclusions from our work in the late spring or early summer, but I can assure the House that we have already taken the necessary steps to adjust the posture of the armed forces in response to the changing situation. We will continue to implement further urgent measures as and when required, in advance of the publication of our conclusions.
May I emphasise one fundamental aspect of this work? Our people—the service men and women on whom we make such demands—are our most valuable and important resource. We are giving careful consideration to the impact that any possible changes in the light of the events of 11 September may have on them and their families.
The fact that the armed forces are so busy serves as a reminder that the recruitment and retention of people is our most important task. We need to find people with the intelligence, courage, and commitment necessary to
178
undertake tasks that are always demanding and often hazardous, right across the world, often with little or no warning. We need to train and motivate them to do their jobs, to provide them with support and guidance, especially at the times of greatest stress and trauma, and to support their families who remain at home.
I will not pretend that this burden of effort is always easy for the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence to hear. Our forces are, as we have acknowledged, currently undermanned. We are making considerable efforts to achieve what we call the manning balance. Achieving this balance is about recruiting and retaining the right people but getting and keeping them is not straightforward.
The current employment context is difficult. The size of the critical age group of those between 16 and 24 years declined in the past decade. The economy is relatively strong and many more are electing to stay on in higher education. It is, therefore, a tough job recruiting and holding on to the best people.
Patrick Mercer: Can the Secretary of State account for the extraordinary success of certain regiments in the Army that find no difficulty with recruiting? In fact, they often allow themselves to be overmanned or enabled to be overmanned, yet the recruiting group does not seem to take account of the particular styles of operation that these regiments follow.
Mr. Hoon: I have been concerned about the need to encourage much greater flexibility in the way we recruit. The hon. Gentleman is clearly aware that there are issues in relation to the allocation of recruits to particular areas of the armed forces. I have taken an interest in that, but I would welcome his thoughts and suggestions, based on his experience, on how best to resolve those questions, not least because of particular problems in certain specialist areas.
Civilian employers speak highly of the quality of those who have served in the armed forces, and particularly of their dependability and adaptability. When service men and women have particular skills and experience—such as pilots, signallers, logisticians, engineers and others—they are doubly attractive to civilian employers. We face a huge demand for the best young people and we need some 25,000 new recruits every year. Clearly, we face competition for them from other employers. Attracting people to the armed forces can therefore be an uphill task.
Mr. Brazier: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), will the Secretary of State recognise that while almost every major civilian organisation is trying to decentralise its personnel strategy—a horses for courses approach—the Ministry of Defence is pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach, which is bringing personnel policy in all three services ever more closely together, as criticised by the Select Committee on Defence in the last Parliament, and is making his problem harder?
Mr. Hoon: I shall go on to talk about personnel policy, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of it. A central part of that policy is to emphasise the diversity of the three services and to respect their considerable different traditions. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it for a moment, he will realise that the

179
implication of the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was that we must look across the board at how we allocate people to different parts of the armed forces.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the Secretary of State tell the House a little about recruitment from overseas? As he knows, the British Army has had an excellent record of recruiting people from overseas, particularly from Commonwealth countries. Will he comment in particular on moves in New Zealand to recruit former members of the Royal New Zealand Air Force?
Mr. Hoon: That continues to be the case, and recruitment from Commonwealth countries continues to be strong and to provide us with not only valuable sorts of recruits but excellent links and contacts with Commonwealth countries. Efforts have been made to recruit New Zealand pilots although it will not greatly surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that their services are in great demand, not only from other air forces around the world but from civilian airlines.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: In a parliamentary answer at the end of last year, the Minister of State informed me that the intention was to move the Regular Commissions Board to Sandhurst to be co-located with the Royal Military Academy. I now understand that the money for that is not available and that the Regular Commissions Board will stay in Westbury. However, the Territorial Commissioning Board., which is currently co-located with the Regular Commissions Board, will be removed to Chilwell. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? What is the rationale for dislocating the Territorial Commissioning Board from the Regular Commissions Board and moving it to Chilwell?
Mr. Hoon: Chilwell is a fine place, which is close to my constituency—[Laughter] It is not that close. I will have to ensure that the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question are accurate before I respond to his conclusions. However, I shall write to him on that in due course.
I have set out the background of recruitment. I want to emphasise that recruitment levels have not fallen recently but have remained remarkably resilient. In the first 10 months of 2001–02, the total intake for the armed forces reached 81 per cent. of the year's recruitment target. Over that period, intake levels across all three services were up on the same period in the previous year. That indicates that the armed forces are on course at least to match if not exceed the previous year's achievement. That is excellent news.
Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State put some flesh on those bones and give the House some figures on the shortfall and the percentages involved? It is all very well saying that the Government are trying to achieve targets, but I got the impression from a written answer that I received that a sizeable shortfall still exists.
Mr. Hoon: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be hypnotised by a particular figure for the shortfall. We have made no secret of the fact that the shortfall is of the order of 9,000–10,000 overall, but we have always maintained that the important figures are the ones that show how many people are joining the services, and how
180
many are not staying in as long as we would prefer. A marginal improvement in retention rates would solve the whole problem.
I deal now with the changes that have occurred in society. In 10 years, 15 per cent. of the youngest age group from which we draw our recruits will come from ethnic minorities. That only serves to remind us that the armed forces must reflect the society that they serve. We remain committed to recruiting from all sectors of the community, regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
The annual recruitment rate from the British ethnic minority communities continues to improve. In the three years from April 1998 to April 2001, the percentage of recruits from the ethnic minorities more than doubled. The signs for 2001–02 suggest that this upward trend has continued. The position for female recruitment is similarly positive. In the 12 months to 1 February 2002, 2,658 females entered the armed forces—11.3 per cent. of the total intake.
As I have made clear, however, recruiting is only half of the challenge that we face in reaching the manning balance. Retention is also a matter of the highest priority, not least because it is the key to solving the problems of undermanning. We are trying to get this right, and I want to touch on three areas of work that are under way.
The first is pay. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for the clear and wide-ranging report that they have produced this year. I am pleased that we were again able to implement the review body's recommendations in full and on time, for the fourth year in succession.
We expect a lot from our service men and women. Fair remuneration is an essential ingredient in maintaining their morale and persuading them to remain in the armed forces. It is reassuring, therefore, that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body welcomed the new pay structure that was introduced last year, and that it was able to report the success of the significant task of transferring personnel to the new pay ranges.
I attach great importance to the work that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body does on behalf of our service men and women. In particular, I welcome its independent status. This gives the review body's views added weight, both inside and outside the Ministry of Defence, and—most important—with service personnel themselves.
Secondly, we recognise the fact that frequent overseas deployments pose significant challenges to our people and their families. Young men and women who are attracted to joining the armed forces by the prospect of adventure and travel often find that less appealing as they grow older, settle down and take on family responsibilities.
We are therefore working hard to try to reduce the stresses and difficulties associated with service life. For example, the service families taskforce was set up in 1999 to act as a central focus for family issues and to liaise with other Government Departments on issues outside the Ministry of Defence's immediate control. Recent advances on issues involving health and education and on clarification on eligibility for allowances, particularly for those serving overseas, have been very well received. Useful progress is being made elsewhere. For the first time, for example, the code of practice on schools admissions now makes specific reference to service children.

181
We recognise that the number of operations to which UK service personnel are committed has increased significantly in recent years—an inevitable consequence of the challenges and instabilities that we have faced since the end of the cold war. To ensure that we provide the best possible support to service men and women deployed on operations, and to their families back home, we commissioned a review of operational welfare.
That review was completed in December 1999. It took into account the views of hundreds of service personnel across a wide range of operational theatres, and also drew on lessons learned by our allies. The result was the development of a single, comprehensive operational welfare package.
Experience to date indicates that the operational welfare package has been extremely well received, most recently in Afghanistan, where the harsh conditions have been relieved, in part, by the provision of 20 minutes of weekly telephone call time and of electronic "blueys". Both of these help service personnel to stay in touch with their families. British service personnel have also had access to three UK radio and television channels.
Thirdly, we are addressing those areas where we face particular problems in retaining service men and women. A key example is aircrew, where a recent comprehensive review confirmed that we face serious shortages, notably in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
These shortages are largely the result of the pull from the civilian airlines, dissatisfaction with the management of aircrew and their careers, quality of life issues and the effect of early pensions and gratuities. The services are now urgently addressing these issues. We have also introduced targeted financial retention initiatives aimed at service aircrew. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommended that sums of between £30,000 and £50,000 should be paid to retain our most experienced and valued aircrew. Next year, we will introduce new pay arrangements for all professional aviators.
The remuneration and non-remuneration levers that are now being applied are integral parts of a coherent package that is expected to improve aircrew manning levels, although we anticipate that shortfalls will inevitably continue for several years. It is too early to assess the success of these measures, but initial indications are encouraging.
It is also worth noting that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was impressed by the rigour and comprehensiveness of the aircrew review, and found the remuneration proposals to be a forward-looking and well-targeted approach to addressing the problems that we face.
We will build on the aircrew review and use the same methodology to address manning shortfalls in other areas. A medical manning and retention review and a submariner review are already both
Tony Cunningham: My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the value of aircrew. Sometimes we forget the incredible job that our RAF pilots do in the no-fly zones over Iraq. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the pilots who, day in, day out, risk
182
their lives trying to protect the people of Iraq—and especially the Kurds in the north of the country—from the tremendous threat posed by Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had the considerable privilege of visiting both the bases from which our aircrew operate. I have talked to a number of pilots and crew about the hazards that they face and the astonishing skill that they deploy in those operations. I know that the whole House will be grateful to them for the courage that they display and for the job they do in protecting people on the ground in Iraq.
I want to emphasise, however, that we do not rely solely on financial inducements. People are not simply motivated by money, so the recent TOPMAST initiative in the Navy, for example, aims to tackle retention by introducing a more efficient use of manpower and by providing service men and women with more geographic stability and a greater ability to plan their own lives and careers. TOPMAST will also allow better career management, giving "employing units" more involvement in personal development and, where appropriate, in the medical rehabilitation of injured or wounded personnel.
I should also mention the medical quinquennial review, which has just been completed and whose conclusions are being placed in the Library of the House today. The review looked at the functions and organisation of the Ministry of Defence's four medical agencies—the Defence Secondary Care Agency, the Defence Dental Agency, the Defence Medical Training Organisation, and the Medical Supplies Agency—and at other aspects of medical provision.
The review concluded that there must be a clearer focus on the delivery of the two key defence medical outputs—deployable operational medical capability and timely appropriate health care for service personnel. The defence medical services will be realigned and restructured to focus more effectively on those two key outputs. Importantly, we will also establish a stronger partnership between the defence medical services and the national health service. In particular, we will draw on the NHS to strengthen management capabilities throughout the defence medical services.
That is an important area of work. There have been significant improvements in the defence medical services since we announced the new strategy for them in 1998, but there is still a great deal of work to do. The Government are committed to restoring the services' capability and to ensuring that key defence medical outputs are delivered. That will have a significant impact on improving the welfare of our service men and women and their families.
We face a number of challenges in recruiting, retaining and caring for our service men and women. We are working hard to tackle them, but we are not taking these initiatives in isolation. As I have indicated, they fit within the overarching armed forces personnel strategy, which we established two years ago to provide a framework to guide our work across the whole personnel agenda.
The framework encompasses the work that we must do right across the board, from encouraging the young to join up to supporting and remembering former service personnel. Hence the framework's five themes—cultivate, obtain, retain, sustain and remember. It sets out the overall direction that the Department wishes to pursue in

183
achieving its objectives by good management and care of its people. It also aims to maintain the diversity, identity, and ethos of the single services, because the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force must continue to take the leading responsibility in meeting these challenges.
Mr. Hancock: On the key issue of provision for service families, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the service families taskforce, although highly successful, will receive greater resources? Some of the Defence Committee's recommendations have still not been implemented, such as setting transparent targets for education, social health and housing so that families can see what should be achieved. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing greater transparency in the way evaluations for service personnel are carried out and how they interact with TOPMAST? In particular, will he consider the resentment that many service personnel have about Pay 2000 and the fact that the evaluations were not addressed?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman touches on significant issues, some of which I dealt with when I emphasised the importance of families as well as the careers of service men and women. However, I repeat that the work of the taskforce is important and assure the House that we will continue to support its activities. I will give careful consideration to any recommendations made by the Defence Committee that have not been fully or properly implemented.
Mr. Francois: I have a specific point to raise. One thing that infuriates service personnel is that units are often rotated in the summer and by the time they get the address for their new posting it is nigh on impossible to get their children a school place for the start of the school year. That has been a long-running problem for several years. Although the Government say that they will do more to address it, according to anecdotal evidence whatever they have tried is not working. Will they reconsider the problem and try even harder to solve it?
Mr. Hoon: I am well aware of the difficulty and it has exercised my mind for some time. That is why I welcome the changes involving the Department for Education and Skills, and we will continue to pursue that matter. However, there is a wider problem of stability, especially for those in the Army, and we need to find ways to give greater certainty on future postings. The Army is considering that carefully. Although I cannot give full details now, I am keen to see that provision in place in future.
Our people are our most prized asset. They make the difference time after time and in place after place, both at home and across the world. They are engaged in operations that involve considerable risk and significant danger. They work in areas where they may be required to face real danger to protect the principles and rights that we at home perhaps too frequently take for granted. They undertake those missions on our behalf with determination, skill and compassion. We owe it to them to do all we can to ensure that they have the right conditions of service, the right support for their families and the right benefits to get the job done. I do not pretend that that is an easy task or that success has come or will come quickly, but I know that we are on the right road and making good progress.
2.13 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother for her incredible service to the armed forces throughout most of her life. I also pay tribute to the armed forces themselves for the supreme effort and achievement of the ceremonial duties that they undertook and performed with such professionalism throughout the period of mourning and the funeral of Her Majesty. We congratulate them on that without qualification. I am sure that the House will agree that they are a wonderful advertisement not just for the armed forces but for this country and for what it stands.
I also thank the Secretary of State for a lengthy but useful speech and for taking so many interventions, which gave rise to helpful exchanges on the personnel problems faced by the armed forces. Before embarking on my remarks, I emphasise that there is much common ground between the Government and Her Majesty's official Opposition. We should build on that for the benefit of the armed forces rather than picking at the areas of disagreement between us. However, I have a job to perform, so I will have to pursue some matters of disagreement.
I thank the Secretary of State for addressing the situation in Afghanistan. I am grateful for the opportunity that he afforded me last week, when the Minister of State and I accompanied members of the Select Committee on a valuable visit from which we learned a great deal. I congratulate 1 Royal Anglian regiment on the supremely professional performance of its duties in Kabul. We went on patrol with C company on the streets of Kabul and I am distressed to hear of the tragedy that has struck it. I join the Secretary of State, as I am sure the whole House does, in extending the company my condolences.
Morale was high when we were there. The regiment was pleased with its new personal role radios and I am glad that it has the communications that it needs to do the job. It undertook proper patrolling by walking the streets of Kabul. Other armies were less bold in getting out of their armoured personnel carriers to meet the public. We can take pride in what that regiment is achieving in difficult circumstances.
The enthusiasm expressed by the population of Kabul for British forces in particular and the international security assistance force in general was obvious. Children ran after us everywhere we went, wanting to shake our hands. Even though they could not speak English, they kept asking, "How are you?" with great enthusiasm. We were impressed by civil-military projects to build relations between ISAF and the population. It was moving to visit a school where so many children were pleased to be returning to education after years of oppression.
It is difficult to assess the threat levels. By day, patrols took place without hard hats or body armour and were greeted with extreme enthusiasm by the local population. By night, however, things were different and our forces had to undertake difficult operations in the curfew. Underlying that is the extraordinary depth of ethnic tension, not just in Afghanistan as a whole but in the city of Kabul itself.
Kabul politics remains a melting pot, and I pay tribute to General McColl and his command team. They demonstrated in their briefings a supreme grasp of the political sense of direction necessary to build on what has

185
been achieved so far, from the Bonn process to the Loya Jirga in the summer, through to the elections two years after that. General McColl has shown extraordinary initiative. For example, he deployed elements of ISAF to help to relieve the disaster caused by the earthquake. That demonstrated for the first time in decades in Afghanistan how the central Government can matter to outlying parts of the country.
The Bonn process remains fraught with difficulties, however. The Interim Administration are dominated by the Tajiks who were dominant in the Northern Alliance. In particular, the Panshiri three—General Fahim, the Defence Minister, Abdullah Abdullah, the Foreign Minister, and Mr. Rabanni—are seen as the main power brokers. Senior Pashtuns were largely excluded from the Interim Administration in Bonn, and the provision in the Bonn agreement to exclude General Fahim's soldiers from the streets of Kabul has not been enforced.
There needs to be a realistic approach to the Loya Jirga in the summer, which in turn needs to reflect a balance between the Tajiks, the Pashtuns and other elements of Afghan society. If a political stalemate arises, there is a danger that the Interim Administration could start to be regarded as a puppet Government kept in power by uninvited foreigners. The rocket attacks mounted by remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, or other extremists, demonstrate that there are forces afoot anxious to capitalise on any discontent with the Interim Administration. Future stability depends on a much more broadly based and ethnically spread administration following the Loya Jirga in the summer, and on the development of the Afghans' own national army, the Afghan national guard. While we were in Kabul, the first battalion of the national guard had its passing-out parade. I regret that I was not present, but I understand that it showed the influence that British armed forces can have on people from any part of the world, whatever their background.
There is a need for realism, and I invite the Government to be realistic. The Secretary of State says that he remains committed to the success of ISAF. Realistically, for ISAF to complete its mission it will need to be there for another two years after the Loya Jirga until the elections that will then take place. That will provide time for training the Afghan national guard to take over from IS AF and to provide security for the whole of Afghanistan. The United States is committed to that project, and we need to be realistic about time frames.
I was disappointed that it was not possible for Members of Parliament on the trip to visit 45 Commando Royal Marines. Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for keeping me informed about the development of Operation Jacana, and I reiterate the Opposition's support for that operation. Those in 45 Commando are preparing for what can only be described as extremely hazardous operations, and Her Majesty's Opposition stand alongside the Government in facing those risks.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In talking about hazardous operations and—nearly—about the Royal Marines, does my hon. Friend intend to deal with a very significant development in recent defence announcements that flies in the face of all known military experience and
186
doctrine since the Falklands: the decision no longer to retain the Sea Harriers? That will ensure that if the fleet goes to sea deployed on major operations, it will have no air cover until the new aeroplane is introduced. Given the dangers in Afghanistan that he described, does he agree that to expose an already tiny British fleet to such astonishing and needless danger is extremely foolish?
Mr. Jenkin: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I had intended to address that at some point in my speech, but I shall do so now. It is an extraordinary decision. It is not, as the Prime Minister claimed yesterday, a result of the Government's strategic defence review—it flies in the face of that. It reflects the Government's difficulties in retaining combat pilots and the Ministry of Defence's difficulties in making ends meet under the current budgetary arrangements, given its existing commitments. It means not that British forces chiefs would put British ships in danger, but that we simply could not deploy our carrier forces into a conflict zone unless air support was provided by another power, presumably the United States.
The decision represents a huge reduction in the expeditionary capability of Her Majesty's forces, which was originally the backbone of what the SDR was intended to address. I think that on reflection the Government will want to revisit it and to preserve the life of the Sea Harrier force until the joint strike fighter comes into operation and can take over that role, as they originally intended in the SDR.
This matter has tangential relevance to the operations that are being undertaken by 45 Commando Royal Marines, because we are deploying a battle group without our own dedicated air support—although Sea Harriers would not be used in a case such as this. We remain concerned that the fact that we are not deploying with our own dedicated air cover means that we are reliant on air cover provided by the United States, which necessarily cannot provide the same integration of command and control that is required in such operations.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pursuing this extremely important point. Is he aware that the armed forces wanted to deploy Harriers in support of these operations, on the ground that we would be a completely deployed force? The aircraft were ready to go and capable of doing the business, but it was decided not to send them—for no reason other than cost.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that new and extremely relevant information to the House. We have a right to an explanation from the Minister of State when he replies.
Mr. Francois: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue, there is another point to add. Several years ago, the Sea Harrier force went through an expensive upgrade to give it improved radar and the ability to carry long-range air-to-air missiles. The British taxpayer has invested a great deal of money in upgrading the aircraft to make it more capable, only for it to be taken out of service. There is no logic in that decision.
Mr. Jenkin: We know that the decision was taken on a very short time frame, undoubtedly under pressures of cost. The aircraft will be replaced with a non-marinised

187
aircraft without radar or an air-to-air capability—indeed, a slower aircraft that could not outrun or catch up with attacking aircraft. I understand the Secretary of State's saying that we are concerned only about mounting ground attack operations off our carriers from now on, but the decision severely limits the role and flexibility of our armed forces and it is unacceptable that the Government have made it.
I reiterate that we wish 45 Commando Royal Marines every success. We have every confidence in their ability and commitment. They and their families will be constantly in our thoughts and prayers in the weeks and months ahead.
Before I leave Afghanistan entirely, this debate is about personnel issues, and I ask the Minister of State to deal with the following points. Both ISAF and Operation Jacana are likely to extend beyond their present operational horizons, and it is fair to ask what plans the Government have made to provide for that extension. We welcome Turkey's commitment to take over the leadership of ISAF, but, as the Secretary of State said, the British commitment will remain significant. There is a need for a realistic tour plot for the roulement of 45 Commando Royal Marines, and perhaps for the continued maintenance in theatre of a battalion to support the continuing activities of ISAF. Why leave it all to the last minute? That has a detrimental effect on retention, as I shall explain later.
Another issue that was raised during the exchanges with the Secretary of State relates to the facilities that our armed forces enjoy while they are in theatre. I was distressed to learn from several people in Kabul that the British forces there are lightheartedly nicknamed "The Flintstones" by their counterparts from other national forces. That is not a comment on our forces' professional ability to do their job, but on what are regarded as the stone age facilities that they live out of compared with those available to other forces. I fully agree with the Secretary of State that there is a balance to be struck and that the speed and lightness with which we can deploy is a key part of our capability. However, it is ultimately a matter of force planning and of how long we are likely to be in theatre. Clearly, other national forces are planning and providing for being in theatre for very much longer. Huge amounts of the Royal Engineers' time and money are used in making do with hand-to-mouth facilities instead of setting up more permanent and efficient washing and toilet facilities. Indeed, such a false economy ultimately affects the personal hygiene and cleanliness of our soldiers. I do not think that British soldiers are going soft, but it is right to report that this welfare issue was raised with us on our visit. We should also raise it in the House.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, his comments about ISAF gave me the impression that he envisaged that ISAF might have to continue its presence in Afghanistan for up to two years so that it will be able to train a local army. Does he envisage that the United Kingdom will continue to make a contribution for a period of up to two years?
Mr. Jenkin: I am merely asking the questions, because such issues naturally came to our attention during our visit. It is for the Government to explain what they
188
envisage. At the moment, their proposals are unspecific and they are reluctant to plan for a commitment to ISAF considerably greater than that which they initially indicated they were letting us in for. Such issues need to be addressed to enable the Government to plan for their own purposes. If they do not know what is involved in the commitments, that adds to the problem of overstretch generally in the armed forces and to all the other problems that I am about to discuss. It is not for me to dictate to the Government how long we should stay in Afghanistan, but it is fair enough to point out that the deployment is turning out to be a very much longer-term commitment than the one that they originally indicated. However, I do not wish to dwell excessively on that point.
Four years ago, the Government said that tackling overstretch—I use that word because they used it—would be one of the key elements of the strategic defence review. In June 1997, the then Secretary of State for Defence promised:
"The problem of overstretch will be seriously addressed".—[Official Report, 16 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 5.]
Announcing the strategic defence review in July 1998, he said:
"Unlike other recent reviews, this review is designed to put people first."—[Official Report, 8 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 1075.]
The Secretary of State alluded to that point earlier.
The Government said that one of the most important elements of SDR was its "Policy for People". In the documents supporting SDR, they said:
"Addressing the personnel problems that affect the Armed Forces will take time, trust and money. Trust needs to be earned and will only arise from the delivery of tangible improvements in overstretch and undermanning."
In the SDR, the Government set out their policy and views on the problem of overstretch. They said:
"We need to solve the problems of undermanning and additional overstretch which come from over-commitment. Undermanning—that is when units are not up to planned strengths—is one of the causes of overstretch. Individuals with undermanned units have to do more and, particularly for operations, individual reinforcements have to be brought in from other units. Unsurprisingly the additional pressures from consistent overstretch contribute to higher exit rates thus adding to manning difficulties".
I could not agree more. The SDR added:
"We need to break this vicious circle. To do so we must match the commitments we undertake to our planned resources".
Four years after the SDR, it is clear that the Government have not stuck to their declared policy.
It is also clear that the Government have failed so far in their bid to cure the undermanning problem. As at 1 February 2002, there was a shortfall of 7,477 personnel against the currently assessed in-year requirement for UK trained army personnel. Figures from the Defence Analytical Services Agency show the decline in UK regular forces, including both trained and untrained personnel. Between April 1997 and February 2002, the number of trained officers fell by 804 while the number of trained other ranks fell by 10,800.
The immediate impact is clear. A Tornado air defence squadron was disbanded this year because of lack of pilots, and the RAF said that the mothballing was caused by "pilot shortages". It should have 1,484 pilots, but it is 131 short of that figure. We also know that the units being sent to Northern Ireland are not at full strength and that Royal Navy warships put to sea regularly without their full complement.

189
Recruiting is fairly strong, and I pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for getting quite near to its target. Its performance report tells us that the forces achieved 90 per cent. of the overall recruitment target in 2000–01, against 96 per cent. for 1999–2000. The report adds that recruitment shortfalls were experienced in all three services.
The real problem, however, is retention. In Defence questions on 11 February, the Minister responsible for the armed forces said at column 15 that the trend for retention was "upwards". Yet across all three services in 2000–01, more personnel left than joined the armed forces, and more people left than joined in each of the preceding three years.
Under the SDR, the Army was supposed to increase in size by 3,300 men. In 1998, the whole Army strength was 109,800. In 2001, it was 109,500 but now we hear that the Government have reduced their SDR target for the Army. A document leaked to The Daily Telegraph last month shows that the target of a 108,500-strong Army set by the Government in 1998 has been reduced by 1,500. Can the Government confirm whether that is correct? If it is true, it is a very sorry state of affairs.
Mr. Francois: That is two battalions.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend says that that is equivalent to two battalions and, in effect, that means short changing every battalion in the British Army because the Government, rightly, cannot face the prospect of axing whole battalions.
During the general election campaign, I recall that the Labour party attacked the Conservatives' commitment to make full manning a priority, saying that that would cost £1.3 billion. That claim was later denied by the Secretary of State for Defence, and perhaps we can now see why. It is difficult for the Government to meet their manning targets.
We need to ask why the forces are suffering such terrible retention problems. It is clear that one of the main factors is overcommitment. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body noted in its 2002 report that tile level of armed forces commitments remained "high". It pointed out that in November 2001, 31 per cent. of the armed forces were committed to operations. At the height of the Kosovo operation, the figure was 89 per cent. of Land Command. In autumn 2000, 34 per cent. of the naval services front-line manpower strength was engaged directly in operations, and the Secretary of State has pointed out that today, 28 per cent. of the Army is committed to operations. That compares with the planning assumption in the SDR of 20 per cent.
Mr. Kevan Jones: In the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman found himself in government tomorrow, which of those commitments would his Government cut back on?
Mr. Jenkin: Labour Members are programmed to ask that question, and I am happy to fantasise about being Secretary of State tomorrow. However, I have better things to do.
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day".
190
The Secretary of State should watch out. The truth is that no Government would be in a position to axe arbitrarily existing commitments. The question is the rate at which commitments are taken on, and we are periodically sceptical about the enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister spreads our forces around the globe on peacekeeping activities when the Ministry of Defence is not funded for such a high level of operations.
Mr. Jones rose —
Mr. Jenkin: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I will.
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he cannot tell the House what commitments the Conservative party would axe in the unlikely event of its coming to power, will he tell us the Opposition's policy on the defence budget? Are they committed to the defence budget remaining at its current level, to increasing it or to increasing it at above the rate of inflation? Will he explain their policy on that?
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is so utterly predictable—I debated with myself whether it would be worth giving way to him. We do not anticipate becoming the Government next week or next month, and it is the Government's declared policy, which I quoted from their SDR, that they would match their capabilities and their commitments. They are failing to do so. The hon. Gentleman may not be part of the official Opposition—I am, and I am entitled to point that out.
On 10 February 2002, the Secretary of State for Defence admitted:
"We are operating at the limits of our capabilities and it is important that it is recognised that there is a limit to what we can achieve. We're certainly stretched."
That indicates how stretched the elastic is in his Department. It comes as no consolation to know that he made that statement before the deployment of 1,700 Royal Marines to Afghanistan.
In its report, "Policy for People", the Select Committee on Defence noted that the continuous attitude surveys, which assess satisfaction with service life, showed that separation from family and its effects on relationships and the inability to plan one's life consistently scored high as reasons for leaving the services in surveys of leavers. The key point about retention is the need to restore the quality of life of our service men.
During the Committee's inquiry, the Army Families Federation said:
"The expeditionary nature of current deployment has significantly altered the way of life for Army families: separation has increased dramatically. The Army must establish a reasonable expectation for time families spend together, and fulfil the expectation".
Mr. Bruce George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify something for me. If the Defence Committee suggests in a forthcoming report that the defence budget should be increased to 3 per cent. of gross

191
domestic product, would he allow his defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is also a member of the Select Committee, to sign that report?
Mr. Jenkin: I would draw the relevant paragraph to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor.
Most recently, the commander of the British marines arriving in Afghanistan warned of the strain that their heavy schedule is placing on his men's families. The commanding officer of 45 Commando said that there were consequences to the constant demands on his forces' time and hoped that, when the operation was complete, his men might be granted some quality time. On 4 April, he told the Financial Times:
"A year ago we came back from Kosovo and reformed to a new organisation of battle, early July we did a UK-based exercise, then we went to Oman. From mid-November to mid-December we did mountain training, then short notice embarkation, and then Afghanistan."
He added:
"The last time we had time to catch breath was a long time ago. We can do the job, but families and friends are the ones who bear the brunt."
That officer's words demonstrate graphically how overcommitment can lead to people leaving the forces.
Obviously, with 10,000 fewer personnel than we left the Secretary of State in 1997, the pressure on those remaining in the services increases. At the same time as the number of commitments has been increasing, the budget has been reduced by around £1 billion a year in real terms. Those cuts have a real impact on morale. The Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Peter Squire, has said:
"I recognise the sense of frustration in having to make do and mend with inadequate resources, particularly at home bases. We support people well on operations, but, frequently when they get back, they find there are not enough spares…frustration worries people and puts the question in their minds of how long to give the Air Force before moving on to a second career."
The Minister must be in no doubt of the impact that those continued cuts are having on the forces. There has been widespread dismay, particularly at the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers, as has been mentioned.
In any personnel policy, training has a central and important part to play. Training is what suffers most as a result of overcommitment. I noted with alarm a recent written answer that revealed that in the past 24 months, 84 exercises have been cancelled, many because of commitments to operations or because of financial restrictions. Five were cancelled directly because of a lack of funding and 36 were cancelled because of operational commitments. It has even emerged that the Secretary of State for Defence wanted to cancel Britain's biggest post-cold war exercise—Saif Sareea 2, recently completed in Oman—to save £93 million, but was overruled by the Prime Minister on the advice of military chiefs.
I have not forgotten that two years ago the Royal Marines annual arctic warfare course was cancelled through lack of funding. Fortunately, it was reinstated in
192
2000–01, because the skills learned and honed by the Marines in those exercises directly relate to their duties in Afghanistan.
Mr. Dalyell: Week after week, some of us listen to the assertions from the Leader of the Opposition that he is enthusiastic for military action against Iraq. Who will take that action in the circumstances?
Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that we are enthusiastic for military action against Iraq, but unlike the hon. Gentleman, we do not think that we should rule out options against Iraq, as that would be contrary to the Government's foreign policy and contrary to the interests of the free world.
Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has said that he is in favour of joint exercises. Is he in favour of Britain continuing the joint exercises that have taken place in the United States with the Israeli air force and the Americans?
Mr. Jenkin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman address that question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I personally think that Israel is not a rogue state in the same category as Iraq, and it is a mistake to try to pretend that it is a case of six of one and a half a dozen of the other.
Skill fade inevitably occurs when units are on operations, particularly peacekeeping operations, because they cannot maintain their training for their assigned roles back home. They cannot train on tanks or artillery if they are peacekeeping. That shows how overcommitment can directly degrade fighting capability.
The Secretary of State addressed many of the questions that he was asked about the Territorial Army. With the Government now seemingly scaling back their plans for the size of the Army, we must not forget that they have also cut the Territorial Army by 18,000 men. That move never made any sense, especially as the TA provides a valuable avenue of recruitment for the Army and, in supporting the regulars, can relieve some of the effects of overstretch.
I was somewhat heartened to hear that the Secretary of State said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that, in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks on America, he was glad that the TA had not been fully cut from its previous strength of 56,000 to the 41,200 set by the defence review. Although I was pleased at his apparent conversion, I am afraid to tell him that the TA is, in fact, well below its SDR target. Perhaps he can tell us today whether he has plans to increase the TA's establishment. If not, can he at least clarify his position?
Another important factor in retention is the standard of service accommodation. Following the sale of married quarters by the MOD to Annington Homes in 1996, the Conservatives gave a commitment to service families that their quarters would be upgraded to grade 1 condition by autumn 2003. Some £470 million of the £1.6 billion proceeds of the sale was allocated for that purpose. However, pressure on the defence budget has forced the MOD to delay the upgrade programme by two years, until 2005.
Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the rushed sale by the outgoing Conservative Government,

193
which raised £1.7 billion, represented good value for money? Does he think that, out of that £1.7 billion, only £100 million was sufficient to upgrade the housing stock?
Mr. Jenkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a shame that the Government did not honour the commitment that we made before we left office, and that they have scaled back the commitment to the development of the defence housing stock. The Army Families Federation has said that soldiers are driven to leave the service by intolerable living conditions, so I would be grateful if the Government could report to the House on the progress being made in upgrading service housing.
The Pay 2000 initiative has worthy roots but unfortunately, it is also proving a source of resentment. Strange discrepancies have been thrown up. For example, a farrier in the Veterinary Corps is paid less than a farrier in the Royal Armoured Corps. An explosive ordnance disposal specialist—someone who carries out highly dangerous operations—can be paid less than a chef. I would be grateful if the Minister could pay close attention to those potential problems, as resentment about such cases could become a "pull factor" for many personnel.
There are many other matters that I could raise, such as pensions and defence medical services, but I conclude by saying that I think that the Government agree that people must be at the forefront of their defence policy.
On a positive note, they have implemented a number of good measures to improve service conditions and welfare. I welcome those. In particular, I welcome the guaranteed period of post-operational tour leave to enable service men and women to spend some quality time with their families following an operational deployment. However, I wonder how much that is being respected. Also welcome are improvements to welfare packages on deployment, and financial retention inducements, for fast jet pilots in particular.
All too often, however, despite the Government's warm words, people in the forces feel that they are being given a raw deal. It is not just the official Opposition who say that; service personnel say it themselves. All too often, I hear that morale is lower than it has ever been. That is why retention is suffering, and why our forces are in the vicious circle of undermanning.
I call on Ministers to pay careful attention to the problems that I have outlined, and, more importantly, to continue their best efforts to do something about them. We wait with bated breath for the Budget, following the Prime Minister's remarks in the House yesterday. However, the words that ring in our ears are those of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, who said that the strategic defence review was underfunded from the start.
2.52 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: I shall make a few brief remarks. The subject of military housing has been raised, and although I may be wrong—I do not think I am—I recollect that when the properties were initially sold, the then Secretary of State for Defence was challenged by his then shadow about whether the Government would guarantee the present level of
194
expenditure on maintaining houses. The Secretary of State would not say. If we were to spread the £100 million or so over seven years, providing about £16 million a year, the expenditure on maintenance would be reduced, and that is exactly what the Government of the day did. The previous level of expenditure was not guaranteed. The Government who sold the houses—at a pretty low price, and gaining a pretty small benefit—talked about a figure of £100 million, which was meaningless.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked about the figures, and asked why we were still short of however many thousand people. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned the figure of 7,000, and that may be accurate; I do not know. The shortfall, in troops at least, has been about 5,000 or 6,000 since the mid-1990s—perhaps even earlier.
No one would disagree that there is a clear correlation between a strong economy and difficulty in recruiting troops. That has been true not only in the post-war era but throughout Britain's history. When there are jobs around it is difficult to recruit, and it is easier to recruit when there is a weak economy.
We need 25,000 people for the services every year. We do have shortfalls, and because of the immense recruitment requirement, a drop of a few per cent. is reflected in very large numbers, which is why—
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman is contradicting those on his Front Bench. They are arguing that recruitment is quite healthy, and on one level they may be right. Recruitment itself is not the problem. The problem is retention—not bringing people into the forces but keeping them there.
Mr. Joyce: I would, of course, hesitate to disagree with my Front-Bench colleagues. Recruitment is extremely successful, and I shall say more about that later, but I also agree with the point about retention. There is a slight shortfall in recruitment, but more than 90 per cent. of the requirement is achieved, and that should be a cause for modest celebration. It is pretty good, given the strength of the economy.
I was reflecting on what the Conservative Government's strategy to improve recruitment had been, and then I suddenly realised. Recruitment is hard if we have a strong economy, so perhaps it was the plan of successive Conservative Chancellors to mess the economy up completely, so as to make it easier for the military to recruit. I suddenly realised that there was a cunning plan—but it was unsuccessful.
Recruitment levels at present are something to be quite proud of, and there have been some successful initiatives, but there is an ongoing trickiness, and it may continue for some time to come. None the less, we should be pleased that we are achieving more than 90 per cent. of our target.
I have raised the issue of ethnic minorities before, and I had the privilege of working briefly at the Commission for Racial Equality, so I know that it thought that the Army's efforts over the last five years had been quite impressive. A doubling of the number of people from ethnic minorities coming through the doors in the last three years is a pretty good result.
I suspect that the new census will reflect the fact that there are far more people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the recruitment zone now, and that will

195
continue. The question is: why is it so difficult to raise those figures even higher? There has to be some responsibility on the other side of the equation now: the wider society, such as schools and so forth, should stress to members of the ethnic minorities the benefits of joining the Army. Ethnic minority communities themselves have to consider more seriously career options in the military and the armed services as a whole.
When I talk to people from ethnic minority backgrounds I sense that they sometimes make the mistake of bracketing the armed services with the police. That is wrong. Whatever reasons there may be for the perceptions about joining the police among people from ethnic minority backgrounds—some of those perceptions may be right, some may be wrong—the armed services are different. The time has come for other bodies—not the Ministry of Defence, but other agencies, schools and ethnic minority leaders themselves—to start to make that distinction and encourage people to join the services.
Until the early to mid-1990s, several different parts of the Army divisions ran 14-week potential officer courses. Most of those were cut—possibly for good reasons, possibly not—in the early to mid-1990s by the previous Government. There was probably a cost-benefit analysis.
To a certain extent, those courses at least represented some kind of positive action. Some people were quite talented and capable of being good officers, but may have been missing in one or two respects, so they were given an extra course, after which they could go to the Regular Commissions Board, and by then many of them had been brought up to standard.
In the Army today, at the Adjutant-General's Corps centre at Worthy Down in Winchester, there are two courses that have such an effect. One is the pre-RMAS course and the other is the potential officer development course. Both are excellent, and they are probably the last courses that are vaguely akin to positive action. The main difference is that, unlike what happens with positive discrimination—which would, of course, be unlawful—people have to be brought up to the required standard and are then tested with their peers. If they do not come up to the standard then, they are not accepted.
It seems to me that there might be scope for some linkage of those courses with the under-representation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. I wonder whether, in a course such as the pre-RMAS course, there would be scope for encouraging more such people. The Minister might like to say something about that when he sums up.
My final point has been brought to my attention by a couple of my constituents, ex-service personnel, who have come to me over the past year. Other Members with more experience than I may have come across the subject more often. Some areas have fewer council houses than others. Mine has a large number. In some parts of the country council houses are disappearing altogether. In Glasgow they will all go; in Birmingham they will not. For the moment, at any rate, there are 22,000 in the council area that I serve.
Historically, when people left the services they were given extra points that enabled them to be pretty well guaranteed a council house. That does not seem to happen now. It is no longer the case with my council, and I am not sure whether it is in other parts of the country. That is one modest idea that the Ministry of Defence could
196
pursue. We could raise awareness among councils. Ultimately, it is a policy issue for the councils themselves, but in terms of resettlement, it is an idea that we could helpfully press. I am only mentioning it briefly, but the Minister may want to comment on it in his summing up.
2.59 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks concerning Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother and her association with the armed forces, and with his commendation of all the members of the armed forces who played such an important role in the funeral on Tuesday. I watched it from the House, as I am sure many hon. Members did, and it was a remarkable ceremonial. Our forces performed their duty with great honour and dignity. They were a credit to the armed forces and this country, and indeed to the monarchy.
I thank the Secretary of State for the conversations that I have had with him over the past few days concerning Turkey and the deployment of 45 Commando in Operation Jacana. We welcome the news that Turkey is taking over. We understand the reasons for the slippage. We believe that it is better that the international security assistance force and Operation Jacana should be seen through to the end. It is important that the gains that have been made so far are secured.
Although I totally understand the need not in any way to give details of the rules of engagement, I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will assure the House when summing up that arrangements between our forces and the Pakistani forces for areas on both sides of the border will end as much as possible its crossing by al-Qaeda and Taliban rebels.
I enjoyed the speech of the Conservative defence spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin); it was very good. I was especially interested in his apparent lack of enthusiasm, compared with that of the leader of his party, on any action in Iraq. I read a pamphlet written by the Leader of the Opposition, "A Race Against Time", which states:
"a regime change is highly desirable and should be accomplished swiftly…There should be no doubt: Saddam must go".
Mr. Jenkin: Of course there is no difference between me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with him that a regime change in Iraq is desirable—and the swifter the better. We support the Prime Minister; does the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Keetch: I am very glad that there is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and the leader of his party. The Liberal Democrats have made our position absolutely clear. If there is to be any action against Iraq, it must he taken by the international community under proper United Nations authority—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should curtail their excitement over the validity of my speech. If there is real and definable evidence, of course we would not rule anything out, but we certainly do not have the apparent enthusiasm of some to commit our forces around the world willy-nilly.
I am glad to have this opportunity to debate armed forces personnel. Many facets of Britain's defence policy require debate in this Chamber, but it is surely of paramount importance that we discuss the men and

197
women who put their lives on the line in the defence of this nation. Members of the armed forces are the greatest resource that we possess, not just for the defence of our nation but for the protection of the ideals that we hold so dear. As has been said by Members of all parties, we must look after them properly. I suggest that the care that we take in looking after our armed forces personnel is at the very heart of the problems that we are debating: overstretch, recruitment and retention.
I for one welcome the recruitment initiatives that the Government have already taken. If they help to bring the manning levels in the services back up to those required, they are to be supported. I fear, however, that it is simply not possible to solve the problems of undermanning with a few recruitment agency initiatives. Our armed forces require better conditions and a greater understanding of their modern needs and those of their families. We must remember that even a significant increase in the rate of recruitment to the armed forces cannot replace the years of experience that are lost every time a long-serving member leaves.
On 1 January this year, the shortfall in trained strength stood at 6,059 in the Army, 2,189 in the Royal Navy and 1,149 in the Royal Air Force. However, it is in the specialist areas which the Secretary of State mentioned that the problem is greatest. For example, critical shortages in the defence medical services have been well publicised. There is an 81 per cent. shortfall in deployable accredited surgeons and an 80 per cent. shortfall in deployable accredited anaesthetists. There are also dramatic shortages of nurses in the armed forces. There is a 95 per cent. shortfall in burns and plastics nurses and a 75 per cent. shortfall in accident and emergency nurses, and there are only about half the number of nurses required for general nursing duties.
It is of course the case, as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State would argue, that many of those shortages had already occurred by the time they came to power. The cuts made by the previous Conservative Administration certainly left a legacy, but I can reveal today as a result of responses to questions that I have asked that there is a tremendous gap in our reserve medical services as well.
Our reserve medical reserves are widely used to plug the gaps in the regular defence medical services. The regular Army has only three field hospitals, but such is the shortfall of trained staff that currently only one and a half field hospitals could be deployed using regular forces. To staff the three that would be required, reservists and ex-service personnel with what is known as recall liability would need to be added.
The Territorial Army is supposed to be able to provide 11 field hospitals to support the regular Army. The defence medical services strategy for the future, which was proudly launched in 1998, said:
"A significant SDR announcement was that an extra 2,000 TA personnel would be assigned to the Army Medical Service."
I ask the Minister of State: where are those 2,000 extra personnel?
TA Army medical service manning is even more appalling than regular manning: 201 field hospital, for example, is 34 per cent. undermanned. It has a 90 per cent. shortfall in medical consultants. It has no radiology
198
or pathology consultants, and no neurosurgical nurses either. 202 field hospital is 53 per cent. undermanned, with no anaesthetics consultants, no radiographers and no burns nurses.
Such figures make depressing reading. Current reservist manning would limit the Army to approximately only two of the 11 TA field hospitals that it is supposed to deploy. So—from a strategic defence review target of 14 deployable field hospitals, we could muster only five at a push. It is no wonder that the Army now relies on the medical services of our allies when we deploy overseas. It may not be long before these shortfalls mean that we have to say no to certain missions because we cannot provide the medical support that our troops require.
I invite the Minister to comment on the primary casualty receiving ships that were promised in the SDR. The DMS strategy for the future promised that two new ships with a capacity of 220 beds each would be available by 2005 and that they would be purchased under the private finance initiative. However, we are now told that the Chief of the Defence Staff has been advised that the in-service date for one of the ships has slipped from 2005 to 2007, and that the need for the second ship is
"being assessed in line with further operational analysis"
I should like the Minister to comment on when that will be announced, when the slippage will occur and when it will be reviewed. Can we be convinced that "operational analysis" is not simply Treasury-speak for financial analysis?
I welcome the quinquennial review of the medical services, but it is unfortunate that we should again have to remind the Secretary of State, Ministers and other hon. Members of the serious shortages in the defence medical services. However, it is not in that specialist element alone that there are shortages. We also have figures for REME—the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
The figures reveal, for example, that vehicle electricians—those men and women charged with the repair and modification of electrical components on most Army vehicles—are 34 per cent. undermanned. Mechanics are 23 per cent. under strength, and even armourers, who are responsible for inspecting many pieces of weaponry, are 21 per cent. under strength. Such shortages have a direct impact on our frontline capability.
All those figures are unacceptable, and everything possible must be done to remedy them, as I am sure everyone in this Chamber would agree. Such specific shortfalls when combined with overall shortfalls in manning will have a direct impact on the lives of ordinary members of the armed forces. They can mean that some soldiers will be used too much, and others even sometimes used too little, so the optimal interval between tours can slip dramatically.
The SDR suggested that our forces should have at least a 24-month interval between tours. But for the parachute regiment in 2000–01, that interval was only 18 months. In order to retain members of the armed forces we must ensure that undermanning does not have a negative impact on their lives and those of their families. I have commented before on the danger of developing two-tier armed forces—those units that are used a lot, such as the green berets and the red berets, and others that are not.
Unlike the Conservative party, which may not have been preparing its policies, the Liberal Democrats have recently published a strategic defence review.

199
[Interruption.] That may produce some hilarity among Conservative Members, but I was pleased that the Secretary of State was able to thank me for the comments and to tell me that much of what we had come up with was Government thinking. It is incumbent on those parties that seek to be in government to have their own policies, not just to gripe at the Government of the day.
What was interesting about our proposals was that not only did we consider the kit required by our armed forces, but we spent a great deal of time considering conflict prevention, weapons control and peacekeeping, and policies related to our armed forces personnel. It is important that Oppositions should be ready to criticise the Government where necessary and to come up with proposals of their own.
We understand that factors affecting recruitment and retention are complicated. As the Secretary of State said, with unemployment low, the services must compete for recruits as never before. Careers outside the armed forces can be attractive to service personnel. In order to make service in the armed forces attractive to potential recruits, quality of life, security of employment, pay, pensions, housing and family issues are vital.
Other influences include the perceived status of service people within the larger community, recognition of service training and qualifications in civilian life, and opportunities for lifelong learning during service. Equipment that might be inadequate to the task and leave our personnel vulnerable, or which is late, will have a debilitating effect on morale and retention.
New proposals on service pensions have been put forward. At a time of morale and retention difficulty, any changes to the current arrangements will need to be handled with great care. Liberal Democrats would not support any measure which was perceived as worsening the pension arrangements for service personnel.
In our response to the new chapter, we have offered the Government a number of proposals to improve conditions for the armed forces. There should be a review of the pay formula used by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and pay should recognise that service life is more dangerous and less stable and can restrict opportunities for partners to work, so we have suggested that the use of bonus systems should be investigated.
To improve on the learning forces initiative that is beginning to pay benefits, we have suggested that an upgraded individual learning account would give service personnel an entitlement to retraining and, when they leave, much greater opportunities for further and higher education.
Providing high quality unaccompanied and family quarters is also important and we would abolish the march in, march out arrangements for the handover of married quarters and replace them with new contract arrangements to prepare housing for new occupants.
Mr. Gray: Opposition Members have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's proposals, although they are not exactly rocket science. Has he costed them? Will he tell us precisely how much they will cost the nation and will it be taken out of the penny on income tax which, at least until recently, was the Liberal Democrats' only taxation policy?
Mr. Keetch: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the proposals are not rocket science. Indeed they are
200
not, but at least we are putting forward proposals, unlike the official Opposition who seem to have nothing to say besides criticising the Government. If Conservative Front-Bench Members will just contain their enthusiasm for my words a little longer, I shall come to the defence budget in due course.
Liberal Democrats would also review moving and relocation allowances to ensure that the total costs to service personnel are adequately covered. The armed forces should, as far as possible, reflect the society that they serve, as the Secretary of State said. Armed forces personnel may be called upon to risk their lives in the service of their country. We accept that the services must have standards, for example of discipline, that differ from society at large in order to meet the special demands of the military. But no one should be subject to unfair discrimination in relation to pay, discipline, accommodation, other benefits and promotion opportunities.
Despite some small improvements, ethnic minorities still make up only 1.7 per cent. of the armed forces. It is clear that a career in the armed forces does not appeal to the youth of the ethnic minorities in Britain. High-profile initiatives to root out racism in the armed forces are welcome, but Liberal Democrats suggest that outreach and recruitment programmes run by the MOD in the ethnic minority communities should include a drive for cadet membership among young people.
The MOD continues to review the role of service women in the armed forces. Despite significant progress in the number of women serving and in widening the range of jobs open to women, some front-line positions remain closed. Liberal Democrats believe that no post should be closed to male or female personnel provided that they can meet the physical and mental requirements of the task.
Ensuring high standards of welfare for the families of service personnel is central to securing high levels of retention. The reason for departure most cited in the continuous attitude survey for service leavers is the effect on family life. It is therefore imperative for the efficient running of our armed forces that social, educational and recreational facilities for service men and women and their families be actively supported.
We offer our support to the service families taskforce and what it has done so far. We should like to see a service families officer on every base and we should like to see that implemented soon, but we support the Government in what they have done.
Mr. Mark Prisk: The hon. Gentleman mentioned pensions and I should be interested to know whether Liberal Democrat policy is to maintain cost neutrality, as appears to be the Government's policy—or have they not established a position on that yet?
Mr. Keetch: The short answer is yes, we would support cost neutrality.
Yesterday we heard of the proposed action by Kenyan tribesmen in relation to unexploded ordnance left by British forces. The Secretary of State is concerned that yesterday I referred in the media to the role of civil servants. I was wrong to criticise civil servants directly. Civil servants cannot reply and I apologise to them, but I

201
have to say that the suggestion yesterday that a deal might be struck by MOD lawyers is just another round of litigation.
The MOD was taken to the European Court of Human Rights before it would give compensation to gay men and lesbian women who have been wrongly dismissed. The MOD was forced to pay £60 million in compensation to service women obliged to leave the forces on the grounds of pregnancy. We have also heard of the cases relating to equal pension rights for Gurkhas, soldiers who caught malaria in Sierra Leone and the tax on service pensions blunder.
Ministers must realise that there is a difference between being prudent and sensible with resources and being seen by some as an uncaring regime, never assuming responsibility and never saying that one is wrong. It is no wonder that there are acute problems with undermanning in the armed forces when in some cases the public image of the MOD is of an intransigent and unbending organisation that never admits its mistakes. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at the way in which his Department deals with compensation actions, particularly in relation to taking care of our service men and women and their families.
Some of the changes to personnel policy that I have outlined could be made easily while others would require greater expense. With the results of the comprehensive spending review looming, I must add that the Liberal Democrats are committed to maintaining our defence capabilities, even if that means a real increase in defence spending. Improving standards for our armed forces and resolving the crises of overstretch and undermanning are important aspects of maintaining that capability.
It is important to say that a career in the armed forces remains an incredibly attractive and deeply worthwhile option for our young men and women. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to discourage anyone from pursuing that career, but it is important that any flaws in personnel policy and any possible solutions should be discussed in the House.
In a debate on armed forces personnel, it is right to conclude by saying once again that our armed forces perform an incredibly difficult job with remarkable skill and courage. However, if we are to maintain our capability and the extraordinarily high regard in which our armed forces are held throughout the world, we must ensure that their unflinching commitment to us is matched by our unflinching commitment to them.
3.20 pm
Mr. John McFall: I shall focus my remarks on one issue in my constituency: the effect on the personnel at the Clyde submarine base of the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to privatise the warship support modernisation programme. I am hugely disappointed about the implications for Faslane, not least because the decision was taken without a rational basis. The MOD issued a general statement to the effect that there was overcapacity in the four yards, but no effort has been made to define that overcapacity in Faslane. The MOD said that savings of £250 million to £300 million were required, but again, no further insight into how those savings were to be made was put on the agenda.
202
What has been on the agenda since 1997 is privatisation. The issue has a long history; indeed, after the Government came to office in June 1997, the privatisation of catering services in Faslane was announced. The initiative was known as HMS Neptune.
Along with the trade unions and the work force, I petitioned the then Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, now my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We realised that savings had to be made, but we asked him and the MOD why they could not be made in-house. The unions and I made proposals at a meeting with him at the MOD. As a result, he overturned the decision proposed by MOD officials and made HMS Neptune in-house. Consequently, we have had target savings every year since.
The trade unions undertook the same exercise this time round, but it was rejected. The experience has been bitter for the work force and for me, especially with regard to the successful prosecution of HMS Neptune and my efforts to ensure that the MOD allowed itself sufficient time to examine the benchmark proposals made by the trade unions in Faslane. I have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a number of times to discuss the matter, but to date, I have received no detailed explanation of why the Government are taking this way forward, other than the notion of the £250 million saving. The work force, the trade unions and [accept that continuation of the status quo is not an option. The problem is the manner in which the decision was made and the way in which it was handled.
I am not one of those who say that the Government are arrogant—a notion that has been put abroad. We are not arrogant, but arrogance can certainly be detected in the way in which the MOD has gone about its business in this case. Let me explain. On the weekend of Saturday 23 March, the media trailed the story that there would be 1,000 job losses in Faslane. They did so in Scotland in particular, but also throughout the UK. The story ran the whole weekend, but there was no MOD response and no explanation was given, so it grew legs. No contact was made with the Members of Parliament who had a vital constituency interest. All that was said by the media and across the wires at the weekend was that a statement would be made on Monday.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Does my hon. Friend accept that a statement was to be made on the basis of a parliamentary question? The fact that a breach of confidence occurred somewhere in our discussions is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. If I or any of my colleagues had proceeded to take on the debate before the House had been advised, we would have been criticised as having inspired the leak. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend—I hope that he accepts the sincerity of my remarks—that the decision was taken not to enter the debate over the weekend or to engage with individual Members of Parliament because we were giving due respect to the House of Commons.
Mr. McFall: I accept my right hon. Friend's integrity, having worked with him in a ministerial capacity. However, I do not accept his explanation. The MPs should have been consulted, if for no other reason than to knock down the supposition that 1,000 jobs were at stake. Furthermore, it was disrespectful to make no statement in the House. The loss of 1,000 jobs in the UK is a big issue,

203
especially on a project that has been running for two or three years, and on which MPs, trade unions, the work force and others have been negotiating with the MOD. I see what happened as a mark of disrespect and a discourtesy to the House.
The letter of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, which was produced at 3.30 pm on the day in question, gave rise to further fears, as it was so thin that people could not find the details. It stated:
"Both the company and naval base management are reviewing levels of employment across all levels of naval base as arrangements bed in."
The letter refers merely to "all levels", giving no indicative number or indeed any idea that a number would be set. Neither is any idea given of the phasing of the privatisation or possible job losses—a matter that has a long history.
What happened was a discourtesy to the House and the MPs with vital constituency interests, and also to the work force, whose fears were heightened. I feel that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not play fair, and I have written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explaining my position and asking him to seriously consider the matter. Relationships between Departments and MPs need to be much better. At the Faslane base, there was a huge sense of betrayal, as a result of which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, industrial action was proposed.
People are incensed about the treatment of this loyal and committed work force, who have existed in the area for 40 years. It is shameful that workers are being kept in the dark on the plans to transfer staff contracts to Babcock Naval Services. I suggest that Ministers must address the issue swiftly and clearly. With ministerial approval, for which I thank my right hon. Friend, I am meeting all the trade unions in Faslane on Monday morning. I will meet the naval representatives and, I hope, Mr. John Howie, managing director of Babcock Naval Services.
The meeting is being held not only to assuage the fears of the work force, but to ensure that there is a comprehensive list of questions that must be addressed by the MOD and Babcock Naval Services, and which I want to convey to my right hon. Friend next week. My colleague Jackie Baillie has raised the matter in the Scottish Parliament and has a commitment from the First Minister on retraining and keeping the skills in our area as much as possible. West Dumbarton and Argyll has been an area of comparatively high unemployment over the years, so we can ill afford to lose jobs. We must do everything we can to ensure that there is no employment haemorrhage.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister had a meeting yesterday with the industrial and non-industrial trade union representatives. From what I am told, I believe that the meeting was very helpful, although there is a long way to go. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the trade unions are stepping up their campaign against privatisation and for workers' rights, and laying out a triple challenge to the MOD. First, they ask that the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee scrutinise the proposals. The trade unions have not been informed why their proposal was not acceptable or successful. In the name of decency, that explanation should be undertaken.
The second challenge is to establish proper consultation, so that the trade unions and the work force can challenge the detail of the MOD's plans, rather than
204
simply going along with the MOD's current debriefing proposals. A few months ago, a global savings figure of £250 million was mentioned, but according to a written answer from the Minister of State, that figure is now £300 million. To people who, unlike us, are not privy to detailed information, that seems like a shot in the dark.
The third challenge is that, if privatisation is to go ahead, there must be guarantees for the future of the work force. I am delighted to note that John Coles, chief executive of the Warship Support Agency, will be called before the Defence Committee on 23 April. However, Ministers owe it to workers at the bases to give them the opportunity to participate in the process, and to answer questions, so that fears can be assuaged.
Linda Gilroy: I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, as the Plymouth community also feels that it has not been given full consideration. I appreciate that the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence will be looking at the issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that putting all our eggs in one basket is dangerous, particularly if the initiative results in men transferring to—in the case of Plymouth—Devonport Management Ltd.? We may live to rue the day when that happens.
Mr. McFall: Exactly—we need to adopt a very sensitive approach to the issue. In the 1980s, I pointed out that Faslane was a highly sensitive base, and that we need the utmost assurances on security. The work force have been loyal and committed, and no-strike agreements have been established, which ensure that working practices are implemented 365 days a year. Such details must be taken into account, and I suggest that Ministers visit the bases. The Secretary of State has been invited to Portsmouth and Plymouth, and I should be happy to accompany the Minister of State on a visit to Faslane.
A letter to the Faslane work force from John Howie, chief executive of Babcock Naval Services—stating that there will be no significant change in the next year—has to some extent allayed their concerns. If change were to take place almost immediately, it would have a destabilising influence, but why was such information not made available in past few weeks, so that people could understand what lay ahead?
The trade unions have rightly asked for guarantees from the MOD in five areas: pay, conditions, pensions, redundancy entitlements and—importantly—non-compulsory redundancies. The work force should not be sold short, and relationships need to be restored. That is why, with the Minister's permission, I am holding a meeting at the base on Monday morning. Future relationships should be characterised by empathy with workers' interests and concerns; by communication, so that they know about everything that is going to happen as soon as possible; and—last but not least—by gratitude for the work that they have undertaken in the past 40 years in this highly sensitive area.
The need for change is recognised, but we must undertake it in a spirit of co-operation. That is the least that the Government can do to show gratitude to the work force and to the region for 40 years of dedicated service to the naval industry.
3.34 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: It is entirely fitting that this week, perhaps more than any other, we should debate the role, interests and future of our service men and women. In the past seven days we have seen again how their professionalism and organisation have in many ways put the "great" back into Britain. My only regret is that they do not run the railways.
Of course, those same people have by now returned to their daily duties—to the front line in the United Kingdom and abroad. That front line is now stretched to its limit. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out, the ranks have declined by nearly 11,000, and since 1997 the number of trained officers has fallen by almost 800. According to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the Army alone is short of nearly 500 officers and almost 6,000 soldiers. With operational commitments continuing at high levels, that shortfall inevitably puts additional pressure on those who remain. Indeed, as the Secretary of State pointed out at the beginning of the debate, nearly a third of all service personnel are engaged in operational commitments. That figure cannot be sustained in perpetuity.
Other Members have chosen to examine the immediate problem of shortages and the challenge of retaining serving personnel. For my own part, I should like to focus on two other aspects: the quality of life for service personnel, particularly those in single living accommodation, and recruitment and retention for the next generation of service men and women.
Service personnel's quality of life is an essential issue that, in some ways, is as important as pay and pensions. It is important to the Ministry of Defence, because a quality of life that is perceived as good is a vital factor in retaining personnel. However, the quality of service life is even more important to the individual. No one minds working on a difficult, perhaps even dangerous, task, as long as they are looked after properly. The accommodation does not have to be the Savoy; it just has to be somewhere that can be made into one's home. As the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, among many others, has pointed out, service personnel have considerable and continuing concerns about the state of their living quarters, particularly single living accommodation.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body raised those concerns in 1996, and has continued to do so for each of the past five years. However, its report of this year goes somewhat further, and I shall quote briefly from it:
"Service personnel continue to stress the damage to quality of life and retention caused by poor accommodation. For Senior NCOs and more experienced personnel, in particular, poor accommodation standards give rise to a strong sense of not being valued by their Service. We found considerable scepticism about the pace of change and a general feeling that much is promised but little delivered…Commanding Officers…were frustrated by the constraints on funding which limited their ability to deliver necessary improvements."
As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I can reinforce that message. One example is Faslane, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has referred, albeit in a different context. I had the pleasure of visiting Faslane recently and talking to service personnel. Both its service and civilian personnel deserve our congratulations and commendations. It is not an easy site to work on. It is fairly compact, and maintaining high standards is difficult. According
206
to service personnel, to describe much of that accommodation as draughty would be an understatement. In many cases, you can put your fingers in the gap between the window frames and the walls. The heating is inadequate, and you may get hot water today—or not. That is how bad the service is. It is not simply Faslane and other UK bases that are affected; I understand that particular problems exist in Germany.
I am aware that the Government have announced a £1 billion programme, but why will no new beds be provided until 2004, and why will the programme take a further full eight years to complete? When I talk to service personnel, whether through the armed forces parliamentary scheme or more generally, they raise a series of points, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them. Why will there be such a delay between the announcement and actual improvements on the ground that service men and women can see? Does the Minister share their concern that some of that money is being sidetracked into other budgets?
Will the Minister guarantee that essential repairs and maintenance are not being held back in anticipation of the longer-term refurbishment package? That. I think, is known as the sticking-plaster approach. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that any delays are kept to the barest minimum?
Some claim that much delay resides in the Ministry's use of the Government's favourite scheme, best value, to assess the programme, yet the problem with the best value assessment is, of course, that it specifically considers the building element of the budget and excludes other costs such as retention, bonuses and additional special allowances. In that sense, best value fails, because it does not provide a genuine assessment of the total value for money delivered for taxpayers, although it does impose a series of delays that sap the morale of our front-line personnel.
On recruiting future generations to our armed forces, I shall raise a series of questions about the medium and longer terms. Young people no longer expect to have a single job or career. Instead, they look for variety and expect to have a range of experiences throughout their working lives. Some may say that that has always been the case, and it has in the case of the more ambitious, but it is becoming the norm across the range of experience.
Commanding officers tell me that personnel already routinely come to them seeking to leave after perhaps four or five years, not necessarily because of a bad experience or because they do not feel comfortable in service life, but because people of their generation wish to move on. A leading professional firm that I know in the commercial world cannot get younger people to commit themselves to a partnership, because the term required is too long for them, so the problem is not peculiar to the services; however, it represents particular difficulties for them, especially in a tight labour market.
Those changing aspirations, as well as the need to recruit both the numbers needed and the best and the brightest, demand a shift in service thinking and, in particular, their approach to the packages on offer. I recognise that changing those packages could be especially costly to the services, given the fitness required and the training provided compared with that for civilian jobs.
I know that the Ministry is considering those issues, but I say to the Minister that there is a pressing need for a review of the type and character of short-term contracts,

207
not simply in specialisations, in relation to which I believe one is under way, but in general. Indeed, the Government may need to consider whether we shall have to offer future generations significantly greater contractual and financial flexibility than existing recruitment policies allow. In the medium term, there may have to be not simply incremental change, but a potentially radical shift in direction.
In making that shift, one option may be sabbaticals or unpaid leave. I am aware of a number of public bodies that are finding that the most popular unpaid benefit among those aged up to about 35 is being able to take six or 12 months out of work. People will work long hours and they will work hard, but they now want the flexibility to use their time constructively. It could be argued that, in some ways, given their broader resources, the services are ideally suited to responding to such a demand.
The services may also need to respond to such increased labour fluidity by overhauling pension arrangements. The pension review, which is in hand, has been carefully scrutinised by the Defence Committee, so I do not intend to revisit the arguments, although we need at the very least to create genuine transparency on the contributions made and the benefits on offer.
I suspect that, for the next generation, we shall also have to consider the portability of pensions. Conventional thinking has involved the use of an immediate pension point as a retention tool—usually the age of 40—yet those of the younger generation increasingly have no intention of being in the same job at 40. They will be long gone by then. To put the point briefly, that generation's attitude to careers may make pensions completely redundant as a retention tool. I suggest to the Minister that, in fashioning our pensions policies for the next 10 years or so, we must look forward, not at the present or the past. We must not focus solely on past or current service men and women, and we need to think ahead.
We are fortunate in the calibre and commitment of our armed forces personnel. For those currently in the services, although the Government have recognised the problem of poor accommodation, I say to the Minister that we need action, not announcements. He must surely recognise the benefits for morale and for his retention efforts of being able to show tangible improvements. If he makes improvements and speeds the processes up, there will be real potential to make gains. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman responds to that point.
In reviewing manning policy, we must have a clear understanding of future generations' aspirations and needs. That means being prepared to test whether existing personnel tools will retain those future generations. We must also consider whether the services can get ahead of labour market trends and use their wider social and environmental resources to increase the attractiveness of military life. I believe that that can be done; I hope that the Government have the vision and will to deliver.
3.46 pm
Mr. Bruce George: Through the Minister of State for Defence, I apologise to the Secretary of State for missing the first 20 minutes of his speech. I am not good at punctuality.
My constituency of Walsall, South is built on hundreds upon hundreds of undiscovered mine shafts. Two were discovered recently, and I had to deal with that. There are
208
so many undiscovered shafts that I flippantly suggested that I might tip off the United States air force that bin Laden is hiding in one, so that it would find all the holes.
That is not as fanciful as it sounds, because the Taliban appear to be recruiting far more successfully than the Army in some parts of the country. My idea did not reach fruition, however, as I thought that the consequence of tipping off the US air force would be that I might be referred to as the Member of Parliament for what was formerly Walsall, South. A good idea came to nothing.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said. However, although I am not being critical, I would take his words more seriously if he did not submit to what I call the Opposition's "year zero" approach—the problems began in June 1997. Almost all the problems that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) described began years and years ago. I am not defending the Government—I spend much of my time doing quite the opposite, although constructively—and I enjoyed his speech, because he used against my Government exactly the same arguments that I used against his between 1979 and 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was a member of the Defence Committee at that time, and most of those present are either members or former members of the Committee or people who wish that they were members of it. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is a member of the Defence Committee and an Opposition Front Bencher, but I digress. I shall apply to the Leader of the Opposition—the latest example of regime change, which we have heard a lot about—to ask that the Defence Committee receive some of his Short money. He has an enormous reservoir of talent in the Committee to assist the hon. Member for Aldershot in his current role.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: I shall be delighted to let my colleague on the Defence Committee intervene.
Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful to the Committee Chairman for giving way. Of course, the Committee is a source of very important information, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) also made clear to me the other day when he said, on hearing that I was to stay on the Committee, that that was absolutely excellent. While I find it an important source of information, I assure the Committee Chairman that I have other extremely valuable sources of information.
Mr. George: The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife was also a spokesman and a member of the Defence Committee until he found that the work load became so enormous—he was responsible for defence and foreign affairs—that he jacked it in. I suggest that the hon. Member for Aldershot looks at the attendance list for that year, which shows that the strain is considerable. The difference is that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife represents the Liberal Democrats, who are not yet the official Opposition.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for somewhere near the SAS headquarters—that is an internal debate for the hon. Member for Hereford. I was delighted that the

209
hon. Gentleman referred to a document of which I was hitherto unaware, namely a mini SDR produced by his mini party. I must confess that I was forced to stifle my mirth when I realised that it was grossly unfair—the official Opposition appear to be negative; it is not their job, we heard today, to present positive policies.
We would like very much to invite someone along to give evidence to the Defence Committee. I hope that the author will come along, and no doubt the hon. Member for Hereford will come along with him.
Mr. Keetch: If that is a serious invitation, my noble Friend Lord Roper, who chaired the committee along with Air Chief Marshal Sir Tim Garden—they are the main architects of it—would be more than happy to come to the Defence Committee. It is important that parties throughout the House should come before Select Committees and give their views. I should be more than happy to do so on behalf of my party, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will extend his invitation to the Conservative party.
Mr. George: The Conservative party already attends the Defence Committee, so it would be superfluous to invite another Conservative Member to appear before us. I merely have to turn to my right and the Conservative party is there. However, I shall approach my colleagues on the Committee because it is important that, in due course, the Liberal Democrat party should respond to questions. I promise the hon. Gentleman that, if my colleagues agree, we shall arrange that invitation.
I wish to make a small remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and other colleagues interested in the Warship Support Agency. The Defence Committee visited Faslane, Coalport and Rosyth. We met trade union officials there and in London, and we are aware of the arguments. The Defence Committee has arranged three sittings to consider the matter. The chief executive of the Warship Support Agency and the Chief of Defence Procurement will attend our first sitting on 25 April; the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability) will attend our second sitting on 1 May; and the Minister for Defence Procurement will attend our third sitting on 8 May. That provides us with ample opportunity to explore the reasons for the decision. As the Committee has a strong maritime component, it would be profoundly unwise to take sides. Both the private and public sectors are equally well represented, but at least it is within our remit to explore the rationale for the decision and to see whether it was the correct one to make.
I should have said that I was sorry that the hon. Member for Hereford, excluding the SAS headquarters, could not be with us on our trip to Afghanistan because of the parlous state of his party's finances. A seat was available for him and I hope that the next time that we travel away, so long as, as was said in a newspaper, it is within striking distance of easyJet or Buzz, he will be prepared to join us. Perhaps he should have done what the spokesman for the Opposition did: while the Defence Committee, I am embarrassed to say, travelled club class, the Opposition spokesman slummed it behind and paid a fare that cost infinitely less than ours. We shared accommodation that was not of the finest quality and I apologise to him for drowning out the sound of the
210
generator with my snoring. Perhaps that was the real reason why the hon. Member for Hereford did not come, rather than the bogus reason—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman must now address his remarks to the armed forces personnel.
Mr. George: I am sorry. Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that talking about a future Defence Minister—although perhaps not in the case of the hon. Member for Hereford—would fall within the remit of armed forces personnel, but I willingly refer to a more serious side of my presentation.
The Defence Committee produced an excellent report—the Second Report for the 2000–01 Session, entitled "The Strategic Defence Review: Policy for People"—in which we spent a great deal of time considering the issues that we are discussing this afternoon. We said:
"The United Kingdom's Armed Forces are acknowledged to be amongst the best"—
we should have said the best"—
"in the world. It may be a truism to say that their quality depends vitally on the volunteers who constitute this country's Armed Forces, but it is a truism which is worth repeating."
We are able to say regularly how good our armed forces are—and they truly are. When one sees them in operation and on ceremonial occasions, as we did a few days ago, their magnificence and competence is unrivalled. However, this is not a toy army. We could put members of Group 4 or Securicor in nice uniforms and teach them how to march, and they could march effectively, but the men and women we saw a few days ago can not only take part in ceremonies; they are the same men and women who, a few days hence, could be called upon to do something very different. Their skills are interchangeable—from ceremonial duties to serious war fighting.
A number of hon. Members and the Minister of State saw our armed forces in Afghanistan functioning as supporters of schools, providing ambulances and medical facilities for the people of Kabul, where there are few or none of those facilities, and acting as policemen. They were amazing advertisements for British society and for the British military. Having been on patrol and ridden on the side of a vehicle, I know what it must be like—although as a supporter of Walsall football club I shall never experience it—to be on a bus going through a town after winning a cup final. Such was the incredible popularity of our armed forces, and long may that remain.
In drawing up our excellent report, we had the benefit of meeting service men and women. As a result of my close relationship with the Staffordshire regiment, I went along with two of my colleagues to solicit their complaints. That would normally be a superfluous activity, as soldiers from the black country do not need to be invited to complain; they do so quite naturally. Even in the presence of their officers they were prepared to explain what they thought needed to be done. Housing was one of the issues because many of the houses that the soldiers occupy are owned by the Nomura corporation of Tokyo, Japan, masquerading under the name of Annington Homes, which was sold by the previous Government.
Our report looked at preparing the ground—cadets and voluntary reserve forces. We also considered recruitment—getting the right people and retaining them—the need to

211
look after people and their families, and post-service provision. I urge hon. Members who have not read the report to do so, because it provides the agenda that the Defence Committee is pursuing. High on our agenda is the welfare of the men and women in the armed forces and civil servants in the Ministry of Defence.
The skills of our armed forces personnel have not come from on high, written on tablets of stone. They are not necessarily innate—people are not born to be warriors. Their skills are attained as a result of nurturing, investment and training, which costs money. I listen to Opposition Members calling for an increase in defence expenditure, and I reiterate what I have said many times. Those skills will progressively atrophy without a substantial transfer of resources from the Treasury to the Ministry of Defence over the next three months, six months, 12 months, two years, three years, four years or five years. All of us know that, because we are reasonably knowledgeable on defence matters. Ministers know that, and I hope even the Treasury will come to learn it.
If the Prime Minister wants our armed forces to be deployed in the Falklands, in Sierra Leone, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Cyprus, in Afghanistan and in many other places, he will have to instruct his Treasury team to provide them with the resources that they desperately need, otherwise they will not be able to perform the tasks as efficiently and competently as they have done, are doing and may do for a little while to come, but not for very much longer.
I am proud to have seen our forces in Afghanistan—I see them almost everywhere they are deployed. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, we saw the Royal Anglian Regiment, and we want to express our sadness about the as yet undetermined circumstances in which a young soldier from that regiment died.
Mr. John Burnett: My party and everyone in the House have the greatest sympathy for the man who lost his life and for his family. The speech of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) was excellent, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who has an important position in the House, will address the point that it is important that individuals are encouraged to have military experience. Those that have such experience understand and are sympathetic to the military ethos.
Mr. George: I agree entirely. Perhaps it was from a response to one of the thousands of questions put by my colleague on the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), that I learned that 45 per cent. a people who fly in the Royal Air Force emanate from the various flying organisations people can join during their youth. May I digress slightly? No, I will not do so, as I have just looked at Madam Deputy Speaker.
Yesterday, in the Defence Committee sitting on requirements post-11 September, we asked witnesses whether they felt any resentment that the armed forces were wandering around towns and countryside doing what may have been construed as non-military tasks. In a crisis, would people object to the military performing tasks such as those performed by the armed police of the City of London operating within the ring of steel after the bombings in the City a few years ago? People had no
212
hostility to that, because the days when a uniform—a red coat—sent shivers of anxiety and terror down people's backs have long since gone. The military are rightly held in the highest esteem. It is important that we sustain that positive assessment.
It is no surprise to us to see United Kingdom forces involved in humanitarian and civil projects. When the Defence Committee went to Kosovo after the conflict in 1999, we saw the British troops there involved in the crucial work of distributing roofing kits and other vital supplies to Kosovars, especially in remote regions that the non-governmental organisations could not reach. That enabled the people to endure a difficult winter. That is not a peripheral role. If such missions are to achieve the aim of bringing peace and stability in areas of conflict, the local population need to see the benefits to and improvements in their daily lives quickly so that the momentum and motivation for peace is maintained.
In Afghanistan we visited a school. Not all of us wanted to go there, but that was the option presented to us. As it turned out, it was a wonderful experience. As the Minister knows, I would have preferred to go elsewhere, but perversely I am glad that I went to that school. It was not a school that Mr. Nigel de Gruchy would have liked to see. Some 3,000 children were enrolled, and four or five rooms had been constructed from shattered buildings—they had been shattered not by the Taliban but in the civil war that preceded the Taliban's unfortunate rise to power.
Much of the money for the school was provided by the Department for International Development and it was helped by British troops, wonderful Finnish troops, and a local business man and builder. There were many girls at the school, whereas before females would not have been seen within hundreds of yards of it. Teachers were not wearing the burka. That is an example of the improvements now being made in Afghanistan. It is important that our armed forces are able to play a critical role not just in hearts and minds campaigns, but in showing people that the presence of British, Finnish and German forces in places such as Afghanistan can be to their benefit.
We are justly proud of the ability of the British armed forces to deploy quickly and lightly, as they did in Afghanistan. That capability is almost unique among our allies, so it most frequently falls to the UK to undertake such deployment as part of multinational operations. The willingness of our forces to live out of kit bags and to dig trenches for latrines does not mean that we should expect them to live in primitive conditions for months on end, especially when our allies then deploy with equipment and facilities that our troops view with considerable envy. I recall from Defence Committee visits to Kosovo the problems in moving our forces out of tents and into more weatherproof and suitable accommodation. We must ask whether we are properly equipping our forces for the expeditionary deployments that they are now undertaking as a matter of routine.
We do brilliantly to get our people in quickly, but how we develop our set-up over the ensuing few months needs more attention. Multinational operations have many benefits, but they give our forces the opportunity to compare their kit with that of their counterparts from other countries, and that comparison is not always in our favour.
I shall not spend any time on the deployments of the Royal Marines, who are in a dangerous part of the world. As always, they will discharge their responsibilities

213
with incredible competence and bravery. The Defence Committee is concerned about operational tempo. All the UK personnel whom we met in Kabul told us that they were delighted to be involved in the mission, and regarded it as an extremely valuable experience. What is more difficult for them and their families, especially the engineers and the logistic units, is that this latest deployment follows on from deployments to deal with the foot and mouth crisis this time last year and the weapons-gathering mission in Macedonia last summer. It was important to them that, when they return to the UK, they are given sufficient down-time to spent with their families and to undertake necessary training before they are asked to go on another deployment.
That message is not new, but the more missions we take on around the world, the more difficult it becomes to allow our troops time to take leave and to train. We must ensure that we do not ask them to do too much. Their positive attitude to the harsh conditions that they endured when they arrived in Kabul, and the success they have achieved so far in very difficult circumstances, should impress everyone; but we should not jeopardise that commitment and success by imposing too many demands on them.
Because we still have forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, and because our leadership of ISAF in Afghanistan now seems likely to last beyond the period originally envisaged—or, at any rate, we are likely to be there beyond that period—great care must be taken to ensure that our forces are not stretched too far.
Let me say something about defence medical services and the "year zero" phenomenon. Certainly much remains to be done to improve medical services. I recently wrote an article entitled "Stretcher-case or walking wounded? An assessment of the state of the Defence Medical Services". It was a critical article. Moreover, in 1996 the Defence Committee—which had spent some time examining Defence Costs Study 15—said that the state of our defence medical services had dropped to such a level that we doubted they would ever recover. When those services are being criticised, it is fair to point out that the crisis has not suddenly crept up on us, but has been a long time coming.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman seems keen to suggest that the Opposition are viewing the debate from a "year zero". Will he confirm that the critical report on a Conservative Government was carried by all members of the Committee, including Conservatives? Does that not suggest that we entirely accept that mistakes have been made?
Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I just hope that his willingness to criticise his own party sustains his time on the Front Bench—or, preferably, that his forthrightness will not be tolerated by his colleagues, that they will kick him out, and that he will then devote all the time he has to spend on defence to the Defence Committee. We would welcome his full return with, literally, open arms.
As I have spent nearly all my career in the House of Commons criticising the Labour party in relation to defence, it is a sheer delight for me to be able to endorse
214
almost entirely things that it is doing. [Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being provoked by the Minister of State into specifying other things that have prompted some dissent. Examples are the reserve forces, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—although that problem seems to have been remedied—and the defence budget.
Let me say what I think most people here will say. There may be one or two exceptions, but I think the overwhelming majority will agree that we cannot sustain the current level of activity with a budget that is around 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. One option is to reduce commitments, to cut procurement, and to do what the strategic defence review said would be done—match commitments and resources. Another option is to continue to limp on from one problem to another—I will not say "from one crisis to another"—leading a hand-to-mouth existence, and praying that the Treasury will splatter some additional goodies.
The third option is what I hope will happen. I hope the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will say that the military is one of the most effective and revered institutions in British society today. That status, however, can only remain if the Treasury dips its hand into its bag, brings out some money and gives it to the Ministry of Defence, allowing soldiers to obtain the kit they require and the accommodation in which they deserve to live. Such action would end the present haemorrhaging of personnel.
It is wonderful that we are now employing pilots from New Zealand. I said to the New Zealand high commissioner, in a politically incorrect way, "Thank you very much for allowing us to take your pilots. Is there not some truth in the suggestion that you have pilots and no air force, while we have an air force and no pilots?". That may have been taking the case a little too far, but there was enough in what I said to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation. If we cannot obtain our forces from Walsall, Stafford and Wolverhampton, it may be necessary to turn to countries that have historically provided troops for us in times of war and now, hopefully, in times of peace.
I cannot understand why, given that over the years we have seen an inevitable decline in the number of applicants to the armed forces, we have persistently made cuts in a group of people who must be, if not the best soldiers in the world, among the very best. I refer to the Gurkhas. Perhaps if they were a foot taller the Army would want to recruit more of them. One suspects that the enthusiasm for Fijians and Tongans relates more to their singing ability and ability on the rugby field than to anything else—although I welcome them to the Staffordshire regiment. In any event, if we cannot find the troops we need, is there not still time for us to look to the Gurkhas again? Could they not enhance our capabilities, at least in the short term?
4.16 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: It is a privilege to follow the Chairman of the Defence Committee in a defence debate. He may find that I do not agree with everything he said, but he will find that I happen to agree with some of it.
Let me associate myself with the tributes paid by Front Benchers to the role of our armed forces in commemorating Her Majesty the Queen Mother. They did

215
it superbly. I also pay tribute to the ex-military staff of the Palace of Westminster for all that they did to enable so many members of the public to convey their respects in person.
I served in the Territorial Army for some seven years. As an ex-Royal Anglian, I offer my condolences to the family of a young soldier from that regiment who recently lost his life in Afghanistan. I suspect that the whole House supports me in that.
I wish to raise two specific issues relating to defence personnel. The first is the use of personnel by the Territorial Army; the second concerns overstretch in the regular forces, particularly the Regular Army.
The Government's strategic defence review reoriented Britain's armed forces towards an essentially expeditionary strategy. Commenting on the military situation in the aftermath of the cold war and on the rationale behind the SDR, the then Secretary of State for Defence, George Robertson—now Lord Robertson—said:
"If the war is no longer going to come to us, then we may have to go to the war".
However, the events of 11 September showed graphically that the war could still come to us or our allies, perhaps in ways we had least expected. In the light of those events, the recent new chapter of the SDR asked for suggestions on, inter alia, how the reserve forces might be able to contribute to the new scenario following the attack on the twin towers.
I believe that TA personnel could play an important role in defending the country against terrorist attack. That does not just mean manpower for the static guarding of sites. I do not think that the TA would want to be solely assigned to that, and I see that the Minister agrees. In fact, it goes much wider.
Let us envisage for a moment the rather unpalatable scenario of a concerted asymmetric attack on the United Kingdom, in which a considerable number of civilians were killed or injured by attacks on public buildings and transport networks through the use of chemical and/or biological weapons. In the event of such an attack, and the media hysteria that would inevitably result, there would be a pressing need for large numbers of trained troops to give protection and reassurance to the civilian population to allow some semblance of normality to continue. The Regular Army is too small to provide such protection on its own; besides, it will always be partially deployed overseas—for reasons that have already been thoroughly discussed this afternoon.
Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend recall the Brave Defender exercises that took place once every two years during the late 1980s and which rehearsed with both Regular and Territorial Army forces the very scenario that he described?
Mr. Francois: I certainly do remember that. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I also recall that the Territorial Army performed admirably in those exercises.
In the type of scenario that I outlined—unpalatable though it may be to think about—a revamped and retrained Territorial Army could help to fill the gap as regards the lack of manpower. It could provide units specifically trained to deal with homeland security and to give first aid to chemical and biological casualties.
216
I urge Ministers actively to consider the possibility of bringing back several of the infantry battalions that were culled during the SDR and optimising them for such tasks. In addition, given the inherent flexibility of military units, other elements of the TA, such as those with basic nuclear, biological and chemical training, could also have utility, without detracting from their other specialist roles—for example, as engineers or signallers.
To put things bluntly, if a concerted attack was launched on the civilian population of the United Kingdom, we should need many more trained troops than we have at present. At one fifth to one eighth of the cost of a Regular soldier, TA personnel offer a cost-effective way of providing those extra troops. I hope that that point will not be lost even on the hard-nosed men of Her Majesty's Treasury.
I look forward with interest to the outcome of the consultation on the new chapter of the SDR. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State intimated that we might see the conclusion of that process in the early summer. I hope that it will include a proposal to give an enhanced role to an enlarged Territorial Army.
Patrick Mercer: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the resurrection of the Home Service Force?
Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend has touched on that point on other occasions, including during a debate in Westminster Hall. The Home Service Force, which mainly existed in the 1980s, was used primarily for the defence of important key targets. The two forces are not incompatible.
I also want to consider the wider subject of overstretch, as its effect on retention is serious. As I noted in an intervention, I accept that the Ministry of Defence has made strenuous efforts on recruitment, and that even during a buoyant economy, its measures have met with some success. However, the real problem is not recruitment but retention. The critical numbers are the net inflow and outflow of armed forces personnel—in other words, the relationship between recruitment and retention. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out from the Dispatch Box, the figures show clearly that there is a continuing net outflow of trained personnel from all three services.
In fact, the situation is even worse than the bare figures suggest, because those who are leaving are experienced—especially officers and NCOs—but they are being replaced by raw recruits. Even with all the enthusiasm in the world, a raw recruit cannot make up for the 15 years or so of experience, accumulated at great public expense, which is lost when a senior NCO leaves the Army. Indeed, if the Defence Analytical Services Agency could calculate the net outflow figures in terms of years of military experience, there would be an even starker picture than that revealed by the bare numbers.
Why are experienced personnel leaving in such numbers? One important factor is obviously tour intervals, particularly in specialist units that are in high demand. For young, single people the forces provide a wonderful life, but once soldiers take on family commitments things become much more complicated. The days are long gone when partners—many of whom now have careers in their own right—blithely followed the flag.
A simple summary of the "why people leave" syndrome would be as follows. A junior NCO in the Army, perhaps married and with small children, is posted

217
abroad for six months without his wife and family on a so-called "unaccompanied tour". His wife is left without her husband for half a year and misses him badly.
A few months after his return his unit is posted to a new location and his family are expected to follow him. His wife has to give up the part-time job that she has obtained locally. She may have difficulty in finding another one and that creates money worries for the family. They also find that the quarters that they have been allocated are in need of repair. While they are trying to sort that out with the not always highly efficient Defence Housing Executive, they face the challenge of getting their eldest child into a local school that is already heavily subscribed by parents who already live in the area—as indeed are the dentists and GP services with whom they also try to register.
In the midst of all those problems, the NCO is given a warning order that he is again being posted abroad on another unaccompanied tour. While he is away he spends a good part of his limited telephone allowance listening to the legitimate concerns of his wife and, incidentally, being told that her mother was right all along when she told her not to marry a soldier in the first place.
The next time that the NCO is posted away at short notice, he returns to find that his wife has had enough: she has already mentally left the Army and will brook no further argument. She presents him with a stark choice: "It's the Army or me and the kids." If he chooses the Army, we retain him—but society has another broken family to deal with. If he chooses his family—for wholly admirable reasons—he is lost to the Army.
I have used the Army as an example, but the problem is similar in the other services. The armed forces personify the meaning of "no-strike agreement". Ultimately, they face a stark choice: they can put up with all that I have described or vote with their feet and leave. Crucially, experienced personnel increasingly choose option B.
What is the answer? One solution would be radically to reduce commitments, to allow for much greater stability and fewer tours—especially unaccompanied tours at relatively short notice. However, if that is currently impossible for foreign policy reasons—it would appear that, at least for the present, the Government are arguing that case—the alternative is to take measures that meaningfully improve the quality of life for service personnel and their families so that, even given all the pressures, they will not want to leave the Army. That means taking action such as increasing the time during which soldiers who are abroad can communicate with their families at home. I take the point about the 20 minutes of phone calls and electronic blueys—I accept that Ministers are trying, but they need to do much more about that.
We must accelerate improvements to the housing stock and we must markedly improve the repairs service. Sometimes, partners are most upset by the niggling things. When they have spent three months trying to get a window mended or a shower fixed and have been on the phone about it to their husbands abroad, it is no wonder that they believe their Government and their Ministry of Defence do not really care about them.
We need to improve the warning time for moves on the tour plot, so that families can plan properly. The Secretary of State made some reference to that in his remarks and
218
it is only fair that we welcome it. There must also be special arrangements to improve access to schooling when soldiers relocate to avoid the chicken and egg dilemma that they cannot get a school place until they have a new address, but by the time they have an address all the places in decent schools have gone. We need to pay more attention to practical, nitty-gritty, everyday detail, but we must also spend money—a lot of it—on retention-related measures so that people will not continue to leave for the sake of their families. If the Government wish to pursue an activist foreign policy, they must provide the resources to do that. That includes providing resources for looking after the people whom they expect to do the fighting and, in extremis, the dying for them. If they carry on like this, within a few years, Ministers will face the prospect of issuing orders to deploy Regular units that are so hollowed out that they have effectively ceased to exist.
If we really care for our service men—we have all said this afternoon that we do—we must somehow find the resources to underpin our words and give them practical effect. When we are wrestling with these issues, I would humbly remind the House that it is the first duty of the Government, above all others, to ensure the defence of the realm. Our history shows repeatedly, ad nauseam, that we forget that vital lesson at our peril.
4.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The purpose of this contribution is to raise one subject and one subject only, which is this: what on earth are we now getting into in Afghanistan? It does not matter at all that some of us thought we should not have gone in in the first place, and that the way to deal with the situation was by intelligence and, frankly, by bribery. That is the past, and we are in a here and now situation.
We have a choice this spring or summer. Either we bring it to an end, or we reconcile ourselves to something that may be unpalatable and uncomfortable; a long-term commitment in Afghanistan, certainly for my lifetime and probably for the lifetime of the youngest among us. There is an awkward fact—the Taliban have not gone away. Members of the Taliban, I am informed, are sitting sipping tea in the tea houses of Peshawar across the Pakistan border. I am not sure that there is even a border, which I gather is very elastic and permeable. People go to and fro and there is not much supervision of the border.
In those circumstances, it may be that they are just biding their time, as they always did. If I had a personal interest to declare, it would be that the bones of some of my relatives are somewhere to be found in Afghanistan as a result of what happened in the century before last and at the turn of the last century. The whole history of the British among these people is a pretty sad one. The truth is that the Pashtun adore fighting. It is what they are about, and what they live for. The idea that they have gone away is, I fear, fanciful.
Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Father of House for giving way to me, and I intervene on him with great respect. I was one of the party that went to Kabul. Does he accept that the presence of our armed forces in Kabul as part of the ISAF mission has had a positive effect on the local population? On the streets, we were told that they were rejoicing because they had peace and security in their city for the first time for

219
decades. Markets were opening and women were walking about without their burkas on. These are positive developments of civil society.
Mr. Dalyell: There is no substitute in this House or elsewhere for first-hand information and I certainly respect that view. In a sense, I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that somehow it has solved a situation. But is that true outside Kabul? I have not been to Afghanistan, but I have been to Iran, its neighbour. That gives me a perspective. One wonders how long the commitment will last, and I would like an assessment from Ministers with regard to what my hon. Friend and I have said.
On 20 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that
"the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. As I said on Monday, Afghanistan is now a very different country. The decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has been vindicated. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network have been dealt a heavy blow."
They have been dealt a heavy blow maybe, but the leaders have not been found. My right hon. Friend continued:
"The Taliban regime, whose support was so vital for al-Qaeda is no more."
That was on 20 March. On 11 April, are we quite so sure that the Taliban regime is no more? There must be comment on the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and, indeed, on the qualms of some of the rest of us.
Harry Cohen: The nation-building in Afghanistan has to be done, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that it is a costly, difficult and lengthy process. Does he agree that it would be foolhardy for this country to try to do that nation-building in two countries simultaneously: Afghanistan and, for example, Iraq?
Mr. Dalyell: This is one (if those cases on which I could not agree more: it would be folly, as my hon. Friend and I think, to embark on commitments against Iraq.
I wish to refer to the whole nature of the British involvement. Again on 20 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) asked:
"Given the fact that when Russia had its troops in Afghanistan, it got a bloody nose and got bogged down, particularly in the mountains, what is the difference now between the two conflicts?"
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied:
"That is one of the things that I did discuss this morning with the Russian Foreign Minister. [Interruption.] I am amazed that the Opposition find that remarkable. Surely it is vital that we should discuss the situation in Afghanistan…the difference is the way in which the Soviet Union tried to deal with Afghanistan—largely by occupying ground, which obviously made it vulnerable to attack, whereas the whole purpose of the operation we are discussing today is to ensure that in swift search-and-strike operations, we remove any threat".—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 333–36.]
What I wonder is: can we remove any threat without occupying ground?
I undertook, as is my wont, to be short. My question to be answered in the winding-up speech is this: what is the Government's thinking on the timing of the Afghan operation? Do they think, as I do, that there is an either/or situation? When we give way to the Turks, do we make it clear that Britain does not follow the Turks, and that perhaps someone else—or no one else—does? Or do we
220
face up to what may be the horrendous obligation of being in Afghanistan for the lifetime of the youngest among us? That is a question that at least must be addressed, as it is vital in terms of our commitments on service personnel and the future of the deployment of personnel, which is what the debate is about.
4.39 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I declare an interest as, since 1981, I have been a member of the defence medical services, first as a regular member of the Royal Navy and now as a member of the Royal Naval Reserve.
In March, the Secretary of State announced that 45 Commando would be deployed to Afghanistan—about 1,700 people. At about that time also the Czechs announced that they were deploying a field hospital to that theatre of operations. It is poignant to note that we can provide only four field hospitals out of a requirement of 14. Our men and women are willing and able to put themselves in the line of fire but in return they expect us to ensure that, if the worst comes to the worst, there is the wherewithal to ensure that they are treated adequately. Given the present state of the defence medical services, I fear that we cannot give them that commitment.
Sierra Leone demonstrated that we are not only falling short in offering field hospitals, but woefully inadequate at ensuring that people are fit and able to be deployed in the first place. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that on this occasion our troops are fit in all respects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Although I am not replying to the debate, the defence medical services are my responsibility. There were mistakes made when the regiment deployed to Sierra Leone, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have been taken on board. Nowadays nobody is deployed who has not had their vaccination and health status properly checked.
Dr. Murrison: I thank the Minister for that reassurance.
Indifference to military medicine in the near east has caused Governments real problems in the past and I fear that the Government might be heading for problems in this theatre. It is now 60 years since McIndoe pioneered his important surgery on Spitfire pilots and it is salutary to remind the House that the defence medical services has three burns specialists against a requirement of 11. Particularly in this theatre of operations, we should remember that we do not have dedicated chemical warfare medical specialists. Fortunately the Czechs do—indeed they are renowned for that area of expertise—and that may be one reason why they are deploying to Afghanistan. They are very welcome indeed.
A Ministry of Defence source recently said:
"If any of Our Boys die because the medical help they needed wasn't available, it will be like someone in Whitehall helping an al-Qaeda sniper pull the trigger."
That is emotive and graphic, but the buck stops with the Government and although we have heard some facetious remarks about 1997 and year zero, the Government cannot shelter from their responsibility in this respect. They are

221
responsible for ensuring that the defence medical services and the field hospitals on the ground are up to the task of protecting our service men in a particularly dangerous theatre of operations.
On 10 February, on the BBC's "On the Record", the Secretary of State said:
"We are operating at the limits of our capability."
Those strong words gave us some insight into what is actually happening in terms of overstretch. Since then, troops have been deployed to the middle east in the largest numbers since the Gulf war. Taking the Secretary of State's comments to their logical conclusion, he is saying that we are overstretched. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that in his reply. Words mean what they say. In February, we were
"operating at the limits of our capability."
Where are we now?
This week the Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Army Medical Corps was laid to rest. The Queen Mother took a special interest in defence medicine and it is fitting that we should discuss it here today as part of this important debate on defence personnel.
No doubt we will hear that recruitment into the defence medical services has improved. It has improved slightly, but the difficulty lies with the retention of staff and in that respect, we have real problems. The Royal Army Medical Corps needs 882 officers. At the moment it has 661. If we drill down further, the picture becomes much worse because the problem lies predominantly in the middle ranks, among those who have recently completed their specialist training. It is particularly acute among surgical support teams. For example, there are only 26 anaesthetists—whom we colloquially call gas men—in the defence medical services, when there should be 120. There are 16 general surgeons against a requirement of 44; there are just 10 orthopaedic surgeons against a requirement of 28. The Queen Alexandra Royal Army Nursing Corps is short of 270 nurses. Florence Nightingale in her alma mater just across the river would have a sense of déjà vu, bless her, particularly when we consider our troops in the near east.
There is some good news, however. The Royal Army Veterinary Corps is very nearly up to strength. I am told that it is short of just two vets. No doubt veterinary manpower will be improved even further given the Government's current assault on the countryside and country pursuits. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Recruitment to the defence medical services is improving, but people are leaving in droves. That suggests that a military career for medics is attractive—people want to join—but at some point they become disillusioned. They become so disillusioned that they are prepared to enter that other cauldron of discontent—the national health service. At a time when service in the NHS also has its problems, people view it as a more attractive option than the defence medical services. That is something of an indictment.
I am a reasonable man and I am certainly not about to pretend that the problems started in 1997. They started well before then. I joined the defence medical services in 1981—more than two decades ago—so I have seen good and bad. The strategic defence review and the implementation of the Lawrence report have made matters a lot worse.
222
The centrepiece of new Labour's thinking on medical provision for the armed forces is the creation of the Centre for Defence Medicine. I have no objection to the CDM—I thought that it was called Fort Blockhouse in Gosport—but its reinvention in Selly Oak was truly inspirational, even for this Government. It is unloved, it is definitely unmilitary and it is in truth the unsung millennium dome of the west midlands. The forces have been sold a pup. They thought that they were getting something to be proud of; they did not expect to be shunted into an obscure corner of a peripheral hospital. Service men joined the DMS to be part of the action. They want to exist in close approximation to the teeth elements of the armed forces. Those front-line units are concentrated in Hampshire and Wiltshire, not Selly Oak.
Mr. Keetch: I have visited constituents who have received excellent care at Selly Oak. Although the hon. Gentleman may have a view about the closure of Gosport, I hope that he will not conclude his remarks without paying tribute to the nurses and doctors who work at Selly Oak, from whom my constituents received excellent attention.
Dr. Murrison: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I was criticising the siting of the Centre for Defence Medicine in Selly Oak, not condemning Birmingham hospitals or anything to do with the national health service.
Over the years, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has been a champion of the Royal Hospital Haslar and rightly so. I had the pleasure and honour of working there when it was the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar. Post DCS15—defence cost study 15—this was promised as the core hospital of the DMS. It is about to shut at a time when France is opening its 15th military hospital. One of us has got it wrong; I wonder which.
The demise of the Royal Hospital Haslar stems from the no longer fashionable view of the medical royal colleges that small hospitals do not have a future because they cannot sustain postgraduate training. I am afraid that that was always an example of the tail wagging the dog. What we expect of our medical establishment is to titrate medical training to address the needs of patients. Clearly, that is not what was happening on this occasion. We now seem to be having a more mature debate of that view of hospital provision. I welcome, for example, the Government's recent stance on the creation of units to cope with cold surgery, particularly orthopaedics, in smaller hospitals and dedicated hospitals. It is perhaps important to remember that orthopaedics is an area in which the DMS has traditionally specialised and excelled, not surprisingly given the youthfulness of its client base.
We hear a great deal about joined-up Government, but, since 1997, this Government have missed a wonderful opportunity by failing to join up Fort Blockhouse, Haslar and Southampton university hospitals. It would have been much better had those three amalgamated, as we must have an amalgamation between the national health service and the defence medical services. It made no sense to break up that very obvious synergy. A great deal of the lack of morale and lack of service ethos in the DMS, which has contributed to a large extent to the reduction in numbers, can be attributed directly to that.
I conclude by issuing a cri de coeur. I think that there is cross-party support for the action in Afghanistan. I seek the Minister's assurance, however, that a full assessment

223
has been made of the casualties that we are likely to take during the operation. That is important, because the country needs to be prepared for what might be in store. I am sure that the Government will have made a full and accurate assessment of the likely casualties, both from hostile fire, and, regrettably, from friendly fire. That is also important from a practical standpoint—that of the provision of medical services to support the casualties that, sadly, we are likely to take. When the Minister winds up, will he comment on whether he can provide us with the reassurance that the defence medical services and the field hospitals deployed in Afghanistan can support the operation on which we are embarked?
4.53 pm
Tony Worthington: I want to make a brief contribution on the MOD's recent decision to put many public servants into the private sector at naval dockyards, and to support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I apologise because, owing to prior commitments, I cannot be present for the winding-up speeches, but I hope that I obtain a response from the Minister then.
My main interest is in the decision that naval dockyard work on the Clyde, including work on nuclear submarines, should be done in a partnership between the Royal Navy and Babcock's. That has implications not just for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton but for mine, because a substantial number of the workers live there. I am largely concerned about how the decision was announced and especially by the letter that was sent to some hon. Members about it. I was surprised that there was no statement in the House, although I concede that there were troublesome announcements to be made about Consignia and Railtrack on the same day. A statement should have been made because the decision constitutes a significant change of armed forces policy in that a significant number of people who will be responsible for our nuclear submarines at Faslane are going into the private sector.
Failing a statement, it would have been helpful if local Members had received a briefing on the implications of the decision. We could have asked questions that arose from the decision and obtained answers for our constituents. We did not receive such a briefing. There should have been a publication to show that the many concerns about this significant area of policy had been addressed. Instead, like my hon. Friend, I received a letter letting me know the Government's decision. It is interesting that, independently, we reacted in the same way—we felt let down. I did not find the letter as helpful as I would have wished. As the Minister said, the news had been well trailed in Scotland by the trade unions, which made the letter easier to understand as I had had the translation of the letter in advance, but it was not a clear letter.
The letter was not a serious attempt to explain and justify a major change of policy. Its most unsatisfying aspect is that it does not answer the question that we most wanted to be answered. The figures that in the newspapers about job losses varied widely: 500, 750 or 1,000 and so on. The basic information that we would have liked was
224
how many jobs would be lost and when. I shall quote all that the letter says, on what is a major change of policy, about the Clyde. It states:
"For the Clyde this means that about 1,750 Naval Base civilian posts will transfer to Babcock Naval Services Ltd a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary of BRDL with around 500 RN staff on secondment. Both the Company and Naval Base management will be reviewing levels of employment across all areas of the Naval Base as these arrangements bed in."
That was all the information that we received to cope with the protests that there would be in Scotland, on the Clyde, from constituents. That was what we were equipped with. We did not even have the basic information about how many jobs would be lost—the MOD refuses to say. We have already been told, however, that the whole project for all the yards will save the MOD £300 million. We have also already been told that Babcock's will consist totally of staff—not plant or equipment—and brings nothing to the party. How on earth can Babcock's put in a bill without costing for staff? If the Ministry knows the extent of the savings, it must know what staff savings would be made, so it must know, with some accuracy, how many jobs will be lost. However, it is unwilling to tell local Members and the work force what the figure is. We would understand if the figures that the Ministry gave covered a range.
Babcock's and the Government have agreed not to say how many jobs are involved. What on earth was the business case built on? How could the Government make this statement, which appeared in the letter that I received? They said:
"these changes will ensure a continuation of the current level of support to the Fleet, maintaining operational capability and with no compromise on safety and security at the Naval Bases."
How could that statement have been made in honestly if staffing levels had not been considered and approved?
The lack of openness has led to distrust. Mr. Howie, Babcock's chief executive, made a strange statement to the company's work force when he said:
"I am certain that the message portrayed by the press of 500 redundancies will have caused a great deal of concern about the immediate future."
However, the concern was caused not by the press but by the unwillingness of Babcock's and the Ministry to be open and honest. It seems that the jobs will be transferred to Babcock's, and that many will then be lost, but that the Government will avoid the responsibility. That has not worked as a tactic, and there is great bitterness.
Mr. McFall: In this case, perception is reality, and the trade unions believe that the Secretary of State told them in February that the transfer of jobs to Babcock's had nothing to do with the Government. They therefore feel cast adrift. There is an urgent need for close communication between the Secretary of State and hon. Members so that rumours are not allowed to gather.
Tony Worthington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying exactly what has been wrong with the approach. However, many other issues involved in this development have received no public debate, and no written explanation of what is going on has been offered. I have enormous respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I believe that he will be able to win back the respect that has been lost, but a serious document that explains matters in full must be produced.

225
What will be the relationship between Babcock's and the 500 Navy personnel who will be working for the company? What will be the command and control structure? It is obvious that it will be in Babcock's interest for a greater share of the work to be done by Navy personnel, and I bet that the company will not want the number of Navy personnel to be cut.
Can we accept the assurance from the Ministry that there will be no compromise in security when private-sector personnel are involved? The very short letter sent to me does not deal with that, but the public have the right to be shown that the Government have thought about such matters.
It is claimed that improved repair techniques will lead to savings, but the claim appears to be based on the fact that Babcock's will improve the skills of the existing work force. The gains from those skills will accrue to Babcock's, but such figures probably will not appear in the in-house bid.
In conclusion, I want to express my sadness at the way in which this matter has been handled. It is unfair to the work force, and especially to the local MP, that the letter sent out in respect of a major policy change should be only seven lines long. As far as we know, that change will cause major job losses in the area. I hope that that can be put right.
5.3 pm
Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). During the recent visit by the Select Committee on Defence to the naval bases and shipyards in Scotland, we all learned a great deal. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to underline what was said by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who demanded extra spending on defence commitments. Sadly, he is no longer in the Chamber. Were he here, I would have to raise my voice, as my hearing was damaged as a result of sharing a tent with the right hon. Gentleman for one night in Afghanistan. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can be aware that he drowned out the noise of the generator, as he was asleep—no one else in the party was, though.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South were here, as I want to take issue with him about his "year zero" comments. We all know that certain problems go with defence. I make no pretence of defending the Conservative party's record on that. We clearly got things wrong. However, we now stand on the brink of a grave national emergency, if we are not already in one. The matters that we are discussing are far too important for us to concern ourselves with the trivialities of inter-party point scoring.
The trip to Afghanistan was seminal for all of us who went on it. It was extremely informative. I want to use the example of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, which calls itself the Vikings, to illuminate one or two points. There is no doubt that the Royal Anglians and other infantry battalions are disturbed and destabilised by the length of the commitment to Afghanistan. I was due to lunch tomorrow with an infantry commanding
226
officer, but his adjutant phoned today to say, "Frightfully sorry, but he's too busy to lunch with you because he's lobbying to get his battalion to Afghanistan." We should be beyond that: commanding officers should not have to lobby to know what the arms plot is.
The Royal Welch Fusiliers are dying to go to Afghanistan and think that they are. The 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglians thinks that it is going to replace the 1st Battalion. No one knows what is happening. Is it not time we came clean? To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), we need to know exactly how long the commitment will last, what it will involve and the number of troops necessary to sustain it. Ministers should make a clear statement on the implications for the arms plot. It is only by creating stability in the arms plot that we will help to stem the haemorrhage of trained personnel, especially from the infantry regiments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex explained, it was interesting to note that when we went on patrol with soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment we were surrounded not just by the khaki berets of the Royal Anglians, but by the plum-coloured berets of the King's Royal Hussars—cavalry men who were forming part of an infantry patrol. The 1st Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment is well recruited in a difficult part of the country for infantry recruiting. Fortunately, my constituency lies in Nottinghamshire, on the edge of Royal Anglian country. It is interesting to see how those two battalions approach the problem of recruitment. Despite the fact that the 1st Battalion is only marginally under strength, it has had difficulties deploying to Afghanistan and finding the manpower that it needs.
The commanding officer—strangely enough, quite well known to me—pointed out that he had to leave almost 40 men behind in Pirbright because they were sick. They could not be deployed on operations not because of temporary illness, but because of chronic difficulties for which medical discharges could not be procured. The soldiers were capable of sedentary duties, but there are not many sedentary duties to perform in an infantry regiment. So the regiment called on soldiers from its battle group—men of the King's Royal Hussars—to help them with the problem.
The commanding officer also pointed out a fascinating fact, which relates to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). The battalion spent two years serving in Londonderry, which made it less than enthusiastic for other tasks. The deployment was gruelling, not very exciting and numbers had fallen. Yet as soon as the news spread through the battalion that it was to deploy to Afghanistan, and 1 Royal Anglian realised that it was going to be allowed to do a task that had been reserved for the units of 16 Air Assault Brigade and that the two-tier Army was being put on the back burner, a dozen men withdrew their notice to sign off, became good, loyal and motivated soldiers again, and were slavering for operations. It was clear to the officer that part of the retention problem, at least as far as he was concerned, turned on the tasks that the battalion was being given. The men understood two years in Londonderry, but—by golly—they preferred a good, exciting tour in Afghanistan.
The commanding officer made another interesting point: "One of the reasons why I'm short of manpower is that I've had to leave 20 men behind to recruit." It would

227
have been naive of me to ask, "Why on earth are you doing that?" The answer is that the recruiting group cannot or will not do the job.
I was fascinated to hear the Secretary of State refer to new and imaginative means of recruiting. I welcome that, and I am sure that several measures have already been used successfully. He invited Conservative Members to suggest other measures; I shall not disappoint him.
The men who are recruiting are not recruiters—they are snipers, machine-gunners, non-commissioned officers and mortar men. All those men are back in East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the south using their salaries to recruit—in other words, abusing their salaries. The Army describes that as the black economy. Those men should be on operations helping out and ensuring that men from the King's Royal Hussars do not need to plug the gaps in 1st Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment.
I have asked the Ministry of Defence to provide me with the estimated cost of recruiting a humble private soldier for the infantry; apparently it is unavailable. One can conduct an interesting analysis by looking at the cost of running the recruiting group and putting on top of that the costs of all the salaries that should be used in the field being misemployed in recruiting back in England. The humble hewer of wood and carrier of water—the man who shoulders the pike in the British infantry—is probably one of the most expensive public servants to be used to recruit in the whole gamut of public service.
After visiting the Royal Anglian Regiment, we went on to the joint Army and Royal Air Force nuclear, biological and chemical warfare regiment in Kabul—the first experimental unit of RAF aircrew and Army soldiers to be formed for a highly specialist task. Without going into too much detail, much of the evidence that they have discovered in Kabul and its surroundings is fascinating. Their task is difficult, and the commanding officer of 1st Battalion, Royal Tank Regiment, which provides the Army elements of the regiment, is having grave difficulty keeping his recruiting up to snuff. He has had to go to what the Army describes as a recruiting witch doctor—in civilian life, he would be described as a consultant. Several people in the Army are not employed in recruiting but have remarkably successful records as recruiters in their own right.
Next month, 1st Battalion. Royal Tank Regiment will deploy to Liverpool with one of those witch doctors at the helm. He is a major who should be teaching tactics at the all-arms tactics wing, but is out helping the Royal Armoured Corps to recruit—completely under its own auspices, with no assistance from the recruiting group, and with men yet again misemployed in the black economy trying to make up the numbers that should already be provided by the normal recruiting chain.
Recruiting is very much the Army's main effort. Operations must clearly take priority, but after that every unit has to be topped up with the correct number of men and women. In the past, the Army has declared that to be "main effort"—a technical term meaning that every resource, expertise and ability is dedicated to the task in hand. Why, then, do the Army, Navy and Air Force rely on retired officers and time-expired non-commissioned officers to try to recruit their young men and women? I ask the Minister to answer that question, if he can, in summing up.
228
Why should young people necessarily be appealed to by retired officers—men in their mid-50s or early 60s? Are they the right people to do the job? Should not the young, sparky staff officers grade 2—young majors and the equivalent who pass out of staff college—be given that crucial task? I ask the Minister at least to think about that.
Without damning the MOD's recruiting group too much, I also pay tribute to the breadth of thinking that has gone on in recruiting soldiers, sailors and, to a lesser extent, airmen from the Commonwealth. I recently visited the Army Training Regiment at Lichfield and it was fascinating to see the mixture of nationalities in the ranks of the platoons that were passing out. It is a good idea and it has worked well. Why has it taken so long to be implemented?
I should like to join many other hon. Members in paying tribute to the Queen Mother, but I should like to iterate the point that three of her brothers served in the Black Watch and one of them was killed at Loos in 1915. That regiment was particularly dear to Her Majesty, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) is not here because he had the privilege of serving in that regiment earlier in his military career.
The 42nd is one of our oldest and finest regiments, raised in the 1740s. The Times carried an article last week saying that, with the sad demise of the Queen Mother, that regiment, which could not be properly recruited, was bound to go, as someone said earlier, as the result of being hollowed out to the point where it does not exist. I suggest that there is no difficulty in recruiting. Certain regiments have no difficulty in taking imaginative and lateral approaches to recruiting and bringing themselves well above establishment. It would not only be a disgrace if the Black Watch were allowed to perish, but a dishonour to the Queen Mother.
5.16 pm
Rachel Squire: May I tell the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) that, as the Black Watch is my local regiment, I will certainly pledge myself to supporting the continuation of its tremendous role and history in the defence of this country?
May I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to our armed forces? They are simply the best, whether acting as a superb funeral cortege for the Queen Mother; acting in a war fighting capacity, as they are currently doing in Operation Jacana in Afghanistan; or operating in a peacekeeping role in what are often tense, complex and unstable environments.
May I also join the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in expressing my deep sympathy to the family of the young soldier from the Royal Anglian Regiment who tragically died this week? It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the other armed services personnel who have died or suffered severe injury in the service of their country, especially as we remember this year the 20th anniversary of the Falklands war.
The House's responsibility to our armed forces personnel and their families has to be deep and far reaching. We must seek to provide them with the training,

229
equipment and support that they need. The MOD's overarching personnel strategy states that the ultimate aim of the policy regarding service personnel is
"to generate and maintain modern, joint, battle winning forces, by placing Service personnel and their families at the centre of our plans, investing in them and giving them confidence in their future."
I welcome the fact that, under this Government, defence has received the first real-terms, year-on-year increase in investment since the end of the cold war, but I will be blunt and join others in saying that I do not think that the increase is enough and I hope to see more. Although real progress has been made in purchasing new and better equipment and in improving conditions, more needs to be done. One of the benefits of being a member of the Select Committee on Defence, and having been through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, is that it has given me and others the opportunity to listen to what all ranks of our armed forces are saying, and to come back and convey that to Ministers.
I want to raise a few concerns, especially in connection with equipment and support. First I shall pick up the points made by the Secretary of State, by my hon. Friends and by other hon. Members about the importance of decent sanitation and washing facilities, including showers and hot water, and sleeping accommodation, especially for our peacekeeping forces.
I recognise the fact that, in Pristina for instance, there was uncertainty about how long our forces would be present, and hence about whether it was justifiable to invest in more permanent facilities for them. I hope that the lessons from those operations have been learned and that our forces serving in Operation Fingal in Kabul will quickly be given mobile facilities—decent washing, sanitation and other facilities—although we hope that they will be there for only a short time.
The second issue that I want to mention is the importance of giving all ranks the opportunity to tell us what they think they need, and to comment on their current equipment and its future design. Like other members of the Defence Committee, I was somewhat taken aback when we visited the US Marines base in Quantico and found that the Marines designed their own rifles. I am not saying that we should encourage our own Marines to do that, but it was clear that the comments of Marines using the equipment on the battlefield were fed directly back to those who were manufacturing the weapons, and the weapons were adapted to suit the Marines' requirements and needs.
We have all heard time and time again about the frustration of people who say, "We've been saying this for years. When will things be improved?", and about other problems, especially the delay in obtaining spare parts and other essential equipment. When the Defence Committee recently visited the Defence Procurement Agency, I was pleased to be assured that all ranks do get the chance to have their say, but I hope that that will be built upon further and extended.
We all recognise the impact on morale of poor and inadequate equipment. One of the main lessons of Operation Saif Sareea 2 was that some equipment was still failing in spite of the fact that problems with it had been identified some years earlier in the Gulf conflict—problems with the SA80 rifle and with the Challenger tank, to mention just two.
230
It is right and proper to pay tribute in the debate to the support staff and civilian personnel who manufacture and provide equipment, and act as support staff in our bases and dockyards. I think that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members would be surprised if I did not use this opportunity to praise the skills and professionalism of the Rosyth dockyard work force, who have taken on major changes and challenges over the past few years, but still deliver on cost and on time. They have recently been highly praised for the work that they have carried out for the Royal Navy—on the refit of HMS Ark Royal, for instance.
I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall just make one or two further points about families. What the hon. Member for Rayleigh said about the reality of life for Army families was valuable.
As we all know, it is very important for all of us to ensure that we go out there to hear what the public are saying. I decided to begin this week in a healthy way by going to a local swimming baths, where I found myself eavesdropping on a conversation between two Army wives. One was telling the other of how she had had no heating or hot water over the weekend, had rung the emergency number and not got an answer, and had rung the main line and was told to ring the emergency number. When she said that she had already done so, she was given another number, which she discovered was a private residential number. It was clear that that was not her first experience of being passed from pillar to post. As she said to her friend before—unfortunately—I had to wander off elsewhere, "They need a site meeting to change four light bulbs." I thought that that was a rather good comment.
The benefits of good family support are so important, particularly to retention and maintaining morale. What will that woman's husband think if he rings from Afghanistan to find that his wife and family have not had hot water and heating over the weekend? Although I certainly welcome the achievements so far of the service families taskforce, I hope that it will be allowed to continue and that all families will be aware of its presence and work.
Obviously, many other issues have been raised, but many of them have already been eloquently spoken about, so it would not be right for me to take up the time of other hon. Members who still want to speak. Clearly, we shall all keep a close watch on the defence medical services. I join the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) in praising the defence medical staff at Selly Oak, who cared so deeply in recent months for the son of one of my constituents.
We need to consider further what security we provide for our forces and their families, particularly post-11 September. We could do with a debate just on veterans issues, especially addressing further subjects such as pensions and compensation. We could certainly continue our debate on recruitment and retention, and related problems and issues that have been highlighted.
We need to do more to promote the role of cadet forces, which I particularly praise, in recruiting young people. We should encourage their presence in schools far more. At presentations by the Army cadet force that I have attended, I have met young people who reckon that the cadet forces took them away from a life of petty crime towards which they were heading, which would have led

231
to more serious offences. I particularly want to mention my local sea cadet air training corps and of course the Dunfermline Territorial Army base.
I end as I began by saying that our forces are simply the best and that our job in this House is to ensure that they have what they need to stay the best and to continue to be held in very high regard in all parts of the world.
5.29 pm
Bob Russell: I should like to concentrate my remarks on the retention and recruitment of armed forces personnel. The Minister will know that, according to a written answer on 1 February, the shortfall in personnel was 7,477—a 6 per cent. shortfall. If 25,000 people are joining the Army every year, a similar number must be leaving it each year. That means that over the Government's lifetime the number of people who have left the Army is roughly the same as those who are in it, so there is a massive turnover. Recruitment appears to be working, but we need to concentrate on the retention of personnel. I concur with the comments that have just been made about the Army cadets, and I would include the territorial and reserve forces: they are a potential source of recruitment.
Tours of duty and overstretch are critical factors in retention. Interestingly, as we have heard, the prospect of real action in Afghanistan made people enthusiastic about overseas tours, so it is largely a question of the duties that the soldiers are being called upon to perform.
Can the Minister confirm that while some support is given to employers who allow members of their work force to join the territorial and reserve forces, more needs to be done to encourage that?
As a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was advised that many would-be recruits had to be sent away to acquire sufficient fitness to train to be soldiers. Would the Minister care to discuss that with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? Clearly, school sports and physical education programmes are producing young people who are less fit than their parents and grandparents were. That needs to be considered.
Will the Minister and his advisers consider my Adjournment debate of 25 October 1999 relating to education for military personnel? An organisation known as the National Association of State Schools for Service Children has produced evidence showing that more needs to be done to support the education of children of service personnel. The phrase used to describe the problem is "the turbulence factor." The number of schools that such children go to affects their education. That is all part and parcel of the need to improve retention.
The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) gave us a graphic example of how the domestic scene affects family life in the Army. Representing a garrison town, I receive many letters, phone calls and visits to my advice bureau from Army families, but I only see the tip of the iceberg. I pay tribute to the welfare services provided by the Army. They have never been better. In particular, I praise the garrison commander in Colchester, Colonel Julian Lacey, and others engaged in welfare work. The importance of their work was particularly brought home to me when the troops went to Kosovo, Bosnia and, more recently, Afghanistan. The Army provides a marvellous welfare net but that on its own is not sufficient given the current tours of duty and the overstretch that results.
232
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) referred to the housing problems experienced by two Army wives in another part of the country. We need to consider recommendation 48 of the fourth special report of the Select Committee on Defence published on 2 May 2001, almost 12 months ago. It states:
"A high standard of accommodation should be available to all Service families who want it. Achieving the upgrade of the estate in a reasonable time span is essential. This is one area where more money would have immediate and beneficial effects for Service personnel and their families and, in consequence, massive potential benefits for the Services in terms of morale and retention. The Treasury took a huge amount of money from the sale of the married quarters estate in 1996—nearly £1.7 billion. It let the MoD keep only £100 million, a sum clearly inadequate for the promised upgrading of the married quarters. We recommend that more of the proceeds of the sale should go back to the…Defence Housing Executive specifically for the upgrade of the Service Families Accommodation."
I invite the Minister to tell us what has been done in the past year and what further action will be taken.
As part of the feel-good factor, we need to concentrate on better welfare, housing and education for the Army family; other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about other issues, but I am concentrating purely on retention. Some good will could be shown at minimal cost, not least in relation to some of the old soldiers. In my capacity as parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister about the 2,200 members of the retired officer corps, who, although they are not official members of Her Majesty's armed forces, are still in service—indeed, many of them are required to wear uniform at work. Without exception, they do jobs that would otherwise be occupied by serving personnel, but they are being told that they cannot have the Queen's jubilee medal. The request for the medal is a small one and could be granted. I invite the Minister to use his connections with those who make decisions on such matters to ensure that those 2,200 members of the retired officer corps will have the medal. It would cost nothing, but the good will that would be generated would be worth having. My second such suggestion concerns the old soldiers who were in the Suez canal zone in 1951–54. Why on earth cannot those national service men from all those years ago have a medal to commemorate their service for King and then Queen and country?
Finally, I should like to mention the new garrison at Colchester for 16 Air Assault Brigade. In raising the issue, I want to associate myself with the remarks made earlier about the home regiment for Essex, the Royal Anglians. Can the Minister inform me, the House and my constituents exactly where we are with the new proposals for the Colchester garrison? I feel that firm decisions should have been made by now, but for some reason, there appears to be a logjam. Clearly, it is in the interests of the wider military family in Colchester that that new garrison be built. In terms of retention, the accommodation has to be the best that can be provided. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to say exactly where we are—if he cannot do so, perhaps he can write—and when we can look for progress on the Colchester garrison.
5.38 pm
Linda Gilroy: Many of the 41,000 armed forces personnel in the south-west are, of course, based in Plymouth, and many of them are based in Plymouth, Sutton. The Devonport naval base is the largest

233
such base in western Europe and the base port for the Royal Navy's biggest vessel, which is currently on deployment in the middle east: the helicopter landing ship HMS Ocean. It is also the base for 14 type 22 and type 23 frigates, seven Trafalgar class submarines and six hydrographic survey ships. The base employs about 2,500 people, with whom many families are associated, just as many families in the area are associated with the Royal Marines, who have a big presence in the south-west generally and especially in Plymouth, where the headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade, the Stonehouse barracks, and the 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery is situated. The latter is based at the historic citadel and provides gunnery support to the Royal Marines. On the outskirts of Plymouth is situated a base for 42 Commando at Bickleigh.
Royal Marine units from the south-west have recently seen service in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone and are being deployed to Afghanistan as we speak. Some 110 personnel from 29 Commando and 200 personnel from 3 Commando, which is based in Plymouth, are on a rolling programme of deployment this week. Some may be travelling or arriving and familiarising themselves with the terrain and continuing their exercise and training as we speak.
The armed forces personnel strategy, which emerged from the strategic defence review, recognised that military operations are physically and mentally demanding, extremely unpredictable and—of course—inherently dangerous. In the end, they depend for success on teamwork, which comes from first-class training, good leadership and mutual trust. In recent weeks, as deployments were made in Afghanistan, and during Exercise Saif Sareea, the Evening Herald—our local evening paper—gave detailed, balanced and interesting coverage of the actions on our behalf of armed forces based in Plymouth. We ask a lot of them, especially when preparing for, or in the aftermath of, operations.
Many hon. Members have given graphic descriptions of exactly what is involved for those who are deployed, and for the families that they leave behind. The demands do not stop at the front line. Other hon. Members have also referred to families, and I want to concentrate the bulk of my remarks on that issue. During his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that personnel welfare, particularly in relation to families, is a key concern for his Department. Well-motivated and well-cared-for personnel are absolutely crucial to the strength of the armed forces, and how we look after their families matters greatly.
In that regard, communication is exceedingly important. The Department has acted positively by identifying in the strategic defence review a role for the new service families taskforce. It has also brought together and given voice to family associations such as the Association of Royal Naval and Royal Marines Families. Others have already mentioned the Army Families Federation and Airwaves, the RAF family association.
It is not easy to reconcile the demands of the front line with those of the family, but it is possible. Officers based in Plymouth who are members of the Association of Royal Naval and Royal Marines Families are working hard to ensure that it is an independent voice that represents families' interests and concerns in an open, observable and accountable way. The service families
234
taskforce, established under "Policy for People", has provided a focus for that voice. It enables my hon. Friends to engage in dialogue with their ministerial colleagues, and it forms the basis for progress already made on some of the issues that I want to raise. Those issues, which were identified in the taskforce survey, relate to health and education, and arise from the high levels of mobility that service life often requires. They include school admissions, access to dentists and doctors, registration with general practitioners, and hospital waiting lists and appointments. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is nodding—he is obviously familiar with them.
I pay tribute to the work of the strategic defence review, which has enabled Ministers to help service families. However, I want to discuss some issues that constitute work in progress, as it were, such as schools admissions. Discussions have led to new statutory guidance on schools' admissions policy, which recognises the needs of service personnel's children and has enhanced nursery school provision. However, it is still not easy for service families to access their local community school.
Often, the transition for families moving from Scotland to Plymouth is made a great deal easier if they become part of the community school in the area in which they are to live. I know that the welfare associations will raise aspects of the appeals procedure with Ministers through the services taskforce families forum, which is to meet in the near future. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister listens carefully to what they have to say, as they have practical and positive proposals to make with respect to appeals.
Bullying is another example in which parental interest in a school may have particular dimensions for service families, and some schools in Plymouth have positive programmes for tackling it. An incident was reported during the Kosovo deployment: the children of a service man were bullied in the playground and old that their father was a murderer. We all know what role service personnel from my community in Plymouth and elsewhere played in Kosovo—it was very far from that—and the House will understand the importance that parents attach to the ability to select a school that they are confident has an adequate policy on bullying. Those issues, and the health issues, which I know are being progressed through the taskforce, are the challenges that the services always face.
I want to deal with welfare for families while service personnel are in theatre. The provision of 20 minutes of phone calls has been greatly welcomed and well received, but it of course depends on lines being available. Often, the practical experience is that those in a queue of service personnel waiting to phone their families are conscious of wanting to let the next person have their turn. Although significant progress has been made, I hope that we keep that provision under review and build on it. We should also consider how e-communications facilitate contact between families and service personnel on deployment.
I want to say a word about warrants. The family issues differ between the Army and the Navy, where deployments may be particularly long and distant. Warrants are available for the next of kin, but it may be helpful, for example, for a young woman who is having perhaps her second or third child and whose partner is on a lengthy deployment to have the support of her parents or a sibling. Such a woman could get on a train and go to

235
her family, but that is not easy with two or three young children. Indeed, although it may be financially difficult, it may be a great deal easier in practical terms for the grandparents or a sibling to go to her.
I hope that consideration is given to extending the warrant scheme. Given the number of people in such circumstances, the cost would not be huge and such an extension would go a long way to help people in service communities to feel that the Government continue to understand and value their role in service life.
Service families frequently take up with me the great need to make relevant information available as quickly as possible. Ministers make great efforts to ensure that that is done, and family briefings direct from the MOD in case of deployment are important, but I am not sure that they run as smoothly as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently implied in answer to my intervention on his statement to the House.
Ministers understand the importance of making information available, but some armchair generals and commentators go in for hype and melodrama. There has been column inch after column inch of speculation. As I said in my intervention, service families can deal with facts, but not with the gossip to which such speculation gives rise in their communities. Hon. Members who share an interest in defence, either through serving on the Defence Committee or because they represent a defence community, know the importance of being measured and restrained, and considerate of the families' circumstances.
I hope that hon. Members will be interested to hear that on 4 April, just a few days ago, the Royal Naval and Royal Marine Families Association launched what I think is the first interactive website, on www.rnrmfa.com.
Mr. Ingram indicated assent.
Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend has heard of it. The site not only gives information on access to services that service families might need and to the latest information, but it has password-protected access so that families can share information and gain support from each other. I gather from talking to those involved just this morning that the site is already serving a useful purpose in bringing people together. When I visited my local Royal Navy community centre last November and talked with a large number of service women, I was surprised to learn that they were sometimes a little slower to receive direct information than we are given to understand.
The website represents an innovative self-help resource, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will look carefully at the resourcing of welfare services, especially the support groups that surround naval community centres, as they will have a critical role to play for some of my constituents in the weeks ahead.
There are many other issues that I could raise. I have already intervened on the subject of the warship maintenance and modernisation initiative. I share the concern expressed by other hon. Members who represent constituencies that are affected by the initiative and I am deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to progress with the trade union proposal.
I greatly welcome the fact that we are able to keep the Millbay Territorial Army centre. It is a beautiful modern centre that brings many young students studying at
236
Plymouth university into the territorial armed services. I look forward to continuing to visit the centre and to maintaining my relationship with it.
I cannot let this occasion pass without mentioning the opening of Trident dock No. 154 in Plymouth, which took place recently in the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh. Obviously, that has huge implications for service families and support workers in Plymouth, and Plymouth is very proud of it.
I make no apology for using my time in this debate to emphasise the value and importance of our service families and to reflect their appreciation of the work that is being carried out through the service families taskforce. I encourage my right hon. Friends to continue to build on the relationship that is being developed through the taskforce and to listen carefully to its views.
5.53 pm
Derek Conway: Unfortunately, I had to leave the debate after the opening speeches by Front-Bench Members to attend the Board of Management of the House, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me for not hearing all the speeches. Those that I heard were illuminating.
I am glad to be in the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), because several thousand years ago he and I served together in the Territorial Army battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Time has been kinder to him than it has to me, but we have happy memories. The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers now has more Members of Parliament than any other regiment, which is encouraging.
I shall be brief because other colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, but I wish to focus on the Territorial Army and the fact that its strength has gone down from 56,200 to just over 39,000. That fall of 16,300 since the Government came to office is a great shame, and also a great mistake.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) refer to the value of the cadets in the community. I echo that view, because that is another aspect of the Territorial Army. Its military role should be defined: that is what people join for, and what they enjoy. However, the House should not underestimate the contribution that the TA makes to the community. When we witness civic parades and the rest, we should appreciate the value that our voluntary armed forces bring to their communities. The hon. Lady made the point that the Territorial Army takes its cadet forces from among those who may not have had the best start in life or the best chances. It gives them an opportunity to experience personal self-discipline, not the unthinking discipline that many without military experience expect. That is of huge value to our society.
In their opening remarks, the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) dwelt on the issue of recruitment and retention, which is unquestionably a problem in the Regular Army. The demands on limited resources are too great, and the line is too taut. That is having an effect on training, morale and retention.
There is a great belief in the House of Commons and, I suspect, even in Downing street that every time there is a crisis we should send for the special forces. People do

237
not always realise where the special forces' training ground is: it is in the regiments of the line. If we continually depress the opportunity of people to serve in their geographically based regiments, heaven alone knows where we will get our special forces from in the next 20 years. I am sure that the Defence Committee will give that matter consideration at some stage.
I want to pay particular tribute to the often unsung but much valued work of the service charities in keeping up the morale of our service men and their families at difficult times. One of the areas that we sadly did not address when my party was in government—and the present Government are certainly not doing so now—is the poor home acquisition, especially of those who serve in the Army. It is much better for those in the Royal Navy, and even better for personnel in the Royal Air Force. Home ownership in the Army is extremely poor. Assistance, explanations and encouragement are not what they need to be to help that vital family aspect.
This and all other debates that we have on armed forces personnel rightly enable Members to pay tribute to their local areas. In the royal funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, we witnessed the standards that people believe have disappeared in this country. Perhaps they have disappeared in certain areas of life, but without doubt they have not disappeared from our armed forces. That sense of personal discipline, loyalty and efficiency above all is much valued.
On a personal note, whenever I have contact with the private offices of the Secretary of State or any of his departmental Ministers, the response is always quick, helpful and efficient. If every Department of State operated in the same way, our governance would be well served. I hope that those who do not wear a uniform but who help the armed forces realise that they are appreciated as well.
Many hon. Members want to contribute, so I shall just put on record my concern about the human rights campaign against children serving in the armed forces. We must not let that affect the work of the cadet forces, which provide the seedcorn for future generations, especially the adult instructors, and make a huge contribution to our society. It has been encouraging that support for them in the debate has come from both sides of the House, and they will need that support in the coming year or two.
5.58 pm
Harry Cohen: I want to raise two issues that have an impact on our armed forces operating abroad: cluster bombs and the treatment of prisoners of war.
We are having this debate when British troops are involved in operations in many places overseas, from Kosovo to Afghanistan. British troops are among the best in the world. Although they may not be perfect, the country is rightly proud of what they are capable of and achieve when deployed. In all situations, the safety of British troops should be paramount. It is easy to focus on this issue at the moment, as soldiers are dispatched overseas, but we need to think about the risk to our forces earlier in the process.
In Kosovo and Afghanistan, deployments were preceded by major military air activities that included the dropping of many types of weapons, including cluster
238
bombs. The dropping of those weapons took place when it was possible, if not probable, that British ground forces would later be deployed in the areas under attack. One of the greatest hazards facing British soldiers in Kosovo and Afghanistan is the unexploded remnants of war that result from cluster bomblets that have failed to detonate. That was acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Defence in the House on 1 November. What he said can be found at columns 1024 and 1025 of the Official Report, but I shall paraphrase. He said that soldiers could well die in the aftermath of the dropping of cluster bombs, and that that was just a factor in the balance of the war effort.
During the same debate, the Secretary of State for International Development said
"None of the cluster bombs dropped over Afghanistan contained delayed action minelets or land mines."—[0fficial Report, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 1099.]
That is acknowledged. We know that what is done is not deliberate. Nevertheless, a high percentage of bomblets do not explode as a matter of course, and there is the same delayed action. On 23 March, The Guardian quoted the Secretary of State for International Development, saying
"The UN mine action service estimates that 1,152 cluster bombs were dropped by the US…and there were 'up to 14,000 unexploded bomblets as a result'.
The true figure could not be confirmed until more clearance work was done and the US had provided more information about where cluster bombs were dropped".
I ask the Minister now whether the United States has provided that information.
Patrick Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Harry Cohen: No. I do not have enough time.
In an article in this month's issue of CAAT News, the Campaign Against Arms Trade magazine, Richard Lloyd of Landmine Action writes
"In Afghanistan, the US Air Force told mine clearance NGOs that they dropped more than 244,000 cluster bomblets."
At least 10 per cent., he says,
"are thought to be left on the ground, live and extremely dangerous."
That clearly poses a risk to our United Kingdom soldiers in the region.
I shall curtail my comments about cluster bombs. Let me just say that there is a campaign, led by Landmine Action and reported in CAAT News, for the establishment of a new international law placing responsibility for the clearance of all explosive weapons, including cluster bombs, on those who have used them. The campaign also demands a moratorium on the use, manufacture, sale and export of cluster bombs until the introduction of a new international law on their use and clearance. I strongly support that campaign.
Jim Knight rose—
Harry Cohen: I will give way to my hon. Friend, as he may not be able to make a speech today.
Jim Knight: May I say something by way of reassurance? When I was in Kabul last week, I spoke to Lieutenant-Colonel Alistair Sheppard, commanding officer of 36 Engineers Regiment, and raised this specific issue. His troops had cleared 200,000 unexploded

239
ordnance, land mines and the like. When I asked how much of that was cluster-bomb material, I was told that it was a negligible amount in the overall context. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but he should see the situation within that overall framework.
Harry Cohen: I note my hon. Friend's experience, but there are clearly severe risks to soldiers and, certainly, to civilians from unexploded ordnance and cluster bombs. I repeat that I support the campaign that I mentioned.
Patrick Mercer rose—
Harry Cohen: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman very briefly.
Patrick Mercer: No munition that is fired, be it mortar round, artillery round, aircraft bomb or cluster bomb, has a 100 per cent. detonation rate. The hon. Gentleman will know that during peacetime training UK forces, certainly, are not allowed to skirmish, walk or otherwise move over ground on which artillery ammunition has fallen, for that very reason. But if it is suggested that cluster bombs should not be used to protect our own troops, surely the next step is to suggest that our troops should be deprived of artillery or mortar bombardments. That takes the whole argument to an absurd level.
Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman is coming from the wrong direction. The effect of the bomblets in cluster bombs is the same as that of land mines. There is a clear record of enormous damage to civilians, and to British soldiers. That was acknowledged by the Secretary of State on 1 November.
We will continue the important debate on cluster bombs in due course, but I now want to say something about prisoners of war. Thankfully no British soldiers have been taken prisoner by any of the factions involved in the war in Afghanistan, but if there were any British prisoners we would want to ensure that they were treated with due care and respect. That is one of the key reasons why I believe it is important for rules relating to prisoners of war taken by British troops to be published. One of the protections that we can provide for our troops is transparency in the rules that we apply to our prisoners.
I accept that certain details should not be made public, such as contingency plans as regards the location of holding centres, but some features should he made clear. Through parliamentary questions, I have been able to establish that there are no standard guidelines for coalition partners; and that the UK guidelines comply with the 1977 additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions—the second additional protocol applies the conventions to military actions that are not taking place between states, although I am not sure that the United States accepts that. I also established that the guidelines were not updated after the uprising at Qala-i-Jhangi fort, near Mazare-Sharif, where all the prisoners were killed.
The "Manual of Military Law" gives a large amount of detail. The manual is a public document about the treatment of prisoners of war. Presumably, the guidance for Afghanistan complies with the manual, but I ask the Minister to state that clearly. It seems strange—indeed, alarming—that the guidance is kept secret. Even stranger is the refusal, under exemption 1(a) of the code of practice on access to public information, of my request that the guidance be placed in the Library.
240
In a letter to me of 7 March, the Secretary of State wrote:
"I am not prepared to disclose operational details of this sort."
I was not asking for details. How can guidance be operational? It is a matter of principle. The letter continued:
"As for the dates on which the guidance was issued, this would reveal operational details which we still regard as classified."
I do not believe that can still be the case. What has the Ministry of Defence got to hide? Were the guidelines issued too late? Were they issued but ignored by the armed forces; or did everything go smoothly? There are doubts. Everyone was killed at Qala-i-Jhangi fort. Was that in line with UK guidance? UK soldiers took part in crushing that uprising. I realise that a United States soldier was killed by the US pro-Taliban man, but all the prisoners were killed—they were not given the opportunity to surrender. There are clearly issues of appropriateness and proportionality.
Perhaps we have merely fallen in with the more barbaric US treatment of prisoners. We need answers. At least the main guidance for the UK treatment of prisoners should be published. This new secrecy has, in effect, wiped out hard-won humanitarian rules for dealing with prisoners of war, painstakingly built up during the second half of the last century.
That is a serious matter for our troops. For example, the UK and the US have taken military action that was not declared as war. The US has recently diminished the importance of the Geneva conventions and the rules—if any exist—for dealing with prisoners are kept secret. If a prisoner is insolent or sullen, can he be shot?
What would we say if Saddam Hussein used that precedent in any future war in Iraq? That is why the matter is so important for our troops. Let us deal with the problem seriously and openly, and publish the general principles and guidelines for coping with prisoners of war.
6.9 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), who pointed out that he was somewhat older than me when we joined the Fusiliers. However, the name of that regiment has changed four times since 1967. It is now the Tyne Tees Regiment—that sounds like a margarine spread—and is an amalgamation of three regiments. Therein lies the problem.
We have heard an enormous amount about the future of the military. We have a two-tier military. Until the SDR, there was a two-year training cycle; our armed forces were either preparing to go into action or they were in action. There is now a three-year training cycle: a training year; a year building up to deployment; and a deployment year. The problem is that that does not work.
Up to 28 per cent. of the military are now totally committed. I was horrified to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) that the Royal Anglian Regiment is having to take people from other regiments to keep up the numbers, and it is a well-recruited regiment. The 3rd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in the Gulf—hon. Members may remember the friendly fire incident—was made up of five different regiments to get the numbers to a level at which they were operationally effective. That was 10 years ago.

241
Our problem is that the military is not being given the time and the training to do the job that it is so willing to do. As a result, it is losing people. We cannot expect personnel to go from one operation to another. They physically cannot do it, especially in this day and age.
I joined the Territorial Army in 1980, at the very start of the big exercises that took place every two years. My first one was Crusader, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) was an infantry officer, like me. In those days, we had a defensive role. We knew that we were going to the River Wiese to hold the bridge and when the friendly forces had crossed, we blew the bridge up and disappeared back to Dunkirk. Now, there is no role for the TA. In the old days we fought as formed units; one fought as a Fusilier or an Anglian. Now the role is either home defence, or as part of a battlefield replacement programme, not as members of formed units.
Why should a recruit join the TA? What is his incentive? He comes out of basic training and does his "boot camp"—an American term—and then what? What hope does he have? What does he have to look forward to? There is not the equipment, the mandate or the money. I was talking to a TA unit and was told that it had been to Gibraltar. I remember going to Germany and America to do the job that we were supposed to do, which was to hold or defend areas. We trained with the army with which we were most likely to work. We understood the job that they were trying to do, and vice versa.
One of the biggest problems for the TA is getting equipment that works. The SA80 apparently has had more than 100 modifications since it first came into service. I believe that it now works; my hon. Friend the Member for Newark can tell me if I am wrong. The Army needs decent equipment. If it does not have it, the Army will not function. I was watching the Marines getting out of their aircraft in Afghanistan, and one could see that they were still using the old equipment, such as webbing and Bergens. Why are they not being upgraded for a potential action situation? Interestingly, the Anglians seemed to have updated equipment.
Yesterday we had a debate about ordnance. At present we are looking to move the production of our ordnance elsewhere. Our personnel want ordnance that works and on which they can rely. If we do not have continuity of supply in this country, we will not be in a position to support our own troops. In the long term, we must encourage the people whom we want to come in.
The turnover of the TA is 33 per cent., much of which is due to people disappearing after basic training. They have nothing to look forward to. If the Minister wants to continue to use these people, he should give them the chance to do the job that they set out to do. A Royal Marine from Minehead in my constituency stated that he signed up to do a job, and knew that the Marines would take casualties. However, they did not mind because that is what they set out to do. Any soldier feels that. I remember sitting on the Wiese, wondering how long we would last. Our life expectancy in those days was 24 hours if the Russians came over to say hello. That is not good. The situation is now a lot better, yet we still have problems with retention, and they are getting worse. As that is the case, surely incentives must be considered.
242
The Territorial Army has a system of bonuses—bounties—which one works up to throughout training. Could it not be extended? If we want to keep personnel such as the thrusting captains, majors, sergeant-majors and sergeants whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned, as we need them for the future, we must give them some sort of golden handcuff. It happens in industry, so why can it not apply to military life too?
Another problem is maintaining cadet numbers. Cadet trainers are not paid, so what is their incentive to do the job? At present there are 60 sea cadets in Bridgwater, but their numbers fluctuate greatly because when a good trainer goes, he cannot be replaced. Where can a replacement be found? Service personnel are no longer able to do the job. Eventually, people are recruited from the British Legion. There is no doubt that their ideas about training are well out of date.
I do not agree that cadets can supply the needs of the military. Hopefully, they will go on to join the Territorial Army or the regulars. However, an enormous amount of good is done by getting youngsters into something that gives them a structured life. Military personnel realise that, as it is the reason why many people join the military in the first place.
We are debating the retention of military personnel. Unless we give them incentives, we will not manage that. The training cycle is too tight and the military cannot cope with it because the commitments are too high. If the Minister can give military personnel some assurance that they will have a home life and a family life in a training cycle that works, long-term retention will become much easier.
6.16 pm
Jim Knight: I shall be brief as I am keen to hear the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), my comrade on the Defence Committee. I want to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel, particularly as I saw them in Kabul last week.
In previous defence debates I have made clear my view, which is that of the Defence Committee as articulated by its Chairman, that more resources need to be put into defence and that there is strain, particularly in terms of logistics and support group work. I would have reinforced that in my speech had there been more time, but I did not want to skip over the tribute that I want to pay to the work of our aimed forces in Kabul.
I was hugely impressed by the leadership of the international security assistance force by General McColl and his staff. He paid tribute to the unique role of PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters—in providing capability for rapid deployment. General McColl is performing a tremendous role in pulling together the multinational force of 19 countries. I was particularly impressed by his ability in the delicate task of negotiating with and maintaining a good relationship with the various disparate elements within Afghanistan civil society and with the Interim Administration. His intelligence work must also be praised. Therefore, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that Turkey may not be taking over until after the Loya Jirga. Those relationships are so very delicate that perhaps there is strength in General McColl remaining in charge of sustaining them as matters become increasingly difficult leading up to the important meeting in the summer.

243
I would say in passing to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is a strong difference between what is going on now in Kabul and the Russian occupation. We are there in support of the Interim Administration; we are not an occupying force. The civilian population understand that, and certainly our armed forces are clear about their role.
Our ability to deploy rapidly was exceptionally impressive, particularly in regard to the airport. When our troops did the recce in December they found the damage caused by eight 2,000 lb bombs dropped by the United States Air Force, including five huge craters on the runway. Within six days of their arrival there on 11 January, the airport had been opened and supplies were coming in for both military and civilian support. The first plane to arrive was on a humanitarian flight.
It is very important that the public get the message that our armed forces in Kabul are performing an extraordinary humanitarian mission. We saw Royal Engineers working on schools, on sanitation, on roads and on mine clearance, as I mentioned earlier. We saw the Brigade support group bringing in supplies with only 200 out of the 1,500 British deployment; the Germans, for example, have 80 per cent. support for only 20 per cent. active troops. Our armed forces are doing a tremendous job. The professionalism and experience of the Royal Anglians was also superb. The Royal Engineers raised funds themselves to carry out some of that humanitarian work—for example, $1,000 for a playground to be renovated in one village as part of the facilities being provided.
I am sorry that I have not been able to say more, but I am keen to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Aldershot. In conclusion, I echo what has been said about support for the armed forces and about making sure that they have a good home life. They are superb and internationally respected. They need more resources, which I would love to see being provided in the Budget next week. In particular, I ask Ministers to pay attention to the quality of life of the armed forces, both at home and on deployment overseas.
6.21 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: This has been an extremely good debate. There have been some very thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, including that of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) who along with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) have brought to the House their recent experiences in Afghanistan. As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South said, this debate often appears to be peopled by those who are on the Defence Committee, were on the Defence Committee or want to be on the Defence Committee. That is probably very true. Although we may not be large in number, the quality of today's debate has been good.
I join right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to all those who are currently serving with Her Majesty's forces at home and overseas, especially those who are in active deployment in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone. We should also remember especially, as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) did at the outset of the debate, those Royal Air Force pilots who, as we speak, are policing the no-fly zone in Iraq, and who do so day in, day out, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and who put their lives at risk in so doing.
244
The House has paid its customary and heartfelt tribute to the professionalism of our armed forces. They are trained for war fighting, and we must remember that, as we speak, not only do members of the RAF police the no-fly zone but members of the Royal Marines have been called on to undertake very difficult operations in Afghanistan alongside other members of our forces. It is a tribute to our armed forces that the United States has sought their support in these difficult operations in Afghanistan.
As other contributors to this afternoon's debate have said, we have also been privileged in the past week to see the other side of our armed forces, as they have shown such extraordinary professionalism, maintained such high standards and shown such extraordinary precision in the way they have performed their duties in respect of the lying in state and the funeral of the late Queen Mother. It was a moment to be savoured by everyone. The precision on display gave me an enormous sense of pride. The whole nation has been reminded, in this somewhat sombre hour, of just how good our armed forces are—both in the hills of Afghanistan and when showing such extraordinary dignity and professionalism here in London. They have sent out to the rest of the world the message that we are the best, and that no one does it like the British.
It is no accident that those twin facets of our armed forces should have been portrayed in such an excellent fashion. The training to which they are subject has created the quality armed forces that this country has. We have the best training, and we must ensure that that remains the case.
However, we must also remember the families of those elements of our armed forces that are serving at present. Times have been difficult for them since 11 September. I am sure that our hearts go out to all the armed forces families around the country, and especially in the garrison towns. Those families have to contend with being separated from loved ones whose jobs mean that they might be putting their lives at risk in the service of the rest of us.
We must remember too that only a small proportion of the British population is at war in Afghanistan. The rest of the population is getting on with ordinary business, and that is another reason for paying special attention to the families involved. We must ensure that they get the support that they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made an extremely good speech. He painted a vivid picture of the reality of life in the armed forces today. It is fine for the squaddie going out and visiting different parts of the world as a young man: he has no responsibility, is well trained and is doing what he wants to do. However, it is different for people who have acquired the responsibilities of wife and family. My hon. Friend painted a clear picture of the tensions that can arise in such families.
We must ensure that a lesser burden is placed on the senior NCOs, upon whom so much responsibility rests. They are highly trained, but they must be able to continue to command the support of their families. Without that support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, such people will be forced to decide between Army and family. That is not a choice with which we should present them. We should ensure that they can maintain both family and career. To do that, we need more people to

245
take on the jobs. What has happened is that we have taken on more jobs and commitments, yet we have fewer people to perform those jobs and meet those commitments.
As has been noted already, training is suffering as a result of the constraints being placed on our armed forces. Our troops do not get the training they need because they are spending too much time on operational duties. Ultimately, that will impact on the quality of the operational service they can provide. That is another reason why we must ensure that we have enough soldiers and service personnel to undertake the tasks being placed upon them.
Opposition Members support the Government's desire to deploy our armed forces in Britain's interests overseas, but we are not uncritical. It is our duty to pose questions, and many hon. Members of all parties have done just that in this debate. I can tell the right hon. Member for Walsall, South that we do not take the year-zero approach and assume that everything was completely correct before 1997, and that everything has gone wrong since.
However, it is no good the Government saying that everything is the fault of the Conservative Government. This Government have been in office for five years. They have had the opportunity to put matters right, and they have set out their proposals in the strategic defence review. They must be held to account for the state of our armed forces, and they must balance that state against the commitments that they wish those forces to undertake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made some good points about the defence medical services. I have visited the Centre for Defence Medicine in Selly Oak, Birmingham and agree that it is in the wrong place. It is a military unit in a goldfish bowl. It is isolated and a fish out of water. Its staff were not allowed to wear their uniforms in public in the immediate aftermath of 11 September. The unit is 45 minutes away from the nearest defence establishment. I must tell the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) that I cast no aspersions on the service that it provides, which is first class; all I am saying is that it is in the wrong place and the Government need to act urgently to rebuild the defence medical services. It does not encourage the troops that we send into action to know that they have to rely on contingents of foreign field hospitals to receive the best treatment.
Dr. Moonie: Why?
Mr. Howarth: None of us is saying that the quality of the medical services provided elsewhere is substandard, but our service men must think that something is wrong if the Government cannot provide the medical services that they need when they are sent into battle. That problem has to be addressed.
Accommodation was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I accept that the Government recognise that much work needs to be done on accommodation, especially single-living accommodation. The Minister knows about the shocking state of accommodation in Aldershot and elsewhere. In addition,
246
The Mirror, which does not support the Conservative party, said that the Paras were put into substandard accommodation when they returned from Afghanistan. One of their senior NCOs said:
"It hardly makes you feel your service is valued by the powers that be if this is all you get for putting your life on the line."
No one expects results overnight, but the Government have to ensure that there is a programme of refurbishment of accommodation so that it is up to a standard that our service men and women are entitled to expect. Indeed, the Select Committee report said that the
"last thing servicemen need when deployed on operations is to be worrying about the standards of accommodation back home".
The Government should take that assertion to heart and do something about it, as they should with so many of the Committee's deliberations. I hope that the Minister will say what will happen on that score.
Pensions remain a subject of debate. It is a concern that there is no resolution to the proposals that the Government introduced some time ago. When they launched the pensions review in 1998, the Minister then responsible, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), said:
"We need to ensure that the Armed Forces Scheme is in line with the best modern practice".
It is now more than 12 months since the Government's proposals were published. Although consultation is welcome, it is time for them to deal with the serious concerns expressed by some highly reputable organisations, such as the Royal British Legion and the Forces Pensions Society. As the society said, the current scheme has already fallen behind modern, good or even standard practice.
The Minister of State told the Select Committee last month that
"the cost neutrality aspect was not an original driver".
Now, however, we are told that improvements have to be found within the existing budget and there will be no recourse to new money. It is unacceptable for the Government to continue to claim that they want to improve the pensions of our armed forces to bring them up to the best in the commercial world while failing to deliver because they say that cost neutrality is now a baseline consideration. A comparison of various costs of benefits per year of service as a percentage of pensionable salary shows that the armed forces are not an exceptional burden, at 15 per cent. Comparable figures are 22 per cent. for the police and 16 per cent. for the civil service. I ask the Minister to take the one-off opportunity of this first serious review in 30 years to ensure that pensions are tackled properly and that if more money is needed to ensure that pension arrangements are in line with best practice in the commercial world, that money will be found and there will be no penny-pinching.
The important role of the cadet forces was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). I think that all hon. Members will welcome their remarks. The cadet forces make a huge contribution not only to our local communities but to giving young people the military ethos and, as the hon. Lady said, to keeping them off the streets where they might be led astray. Forty-five per cent. of the Royal Air Force's air crew recruits of all ranks come from the air cadets.

247
Last week I was with the Royal Engineers at Gibraltar barracks, where I met people from the university officer training corps, which is represented in 19 universities. They were having a fantastic time and were hugely committed, and large numbers of young people in our universities are joining them. When Ministers make financial decisions, I hope that they will not be tempted to think that the cadets are an easy option that can be knocked off to save a few bob, because the long-term cost will be hugely disproportionate.
We heard about the Territorial Army, which is 1,300 below strength. The Government are increasingly having recourse to our reservists, and the Secretary of State himself acknowledged that fortunately his plans to cut the Territorial Army were insufficiently far advanced to have done all the damage that might otherwise have been done. My hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and for Newark were right to say that we must consider the role of our reserve forces as we decide how best to tackle the defence of the United Kingdom homeland against the threat of international terrorism. They have a role to play, albeit that none of us wants them to spend all their time being recruited to go and sit by some key installation, because that is not their function. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said, the TA should again provide formed units.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned the case of retired officers, and I support his comments 100 per cent. It is unfortunate that the Government did not include them among those who are to receive the golden jubilee medal, because they make a large contribution to the running of establishments around the country. They work extremely hard, but are paid less than a corporal. I shall give the Minister some examples of what they do. One is a nuclear propulsion naval liaison officer with Rolls-Royce in Derby; another is a staff officer to the Chief of the General Staff; another is a housing commandant at Aldergrove. The Commander-in-Chief, Land. General Sir Mike Jackson, has said that his command would come to a halt without those people. It is time for the Government to review their decision and include them among those who are to receive the medal.
I have one or two other queries for the Minister. For example, we need information from the Government on what they intend to do about women on the front line. We also need information about the Government's intentions for courts martial given the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. If they had followed our advice and ensured that Britain had a derogation from the European convention on human rights for our defence services, we would not have had this problem in the first place. The Government should have listened to us.
The Government are keen to call upon our armed forces to defend Britain's interests and those of our allies around the world. We support them in their endeavours. The Government are fortunate that they can take pride in the commitment and professionalism of our forces, but the clear message from both sides of the House is that the current levels of commitment cannot be maintained given the resources being provided. Under this Government, defence spending has fallen consistently as a percentage of GDP—from 3 per cent. in 1995–96 to 2.5 per cent. last year. It is expected to fall further to 2.3 per cent. next year.
248
The obvious strain of that shrinking budget is clear for all to see. Too much reliance on the dedication of our existing personnel cannot be allowed to continue. If we are to maintain the effectiveness of the forces in whom we take so much pride, we must will the means to provide them with the best available equipment and ensure that they and their families can enjoy a quality of life commensurate with the commitment that they give to our country.
6.41 pm
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): This has been an informed and wide-ranging debate, as others have said. I am genuinely grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. In the time available, I will do my best to respond to many of the detailed points raised. If it is not possible to deal with them all, I shall respond in writing.
I contend that the Government are working hard for all our people in the armed forces. Given what we as a nation ask of our armed forces, especially when they have to be deployed into unexpected and often dangerous situations, that is only right. As we speak, more than 28,000 men and women in our armed forces are deployed around the world. As has been recognised, it is the quality of our people—both service and civilian personnel—that is the single most important element of our defence capability.
Although this debate is about the armed forces, it would be remiss of me not to mention in passing their civilian counterparts in the Ministry of Defence. Increasingly, they are called on to support the armed forces very close to the front line in, for example, 'the Gulf, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Oman and Afghanistan. The Government recognise their vital contribution to the defence effort. They do a first-class job.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) mentioned warship support modernisation. I hear what they say and, in my intervention, I tried to explain the way in which we have dealt with the matter. We made a commitment to make a statement to the House through the normal process of a parliamentary question—we could obviously have used other means—and I did not want to breach that commitment. If I had entered into the debate over the weekend, I would have done so before informing the House of our decision. I believe in all sincerity that that would have been the wrong approach and that it would have been wrong to indicate in depth our arguments to individual Members of Parliament—even to my hon. Friends—and to ask them to take those arguments on for me. I believe that I acted with honesty and integrity.
I fully understand the depth of feeling that accompanied our announcement to proceed with the partnering arrangements. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West that it is not a privatisation; it is a partnering arrangement. The non-industrial staff on the Clyde will take a day of industrial action tomorrow and that reflects the unease that some of the work force undoubtedly feel. However, our decision, which was announced in the House on 21 March, was the right one to take at this time in our defence interests. That does not mean that I or my ministerial colleagues value any less the outstanding work that has been done over the years at the dockyards.

249
All the options offer significant benefits compared with the current costs of undertaking warship repairs and maintenance, but the company proposals offer the best overall value for the defence pound. A projected saving of £300 million over five years will make a considerable contribution to the better delivery of front-line services.
My hon. Friends will take the view that the status quo was not an option in that determination. If the status quo is not an option and hon. Members are concerned about a contraction in posts and jobs as a consequence, they should tell us how many job losses they would be prepared to accept. The reality is that, although we are talking about some 750 jobs being lost over five years at three yards, the situation will be well managed by the companies involved. It will become a matter between the unions and those companies.
I had a very productive meeting with the trade unions yesterday. They set out their main concerns—the five points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—and we have made some progress on them. We are sensitive to the issue, but we also have to make progress in delivering the best services at the yards.
Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his efforts with the unions yesterday, but there is a still a big job to do in assuaging concerns, so will he and perhaps the Secretary of State and others ensure that they will visit the yards? In particular, will the Minister visit Faslane with me, so that we achieve that co-operative effort and ensure that best practice, which has been maintained at that yard, will continue?
Mr. Ingram: I can tell the House that Portsmouth council has asked to meet me, along with local Members of Parliament and, I suspect, trade union representatives. I have agreed to that meeting. If the unions requested a meeting at the facility, I would not refuse it. If my hon. Friend's local authority made a similar request, I would not refuse it. However, I do not want to impose myself into that debate if those involved do not wish me to be there.
Linda Gilroy: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), will meet Plymouth city council a week tomorrow to discuss a number of issues related to the dockyard, including the one that the Minister mentions. Would the Minister agree to meet representatives of the council if that is their wish?
Mr. Ingram: Yes, because I believe that we have a strong and sustainable case and it is right to deal with it in that way. However, at the end of the day, the relationship is with the trade unions in one sense and, more importantly, with the employees in those dockyards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the way in which we are dealing with nuclear refit represents a new departure. Contractors already deal with nuclear refit, so there is no new
250
departure. There is already a mixed economy in those dockyards and what we are doing represents a step change in that approach.
Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No. I have spoken at length about that issue.
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Ingram: Very well.
Mr. Gray: Will the Minister reconsider the privatisation of the defence fire service?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the study into providing those services and let me consider all the options that are put to me at that time. If he has any answers to deal with what is undoubtedly a range of inefficiencies in the delivery of those services, I shall be interested to hear them. We are trying to address the issue by examining the options, so that we can maximise the return on the defence pound and the money saved can then go into the front line.
I visited Sierra Leone a few weeks ago. I was able to visit and speak to our men and women in Afghanistan last week. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and, of course, for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) accompanied me on that visit and, as they said, it was very worth while.
Mr. Jenkin: Some of it was.
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is not complimentary about the visit, but that is a matter for him. I was greatly impressed by what I saw during those visits.
In Sierra Leone there are about 360 personnel, providing highly valued military training and assistance to the Sierra Leone armed forces and ministry of defence. On the ground in Afghanistan, in the separate roles of security assistance in Kabul and combat against terrorist groups, by the end of this month, there will be a total of about 3,000 service personnel.
Those men and women are working tirelessly to ensure that our promises to root out evil and bring hope and stability to the battered populations in Afghanistan are delivered on. Our supporting maritime deployment consists of nearly 1,900 personnel on 12 vessels. Everyone to whom I talked was highly motivated, dedicated and committed to what has been asked of them. I accept that that is recognised throughout the House.
The Government recognise the unique position that our armed forces occupy in our society. We ask our men and women to make an open-ended commitment that imposes limitations on their individual freedoms, and requires self-sacrifice not only from them but from their families.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South talked about expeditionary campaigns, and how we deliver the infrastructure for them. We procured an improved tented camp as an urgent operational requirement during the Kosovo campaign. That provides

251
much, but not all, of what is needed to support deployed forces. It is available for use by ISAF and the other elements deployed in Afghanistan.
That is undoubtedly an improvement on the pre-Kosovo equipment but it does not provide everything that we need in a form as easily deployable as we would like. We are therefore also working quickly to procure a much improved expeditionary campaign infrastructure, which will provide a fully integrated stand-alone capability, with power generation, ablution facilities, sewage treatment, and laundry and catering facilities for more than 5,000 troops. That capability will come into service during 2003–04, and it will be among the best in the world. We shall feed the lessons that we are learning in ISAF, and those that we learned through Saif Sareea 2 and Kosovo, including best practice from other countries, into the project.
The question of the food available to our forces has been raised. The food available to our forces deployed in Afghanistan is the envy of the other forces deployed alongside them. [Interruption.] Those who accompanied me on the visit may not agree, but that is what those who consume the food say—and it shows the great success of our new arrangements for contracting for food and delivering it to the front line. We should never minimise that part of the logistic chain. Good quality food and regular hot meals are important for people in very difficult circumstances.
The professionalism, loyalty and courage, both moral and physical, given so freely by the men and women of our armed forces create an obligation that has to be met. Ensuring that we continue to deliver on the strategic defence review's "A Policy for People" is one way in which we can begin to meet that obligation.
Before I deal with some of the personnel issues that have been raised, I should comment on what the hon. Member for North Essex said, and the debate that took place between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), about the joint Harrier force, and our decision to concentrate the development of that force on the Harrier GR7. That decision has already been explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and of course, we upgraded to GR9 standard.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex suggested that our decision had frustrated a desire to deploy those aircraft in support of operations in Afghanistan. I wholly refute the suggestion that our forces in Afghanistan sought the deployment of Sea Harriers, or that that was at any stage a feature of our military planning. There was no operational need for UK air defence aircraft. As was made clear when we announced our investment strategy, the planned withdrawal of the Sea Harrier will not begin until 2004.
Mr. Soames: I was not talking about the deployment of Sea Harriers to Afghanistan. I was talking about the GR7. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman clarified the point.
Mr. Ingram: If I have got it wrong, I apologise. The issue is the defence of the fleet, and the hon. Gentleman was referring to that in terms of Afghanistan.
Mr. Soames: The point that I was making was that, from the date on which the Sea Harrier is withdrawn from
252
service, the fleet when deployed anywhere will not have its own integral air defence. That is wholly unacceptable and renders the Royal Navy a coastal force and no longer a blue-water force.
Mr. Ingram: That might be unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman, but it was of course part of the planned development concerning the expeditionary force—[Interruption.] Many issues have been raised in the debate, but I am sorry that I have touched on that one—not because I got it wrong, but because the hon. Gentleman has said that there would thereafter be no air defence of the fleet.
The new fleet—the type 45 destroyers and all the defensive aids and suites that go with them—will form a very sophisticated layer of defence. That is part of the planning assumption. We have of course been planning for strike capability—developing the expeditionary force so that we can destroy the threat on the ground rather than having the layer of defence dependent on equipment that will be phased out. If I have misinterpreted some of the hon. Gentleman's language, I apologise, but he and others are wrong in their allegations.
Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: No, I am going to try to move on as I have only three minutes left.
There are five main pillars to our personnel delivery strategy: to cultivate, obtain, retain, sustain and remember. Many of the issues that right hon. and hon. Members have raised relate to all those elements. Cultivation is about creating a climate in the country in which the armed forces are still seen as relevant, necessary and desirable—an essential feature of what we are doing. Hon. Members have mentioned the role of the cadet forces in that respect, which is of course just one element to it. Many other initiatives are taken. The other pillar relating to overall policy is the obtaining of the resource that we need. The recruitment of individuals of the right calibre poses huge challenges for the armed forces.
Retention is undoubtedly a very big issue. The reality is that no single policy can address it. In raising the issue, some hon. Members have said, "Here's an example; now implement it." I hope that all hon. Members who have participated in the debate will accept that no one policy can address the issue. We need to understand what motivates or discourages individuals. That changes according to each individual's circumstances, so our approach must and does embrace a balanced and layered mix of measures, some addressing broad issues such as pay, pensions, training, families' accommodation and diversity, and other addressing issues of concern to particular high-value groups such as aircrew, engineers and medical personnel.
I have not even begun to touch on many of the issues raised in the debate. All hon. Members whose issues I have not addressed will of course be written to.
Personnel are thoroughly at the heart of this Government's endeavours on defence. The armed forces' overarching personnel strategy will play a pivotal role in maintaining that aim. It is both focused and comprehensive. This Government recognise that the character of conflict will continue to present a physical and moral challenge to service personnel, and that

253
problems remain, but hon. Members of all parties should not think that we do not accept that more is required or that we have not implemented policies and strategies that address those problems—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM
Ordered,
That John McDonnell be discharged from the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform and Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas be added.—[Dan Norris.]

Ian Stillman
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
7 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to highlight the plight of Mr. Ian Stillman. The main reason for asking for the debate is to highlight the Foreign Office involvement in the case, which is ongoing, and to ask two simple questions: has the support given so far been adequate, and can the Foreign Office do better in future?
For the record, I need to explain how the case began and how events have progressed. My involvement arises because Ian's sister, Elspeth Dugdale, is a constituent. As I have learned more about the case and the family, I have developed a sense of outrage that Ian's human rights have been so completely ignored by the Indian authorities, and of extreme disappointment at the extent and nature of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's support. That has come as a complete shock to me.
Ian Stillman is British and a charity worker. He is profoundly deaf and has spent most of his adult life working with the deaf community in India. He founded an Indian charity and has advised the Indian Government and several non-governmental organisations. He has an Indian wife and loves the country and its people, and has stressed that this is a one-off situation rather than representative of the system at large.
Before I go any further it also needs to be understood that Ian has another disability. He lost a leg in a motorcycle accident in 1995 and has since had a false limb fitted. Anyone familiar with false limbs knows that it can be difficult for the owner to carry heavy weights, as the balance of the body is severely affected.
I come now to the circumstances in which Ian Stillman found himself in an Indian jail. On 27 August 2000, Ian was visiting the Kullu area in relation to his charity work and was arrested at a town called Menali. He was sleeping in the rear of a taxi which was stopped at a checkpoint. There were about 10 police and one other official who was not in uniform. That person appears on no police documentation and the prosecution has denied that he was present.
Ian was ordered out of the taxi. It was night and communication was impossible. The police carried out a brief search and said that they had found evidence of a suspicious substance in the taxi. Ian and the other occupants of the taxi were taken to the police station. The police later searched Ian's hotel room and the taxi and uncovered a green bag which was attributed to Ian. That was the first time that Ian had seen the bag, and to this day he does not know whether it was in the taxi where he was sleeping or what it contained.
Ian was then asked to sign a number of documents, most of which were in Hindi, a language that he does not speak or read. Initially, he refused to sign, but he had to give in to pressure.
It should be borne in mind that Ian is profoundly deaf, it was dark and he had little idea of what was going on. He gave the police the name and number of a local acquaintance who he thought could help with interpretation. It is not known whether the police made the call. It is a fact that no one turned up.

255
At about 4 pm the next day, Ian was brought before the local magistrate. On the basis of the police report and statement which was signed under duress, Ian was taken into custody pending formal charges. The other occupants of the taxi were released and Ian never saw them again. That is the background.
Ian was then taken to Kullu jail, which is a relatively small jail with up to 50 male prisoners. He was placed in a room measuring approximately 23 ft by 12 ft and he shared that space with up to 35 other prisoners. There was no glass in the window and at night it was freezing cold. There was one toilet for 35 men and each person had just under 2 ft of sleeping room on a concrete floor. That was in August.
What I find extremely hard to understand is why, according to the answer to my parliamentary question, the British high commissioner did not act to improve the conditions. Ian was in Kullu jail from August 2000 to June 2001. He was visited by consular officials on 5 September, 5 December and 21 February.
What I find beyond belief is that apparently the high commission staff thought that the standards were acceptable. Clearly they were not, and it is a damning indictment of our officials that they appeared to do so little at a time of such need. During that time it was clear that Ian's health was deteriorating and those conditions and a lack of a proper diet probably contributed to Ian's health problems.
The trial began on 14 March, but was delayed for six weeks because the police did not turn up. Most importantly, Ian was refused a deaf interpreter, despite the fact that he could not hear the court proceedings. He can lip-read English, but has no understanding of Hindi. That basic denial of Ian's human rights prevented him from receiving a fair trial. On 2 June, a guilty verdict was given. Stephen Jakobi of Fair Trials Abroad, who has been helping the family, described the verdict as
"the worst miscarriage of justice I have dealt with".
At this stage, I will give some credit to the Foreign Office, which made strong representations on welfare grounds at that time. The hope was that Ian would be able to access better medical treatment and see his family more often. Initially, his son was allowed to visit more frequently and bring supplies of fresh fruit and vegetables. Unfortunately, that did not last, and despite the family bringing the problem to the attention of Foreign Office officials, matters did not improve. In fact, it is fair to say that the family were frequently presented with this response: "But when we ask, they say that he is getting the agreed visits and provisions." Why does the Foreign Office appear far more ready to believe the Indian authorities than the family, who are reporting the problems at first hand? They do not want to make up these things; they have got enough to worry about.
Happily, in June and July last year, the Foreign Office moved things along considerably. There were concerns about a campaign of disinformation in India about Ian. The police were saying that he was wanted by Interpol, but that is completely untrue and the Foreign Office issued a press release putting the record straight and denying the suggestion completely. I am also aware that the Foreign Secretary raised the case on 26 June. That intervention and consequent action meant that the appeal hearing was held relatively quickly, in Indian terms. On behalf of the family, I should like to express appreciation for those efforts.
256
Unfortunately for Ian, after a catalogue of disasters connected with the appeal—sadly, I do not have time to detail them—it was unsuccessful. Naturally, everyone was completely devastated when the verdict was finally announced early this year. A key factor was that the Indian authorities refused to accept that Ian is deaf. Also, all this is happening at a time when there are ever-increasing concerns about Ian's health.
On 14 January, the family, Stephen Jakobi from Fair Trials Abroad and I met Foreign Office staff to raise the following issues. First, we raised problems to do with the trial. We pointed out that, as I mentioned, the other two occupants of the taxi had apparently been allowed to escape scot-free. Local police corruption was also an issue. Although the officials listened politely, they made it clear that that was a problem for the Indian legal system and that they could not get involved. Stephen Jakobi pointed out that all the defence arguments in the initial trial had apparently been wiped from the record. Again, the Foreign Office claimed that it could not become involved with the matter, as it related to a legal procedure. It is crucial that the information be taken into account in any appeal; the fact that it is missing could be detrimental to Ian's case.
Secondly, concerns about Ian's medical condition were again raised. Ian had described his symptoms and his sister showed the descriptions to a number of medically qualified people. All of them were convinced that he should receive immediate medical attention. The Foreign Office response was not particularly helpful, although I do not think that that was deliberate. The family were told that such second-hand reports were not enough and that notice would be taken only of an up-to-date report by an Indian doctor. That is especially problematic as the family were keen to put together sufficient information regarding Ian's health to use it as a basis for the bail hearing. They were told that Ian's old medical notes from England would not be suitable and that it would be necessary to provide the most up-to-date information from local doctors. No help was forthcoming to enable the family to obtain the necessary documents.
The one concession—if it can be called that—to come out of the meeting was this: the Foreign Office was about to set up a pro bono medical panel and suggested that this would be an ideal first case for it. Naturally, that gesture was greeted with enthusiasm, but we can imagine the family's dismay when they were recently contacted and asked if they still wanted to go ahead with the panel. However, there is another more fundamental issue, which is an example of muddled thinking: if the opinion of a local doctor is so essential in such cases, what is the point of having a medical panel of English doctors? Why is that necessary if we need the experience and expertise of the foreign doctors?
Thirdly, the family were still concerned that the local press was continuing to run the story about Ian's not being deaf and being a wanted criminal. They asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to issue a second press release setting the record straight. That request was repeated at a meeting with Baroness Amos in February. To date, no action has been taken, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why.
Fourthly, concerns were raised about the actions and advice of some of the consular officials. On the initial visit, Dinesh Kumar, one of those officials, had been accompanied by an unidentified female. Ian greeted that

257
act with suspicion, and the family believe that the person was a journalist. The Foreign Office dismissed the matter, saying that it is not unusual for a third party to come along, but they have not provided the name of the mystery female so that she can be identified.
The incident is more important than it sounds. Ian's reluctance to talk on that occasion may have affected the way in which the Foreign Office regards the case. Other concerns focus on the fact that initial legal advice on finding a local lawyer was not the best. The locality is under the control of a single individual, and there is evidence of police and official corruption. Those concerns were repeated a couple of weeks later, when we met Baroness Amos, and medical papers describing the severity of the condition were handed over at that stage.
Unfortunately, even though the December visit had been missed, the next consular visit to Ian was not brought forward. Why was the December visit missed? The excuse given was that Ian was at the dentist. Bearing in mind the fact that the journey from New Delhi to the jail takes two days, it beggars belief that a consular official travelled all that way without making more strenuous efforts to see Ian. Does the Minister truly believe that that is a good enough standard of service?
Matters have moved on a little, and Ian is now seeing a doctor, but that is solely because of the family's strenuous efforts. If the family had been unable to visit India, and without relatives who could try to help, the story could have been completely different. Will the Minister please tell the House how long Ian Stillman would have waited to see a doctor had the family been naive enough to believe that the consular service was looking after him? It is telling that, when an appointment was finally arranged, Ian was immediately admitted to hospital and the suspected problem was confirmed. Had the condition been allowed to continue, it is highly likely that Ian would have lost his remaining good limb.
Before I turn to the future, I want to highlight a problem that touches on the Stillman family's relationship with the Foreign Office, and with British-based legal advisers on international law. Lawyers from Fair Trials Abroad have assisted Ian and his family since August 2001. The Stillmans deeply appreciate the trust's help, particularly on legal analysis, selection of the Indian supreme court appeals team, legal research into the Indian constitution, and effective participation in one's own trial as a human right—a crucial element in the grounds of appeal.
Nevertheless, two astonishing incidents occurred, involving attempts by the Foreign Office to interfere with solicitor-client relationships. Initially, the Stillmans were very grateful for the Foreign Office's unsolicited offer of a lawyer. They thought that they were being offered a pro bono Indian lawyer, but they subsequently discovered that the lawyer was English and had little knowledge or experience, as he had only recently joined the profession.
The Foreign Office's second intervention involved contacting the Stillman family to offer one of its approved lawyers to support Indira Jaising, the Indian barrister who was selected and instructed by Fair Trials Abroad. At no point did the Foreign Office contact Fair Trials Abroad. I have to question the conduct of the Foreign Office. Is it normal practice for it to offer a lawyer's services, when
258
it knew full well that a lawyer—one who rattles cages, at times—had already been appointed? It also knew that its recommended lawyer could offer no specialist help.
The trust is seeking a declaration from the Foreign Office that, in cases where the Foreign Office is aware that Fair Trials Abroad is engaged, any approach on matters falling within its mission should be made through the trust. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the appropriate assurances. It would also help all British citizens to know on what basis lawyers are recruited and recommended, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that point. The trust regrets asking me to raise the matter in the House. It is keenly aware that a special relationship with the Foreign Office is essential to its client's best interests.
It is also a disappointment to the family that more strenuous attempts to plead Ian's case were not made when Ministers travelled to India. Answers to questions tabled by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) show that, although Foreign Office Ministers discussed Ian's case with Indian Home Office Ministers, the Prime Minister did not raise it with the President or the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to India in January. There has been no sustained ministerial pressure at the very highest level.
That is the record that the Government must answer for, but I am more interested in moving forward, and I seek the Minister's assurance that the following actions will be taken.
First, it would be much appreciated and very helpful to the appeal if the Foreign Office issued a press release as soon possible rebutting the unfounded allegations that are still being made against Ian. Secondly, the Government should rapidly get up to speed with the health problems and ensure that the identified care needs are dealt with and that the family have access to complete records. They should then intervene on health grounds to try to speed up the appeal to the supreme court. The Minister may be aware that it has been lodged today.
Thirdly, I ask that the Foreign Office intervene so that Ian is released on bail. There is a powerful case, because it is clear that there has been a dreadful contravention of Ian's human rights. I urge the Minister to undertake to follow through on those three actions. If an individual in the United Kingdom has a problem, he rightly expects his Member of Parliament to help. It is also expected that if someone gets into trouble abroad, the British embassy or high commission will fulfil that pastoral role. Please, Minister, reassure me that that is the case.
7.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I hope to do so, and to reassure the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that many of the allegations that she has directed towards our consular officials are unfounded. However, I first congratulate her on securing the debate on Ian Stillman. There has been extensive parliamentary and public interest in his case, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the action that we have taken so far on his behalf.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Baroness Amos—the Minister with primary responsibility for such consular cases—and I have taken

259
an active role in Mr. Stillman's case, and Foreign Office officials have done a great deal on his behalf. I shall spell out some of what they have done.
The hon. Member for Romsey has outlined the background and we agree on it. Mr. Stillman made an appeal to the High Court against his conviction in October 2001, but it was rejected on 11 January 2002. Mr. Stillman intends to appeal to the supreme court.
We have done all we can to help Mr. Stillman since his arrest on 28 August 2000. The police first informed our high commission in New Delhi of his arrest on 30 August and Mr. Stillman spoke to a consular official on the telephone that same day. Mr. Stillman said that he was fine, that the police were treating him well and that a local friend would inform his family of his arrest.
A consular official visited Mr. Stillman on 5 September—less than a week later—at a jail in Kullu. Mr. Stillman had no complaints about his treatment and said that he was satisfied with the facilities provided by the prison authorities. Our consular official communicated with Mr. Stillman by writing notes, explained Indian legal procedures and gave him a list of English-speaking lawyers in India.
We have taken a close interest in Mr. Stillman's welfare since his arrest. Our consular staff in New Delhi have monitored it closely during consular visits, which generally take place every three months, and by liaising with Mr. Stillman's son, who visits him in prison approximately twice a week. Consular officials are also in touch with Mr. Stillman's wife, who lives in India, and have met members of his family who visited New Delhi. Most recently, senior officials met representatives from his family on 1 March and 5 March 2002.
Our consular staff in London are also in frequent contact with Mr. Stillman's family in the United Kingdom by telephone and e-mail. Consular officials also met his family on four occasions-14 May and 2 July 2001, and 14 January and 7 February 2002. As the hon. Member for Romsey pointed out, my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed the case with Mr. Stillman's sister on 5 February.
Our consular staff have taken all possible measures to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately and they have been instrumental in achieving improvements to many aspects of his detention. I have to say to the hon. Lady that, before his conviction in 2001, we had not been asked to help with any transfer.
In June 2001, following the first request that we received, our consular staff helped to arrange for Mr. Stillman to be transferred to his current prison in Kanda, which is relatively new and has better conditions and facilities. We also helped to ensure that Mr. Stillman was provided with a wheelchair, and that he was able to use a computer and have better lighting in his cell. Mr. Stillman has his own room in Kanda prison and we understand that fellow inmates have been assisting.
Sandra Gidley: Does the Minister accept that the reason why Ian Stillman did not want to rock the boat initially was that he knew he was innocent and thought that he would soon be out of there? He thought that the
260
best way to get a quick trial was by not making a fuss. Does the Minister still think it acceptable for somebody to be in such cramped conditions for so long?
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not for me to comment on Mr. Stillman's motives for not seeking consular help before his conviction. The implication of the hon. Lady's earlier allegations was that we did not do what was requested of us before his conviction. We did: we received a request only after conviction.
Throughout his detention, Mr. Stillman has received medical treatment from prison doctors. During a prison visit on 16 July 2001, our High Commission also sought permission for a visit by a specialist after Mr. Stillman's family informed us that he was experiencing phantom pains, thought to have been caused by his artificial leg. His family provided our high commission with details of the prosthetic specialist of their choice shortly thereafter, and a written formal request was sent to the prison authorities on 21 July 2001. Our high commission followed up those requests with the prison authorities, who granted permission for a prosthetic specialist to visit on 24 September 2001. Mr. Stillman's artificial leg was subsequently remoulded.
In January this year, Mr. Stillman's family informed consular officials in London that Mr. Stillman's health had deteriorated. We offered to refer his case to a doctor on the FCO's pro bono panel of doctors to obtain an independent assessment of any risk to his health and whether he was receiving proper medical treatment. We asked his family to send us copies of his medical reports from doctors who had examined him recently, as we do not have a legal right to obtain those documents ourselves. Mr. Stillman's father wrote to the prison requesting the records, and our high commission in New Delhi contacted the prison authorities in support of his request on 14 and 22 March. As soon as we receive Mr. Stillman's medical reports we shall refer his case to a doctor on our pro bono panel.
Our high commission in New Delhi has also been helping Mr. Stillman's family to arrange for a medical specialist of their choice to visit Mr. Stillman. It wrote to the additional director of prisons on 11 March this year in support of a recent request by Mr. Stillman's father for a specialist visit. We understand that the prison authorities have now agreed to such a visit. The authorities also permitted Mr. Stillman to be taken on 21 March this year to a hospital in Chandigarh, where he was examined by a neurologist, an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist and a general physician.
Consular officials visited Mr. Stillman while he was at the hospital and spent almost two hours with him and his son. Mr. Stillman raised a number of issues with them and asked whether the high commission could help arrange for a further visit by a prosthetic specialist and for his wheelchair to be repaired. On 22 March, a consular official raised those issues with the prison authorities, who agreed to Mr. Stillman's requests.
Our consular representative also asked the prison authorities if Mr. Stillman's son could continue to visit him frequently and interpret for him when he was taken

261
to the hospital. Our high commission in New Delhi will continue to do all that it can to ensure that the Indian authorities meet Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements.
We recognise what a distressing experience Mr. Stillman's arrest has been both for him and for his family. I hope, however, that the hon. Lady will understand that international law prevents us from getting involved in the judicial process of another country. Our own judicial proceedings are similarly protected from outside interference.
Our objectives remain to ensure proper conditions for Mr. Stillman and a transparent and expeditious judicial process. It is not the case that interventions have not been made at a high level. On 26 June 2001, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about Mr. Stillman's welfare and our hope that his appeal to the high court would be heard as quickly as possible with the Indian high commissioner and Prime Minister Vajpayee's Principal Secretary, Brajesh Mishra. On 4 July 2001, the Deputy Prime Minister raised his case with the Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, and Mr. Mishra. I also raised it with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah, on 18 February 2002 during my visit to New Delhi, and I asked that Mr. Stillman's appeal to the supreme court be heard as quickly as possible once it has been submitted. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue again most recently with the Indian Home Minister, Mr. Advani, on 27 February 2002.
I should like to respond to a couple of the specific points that the hon. Lady raised. She asked about the allegation that was being made in the Indian media and by others that Mr. Stillman was not deaf, and that he was a criminal and wanted in the United Kingdom. Our high commission in New Delhi issued a press statement on 3 July 2001 making it absolutely clear that Mr. Stillman was not a wanted criminal in the UK. However, it is for Mr. Stillman's lawyer to present the proof that Mr. Stillman is deaf during his appeal to the supreme court.
Sandra Gidley: I fully accept that that useful action was taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at that time. It helped considerably, because the
262
misinformation campaign stopped. However, it has now started again, so could the Foreign and Commonwealth Office repeat its previous action?
Mr. Bradshaw: I have no objection to re-issuing the press release, but the implication of the hon. Lady's question was that we had not already taken such action. I am perfectly happy to issue a press release again.
The hon. Lady also asked about the first consular visit to Mr. Stillman on 5 September 2000. A friend of our consular representative accompanied him on that visit. Our consular representative asked Mr. Stillman whether he had any objections to the friend being present. The suggestion was made—perhaps not by the hon. Lady—that the friend may have been a journalist, and that may have inhibited Mr. Stillman from talking. I assure her that that was not the case, and he was not inhibited from talking.
We have also offered Mr. Stillman the assistance of a British lawyer from our pro bono panel. The panel consists of 53 UK-qualified barristers and solicitors. Among other services, they are able to offer free legal advice to the local lawyers of British prisoners abroad on human rights issues, such as fair trials.
I am aware of the allegation by the director of Fair Trials Abroad, Stephen Jakobi, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office interfered in his relationship with his client because it offered to put Mr. Stillman in touch with a lawyer from our pro bono panel. I wish to point out that neither Mr. Stillman nor his family informed our consular staff that Mr. Jakobi had been formally instructed as Mr. Stillman's lawyer in the UK. Indeed, Mr. Stillman accepted our offer to put him in touch with a British lawyer from our pro bono panel in February. Ultimately, it is for Mr. Stillman to choose which lawyer he would like to represent him.
I hope that I have made it clear that, contrary to what the hon. Lady suggests, our consular officials have acted properly in this case. They have done everything possible, including paying regular visits and providing regular access to our consular officials in Delhi and in this country, and they will continue to do all they can to ensure that Mr. Stillman is well treated while he is in detention and that his appeal to the supreme court is heard as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

UK-Japan Relations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead the debate, not least as all eyes will shortly be on Japan when the World cup takes place there. The debate follows my visit to Japan in January and the success of the third United Kingdom-Japan parliamentary seminar in Tokyo in February. A delegation of the all-party group on Japan—led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson)—ably represented Westminster. I understand from my officials that our Japanese counterparts found the meeting so stimulating that they are already looking forward to a return match in the UK next year.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that during our visit to Japan we touched on the forthcoming World cup, to which he referred? Would he be interested in pursuing my suggestion that one of the best ways of maintaining good relations between Japan and England—there are English football fans in Japan—would be to ensure that no English football fan under the age of 65 were allowed to attend the World cup in Japan unless they were accompanied by their grandparents?
Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion: he is a distinguished parliamentary sportsman. I am sure that Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. could arrange for him to distribute what I believe are called kilts to all English football fans before they set off for the great matches.
Parliamentary links between the UK and Japan are clearly thriving. However, they are just one example of the diversity of the flourishing relationship between our two countries. The UK and Japan are natural partners in many other areas, and we are working together closely and effectively. As the Minister who is responsible for the overall relationship with Japan, I want the already excellent partnership to broaden and deepen. Japan is a natural ally for the UK, and we should make the most of the common ground between US.
This is a good year to look forward to future co-operation: it marks the centenary of the 1902 Anglo-Japanese alliance—the first international treaty that Japan signed following the 1868 Meiji restoration, which laid the foundations of modern Japan. It was the first treaty to be signed by the British Government since 1815, and in 1902 was primarily a military pact designed to safeguard our respective interests in the far east. The
72WH
alliance marked the emergence of Japan as a world power and helped to underpin the expansion of trade between our two nations.
The current trade and investment relationship between the UK and Japan is still hugely important to both countries. Although I do not gloss over the need for effective structural reform in Japan, the regular litany in the press of depressing statistics should not blind us to the massive underlying strength of the Japanese economy. Japan is not broke. It is not Argentina minus five years, as the wiseacres of the City have sometimes said, nor is it Botswana—a comparison that was made in Newsweek International, which is usually a reliable and sensible journal. Japan remains the world's second largest economy after the United States, despite the fact that for the past decade it has had relatively low levels of growth that average little more than 1 per cent. a year. In 2000, its gross domestic produce was nearly $38,000 per capita, which is more than 50 per cent. greater than UK GDP per capita, and two thirds of the total GDP for Asia as a whole. It has the world's largest foreign exchange reserves, at almost $400 billion, and had a current account surplus of around $80 billion last year. It has a large number of cutting edge companies, and a well-educated and resilient work force. I doubt whether there is a household in Britain that does not own goods ranging from cars to DVD players that cost serious money and are made by Japanese firms.
Looking to the future, Japan is responsible for about 25 per cent. of global investment in research and development. That was 3.2 per cent. of GDP in 2000, compared with 1.9 per cent. for the UK, with strength in growth areas such as renewable energy, life sciences, communications, IT and nanotechnology. UK scientists are working closely with their Japanese colleagues on most of those strategic technologies. In January, I went to Sapporo in the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. It is a snow-covered area such as one would see in Canada or the colder parts of Europe. I noticed that the pavements of Sapporo were completely dry and easy to walk on. The roads too were easy to drive on. That was because the pavements and roads had central heating. I thought to myself, if this is such a poor country, could we have some of it in south Yorkshire?
Japan remains a key export market for UK companies. It is our largest market outside the United States and Europe. It accounted for £3.7 billion-worth of exports in goods last year, which is 1.2 per cent. up on 2000, and for £3.1 billion-worth of exports in services. Companies in the food and drink, pharmaceutical, chemical, healthcare and electronics sectors are doing particularly well. Investment in the UK by Japanese companies has long been a feature of our bilateral relationship and is continuing, with both large and small Japanese companies looking to invest. When Nissan came to the north-east of England in the 1980s, a distinguished trade union leader said that the Japanese companies would be exporting, as he put it, "alien practices". Those alien practices are jobs that are well paid and today fully unionised. Certainly, with a trade union background myself, I greatly welcome the investment of Japanese companies in all parts of the UK.

73WH
Every region has benefited from having world-class Japanese companies in their area, providing jobs, new technologies, new skills and new management techniques. The UK now attracts 46 per cent. of Japanese investment into the EU. More than 1,000 Japanese companies now operate in the UK, creating over 80,000 manufacturing jobs, and many thousands more in services. This month we celebrate the first major investment in the chemicals sector by a Japanese company, with Nippon Gosei's decision to locate a £65 million investment in Hull. Moreover, Sony has centralised its global treasury operations in a new centre in London, creating more than 100 well paid, highly skilled jobs, Toshiba has established a mobile telecommunications operations headquarters near London and there have been further expansions in the automotive components circuit.
One of the companies, Nippon Gosei, recently opened in Rotherham and has expanded the employment opportunities it is able to offer my constituents and others in south Yorkshire. The Government are working to build on those successes and to attract more knowledge-driven, high-value investments in the information and communications technology, automotive, life sciences and financial services sectors, where the UK has particular strengths to offer. The investment flow is not merely one way. A number of large British companies such as Vodafone, Cable and Wireless, Virgin, HMV, Compass and Logica have made substantial investments in Japan, as have many smaller high-tech companies, often in niche service sectors.
I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Chris Gent, Vodafone's chairman, extol the excellent quality of Japanese mobile phone technology. I heard today that the latest generation of Japanese mobile phones will be able to lip read, which will no doubt greatly assist many hon. Members.
The British industry centre in Yokohama has served as a vital incubator for many smaller companies, with the support of the local British chamber of commerce and our embassy. Its excellent work under the ambassador, Sir Stephen Gomersall, flies the flag effectively for British commercial and political interests in Japan.
Our two Governments are working together increasingly closely on the global agenda. The events of 11 September underlined more strongly than ever the importance of international co-operation in the interests of global security and prosperity. It is no exaggeration to say that those events have brought about a paradigm shift in the way in which the Japanese view their role in the world. Under the decisive leadership of Prime Minister Koizumi, Japan responded by swiftly amending its peacekeeping legislation to facilitate its participation in the war against terrorism. Japan has been providing fuel for US and Royal Navy ships involved in operation enduring freedom. Those legislative changes have this week allowed Japan to dispatch almost 700 peacekeepers to East Timor—the largest such deployment ever.
We are delighted that Japan is now looking to play a greater role in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Yesterday in New York, I had the pleasure of discussing
74WH
the UN's new peacekeeping role and the modernisation of its approach. Britain and Japan will co-operate to make the UN's important work even more effective. We stand ready to offer assistance and to share the experience of our own armed forces.
We are working closely with Japan, the world's largest bilateral donor, on international development issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and her new permanent under-secretary, Dr. Chakrabarti, have visited Japan for talks this year. To increase our collective effectiveness, they have explored the scope for closer co-operation in countries where we both work. We are considering the scope for further work together on matters such as the reconstruction of Afghanistan, reducing the global proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and Sierra Leone. Japan has designated 2002 as the year of soaring co-operation with Africa.
Our close co-operation on the global stage on vital issues such as the Kyoto protocol, the middle east peace process and North Korea is aided by the closest of working relationships at the highest political level. The relationship between our two Prime Ministers is excellent. Prime Minister Koizumi, who studied politics at University College, London, met our Prime Minister on 1 July in London—his first overseas call after Washington. The role of the British Prime Minister in shaping the international coalition against terrorism, and in influencing Washington on the way forward, made a deep impression on Koizumi and the Japanese public.
Japan's new Foreign Minister, Kawaguchi, has already established a close rapport with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. They talk on the telephone regularly, and my right hon. Friend looks forward to meeting her in the near future.
We can do far more together internationally. As trading nations and key US allies who view the world from a similar perspective, we must work together to promote democracy, the rule of law and free trade worldwide. I encourage all my hon. Friends here to keep in touch with their Japanese counterparts and talk to them about the international issues that matter to us all as parliamentarians, so that we can encourage the UK and Japan to work together co-operatively and find ways of dealing jointly with many of the world's problems.
It is not only international issues that we have in common. As mature economies, we share many of the same domestic policy preoccupations and have much to learn from each other. Our two Prime Ministers have recognised that and have initiated a series of meetings between their personal policy advisers. In the most recent, Prime Minister Koizumi's top domestic policy adviser, Professor Shimada, came to London for talks at No. 10 last month. The main focus was on employment policy, welfare reform and urban regeneration. Professor Shimada visited regeneration sites in Docklands and the Paddington basin and toured a next steps jobcentre. I hope that, as a result of such contacts, we can contribute to the development of an effective policy response by the Japanese Government to the country's current difficulties. That will serve British interests too.

75WH
Another area in which we are thickening our relationship with Japan is energy. For the past 30 years, bilateral energy links have been mainly in the form of nuclear fuel cycle services provided by BNFL to the Japanese power utilities to support their civil nuclear power programme. That has been, and continues to be, a substantial business, contributing about £2 billion to the UK trade balance with Japan during that period. However, pressures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global concerns for energy security and the need for further progress on the development of commercially viable renewable energy sources offer considerable scope for developing our energy relationship with Japan into other areas. During his visit to Japan last October, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy discussed that with the Japanese Government. We are now looking to identify a number of specific areas in which we can work together to our mutual advantage.
Non-governmental links are nothing new. The UK and Japan established a host of non-governmental links more than 100 years ago, as Japan set about catching up with the west. The British railway engineer, Edmund Morel, played a key role in establishing the Japanese railway system; the Englishman Richard Henry Brunton built Japan's first modern lighthouses; and Henry Dyer helped to establish Tokyo university.
That tradition of vibrant non-governmental links between our two countries remains strong today and received a major boost from the spectacular success of the year-long festival Japan 2001, which kicked off in May last year and is now drawing to a close. The festival brought us a series of memorable cultural events, including the Hyde Park Matsuri, in which His Imperial Highness Crown Prince Naruhito and His Royal Highness Prince of Wales took part. It drew massive crowds to experience the essence of a Japanese summer festival and gasp at the yabusame horseback archery. The Chikamatsu-za kabuki theatre troupe at Sadlers Wells drew rave reviews, as did the British Museum's 100 Views of Mount Fuji exhibition.
However, Japan 2001 has not just been about the big headline events. One of its most striking successes has been the organisers' use of the internet and other modern technologies to foster Japanese cultural events at a grassroots level throughout the country. Interest in the Japanese martial arts has flourished, and more than 750 schools, from the Shetland islands to Penzance, have taken part. With more than 80,000 children involved, the festival has helped to build the foundation for continued firm friendship between our two peoples in the future. Many people contributed to the festival's success, and the leadership of Lord Blakenham was essential.
To keep up the good work, our embassy in Japan marked the alliance's centenary by launching a new green alliance, which will be a trigger for young people in our two countries to think together about environmental issues and participate in volunteer activities. More than 40 schools and universities are participating, and more than 170 venues throughout Japan will be planting UK-grown oak saplings as a symbol of our enduring friendship. I am delighted that the all-party group planted one of those trees in the gardens of the Japanese Diet, and that Foreign Minister Kawaguchi planted the first, in our embassy in Tokyo, in her last day as Environment Minister before her
76WH
promotion. Two members of the Japanese royal family have been studying at Merton College, Oxford, again strengthening the links between Japan and our higher education institutions. When I visited Japan in January, I was delighted to be asked to launch an additional commemorative programme—UK Now 2002, a series of events put together by the British Council to challenge stereotypes of the UK and to bring the best of contemporary British culture and design to the young people of Japan. Links between our young people were also strengthened last year by the launch of the youth exchange scheme, which enables up to 400 young people on each side to live and work in each other's country, and by the continuing success of the Japanese Government's Japan exchange and teaching programme, under which hundreds of young British graduates get the opportunity each year to teach in Japanese schools and work as international relations advisers in local authorities. I spent a memorable evening of saki and Japanese food with them in Saporo in January. It is a curiosity that the Japanese Government are still the single biggest employer of British graduates.
Finally, I should acknowledge the valuable role of the UK-Japan 21st-century group in bringing together annually a wide range of UK and Japanese opinion formers. This non-governmental think tank held a successful meeting in Oxfordshire in February, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and with the participation of several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) who is, to the best of my knowledge, the only Member fluent in Japanese. I am pleased that she is present. I was delighted to be able to speak to the group, which decided to pay particular attention in its forthcoming work schedule to the potential for enhanced science and technology co-operation.
This has been a necessarily swift overview of the diversity of the current bilateral relationship. I first visited Japan about 20 years ago, and the Japan that I returned to since assuming my ministerial duties is richer, more confident and has a more vibrant youth facing the challenges of the 21st century. One hundred years ago, we signed the Anglo-Japanese treaty and ushered in a new era of British-Japanese relations. I hope to see such relations in the 21st century become the cornerstone of Britain's engagement with the world and Japan's growing presence on the global political and economic scene. I look forward to an active discussion in today's debate. I am grateful to the House authorities for allowing it to take place, and hope that as many hon. Members as possible become involved in deepening and broadening the relationship between our two countries still further.
2.52 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: First, I warmly congratulate the Minister on initiating today's debate and thank him on behalf of all Members for his constructive interest in the region.
As a Member, I have had the pleasure of visiting Japan twice, but before entering the House I worked with many Japanese companies, particularly in the financial services industry. It is crucial that relations

77WH
between our two countries are given reasoned and sensible consideration, so I am pleased that that is exactly what is happening in today's debate.
Japan is one of Britain's closest friends and international partners today, but we should not forget that we have enjoyed a close relationship with Japan for more than a century. It has not been a relationship without periods of disagreement, even intense conflict, but underlying it is a sense of mutual respect and understanding.
We are both island nations with long-established monarchies and a sense of our own histories and unique places in the world. In tracing the roots of this friendship, we can look back about 150 years to the Meiji restoration when Japanese teams began visiting British factories, dockyards and industry to learn new skills in shipbuilding, for example. Indeed, many Japanese still look back to the early years of the 20th century and the Anglo-Japanese friendship treaty as the golden years of our relationship, and many would like to revive it. In spirit, we have done just that, especially in the past 20 years. A mutual respect for the history, traditions and values of our two nations underpins our relations; traditions that blend with the inner resources and strengths of vitality, ingenuity, and social cohesion that the Japanese possess in such abundance. They provide a combination of qualities that I am certain will enable Japan to continue to modernise and to undertake the on-going structural readjustment that is so vital if it is to re-emerge as the fully fledged, key global player that it deserves to be. In the 1970s and 1980s we, too, had to undergo a series of structural changes.
The Anglo-Japanese relationship, on a practical level, used to be based on economic ties, and, to an extent, those were a one-way Japanese inward investment. That investment and those economic ties are still very important and most welcome, but our relationship is now much more a two-way affair. There are many mutually beneficial opportunities for extensive cultural, technological and scientific exchanges, not to mention the tourism to which I shall return later.
That closeness has benefited both our countries, as increased exchanges of information and ties have enabled us to offer important advice on how—and how not—to reform welfare services, and how to improve systems of social insurance. In many respects, as the Minister said, similar problems beset both countries.
Britain and Japan enjoy good economic relations, and in recent years relations between the two countries have continued to expand,. Japanese companies now have more than 1,400 business offices in the UK. In manufacturing, the number of direct investments in Britain exceeds 260, which accounts in value for about 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in the EU. Without a shred of doubt, this country has been transformed by inward investment from Japan in the past two decades. By directly employing about 80,000 people, those manufacturing companies play a part in stimulating the British economy and improving the country's trade balance. British exports to Japan in recent years have also been steadily increasing. The Japanese embassy has been supporting the British
78WH
Government and industry's positive and constructive approach towards Japan, which is most clearly expressed by the Action Japan export campaign.
On 2 September 1996, our countries' then Foreign Ministers, Yukihiko Ikeda and Malcolm Rifkind, held bilateral talks in Tokyo and agreed to a UK-Japan action agenda, a programme aimed at promoting economic relations between the two countries and also at increasing British trade in Japan, and I hope that it will continue to be successful.
The Conservative party remains committed to making Britain a country in which business can flourish. We want this country to continue to function as a conduit for firms to gain access to British potential and to the European single market. Despite recent economic slow-downs and a degree of stagnation in the Asian economies, on which various economists, not always helpfully, have seen fit to comment regarding Japan, there is much that we can still learn from that country. It remains a hugely rich society, but one that continues to emphasise duty and obligation to fellow citizens. Japanese people also place a massive premium on educational attainment.
The link between Britain and Japan is strong at every level and the contribution made to this thriving relationship by Japanese citizens based in this country is highly valued. The connection reaches from grass-roots organisations with few members to the great multinational companies producing products worth billions of pounds a year and employing hundreds and thousands of people, the most visible signs of which, economic links aside, are the thriving academic exchange opportunities in higher education between Japan and Britain, and the tremendous volume of tourism. While some may be here to improve their language skills, I hope that many also enjoy the numerous tourist opportunities of a long stay. All those visitors represent major, welcome contributions to British life and society, whatever their length of stay.
On defence and security, we find a growing overlap with Japan in the new globalised context. Both Britain and Japan know that their security is wrapped up closely with the USA. Indeed, Japan has made a major move towards becoming an active international player again by offering to send military forces out of the homeland area into crisis spots. That constitutes a huge break with the Japanese post-war tradition of military non-participation and we, and the world, should welcome it as a significant contribution to international global security. It would be advantageous to have that Anglo-Japanese partnership enhanced on a global level. Together we must deal with common threats to world stability. In the war against terrorism, we welcome the fact that Japan has contributed an aircraft carrier and given her full support in so many ways.
East Timor has long been an area of conflict and it is to be hoped that Japan might soon take on a greater regional role, helping to forge regional solutions to problems. We should also co-operate in the face of challenges presented by issues such as environmental change and international development. Significantly, in the war against terrorism, Prime Minister Koizumi has taken a personal lead and from the outset offered Japanese support. Defence agency director General Nakatani ordered the dispatch of maritime and air self-defence forces to provide logistical support for US and

79WH
British troops fighting the Taliban and the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan, the order being issued after Prime Minister Koizumi had earlier approved a detailed implementation plan for SDF logistical support to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
That plan was formulated in line with the new anti-terrorism law in Japan that enables the SDF to be dispatched overseas to provide support to the campaign. The maritime self-defence force plans to send three warships and 1,200 troops; the air self-defence force plans to send eight planes and 180 personnel. That is a vital step and one that required a degree of soul-searching and political courage in Japan. I pay tribute to Japan and thank it for its invaluable help. I also pay personal tribute to Prime Minister Koizumi for his courage and his far-sighted plans for reform. We wish him every success in his reforming endeavours, as they will benefit not only Japan but, indirectly, the British economy. A prosperous Japan is good for Britain.
As the Minister and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said, it will not have escaped the notice of many in Britain, and certainly in Japan, that an influx of fans will visit Japan for the World cup series. While I wish the Japanese the best of luck with the organisation and success of the tournament, I hope that all will be well during the period of the games. I endorse what the Minister said about our cultural links, particularly on the success of the festival, which was a great tribute to the organisers and an eye-opener to so many in Britain as to the cultural and artistic riches of Japan.
In conclusion, I say unhesitatingly that UK-Japanese relations look very healthy. We can look forward to a new era of co-operation and a 21st century in which I hope Japan will play an even more important international and regional role. I am confident that British Governments will take the lead in forging new and mutually beneficial partnerships with Japan and in building upon and consolidating existing ones.
3.4 pm
Jane Griffiths: I welcome the debate and the privilege of contributing to it. Many people have long awaited the opportunity to debate the issue of relations with one of our most important allies.
I first had the opportunity to visit Japan in 1979. That turned into a long stay, and I did not return until late 1980. I studied the Japanese language, which is a study that I urge upon all hon. Members. They would find that the language is mellifluous and that it contains slightly fewer sounds than the English language, which makes the spoken language relatively easy to master. All one needs is determination or, as the Japanese say, "ganbatte". As a pastime, many languages are studied in the House, so I hope that Japanese will soon be one of them.
My constituency, Reading, East, is home to many Japanese residents, partly because it is home to the only Japanese higher education institution in the UK. Gyosei college. The college invites several hundred young Japanese people to Reading to undertake study courses, from which they benefit. The people of Reading also benefit from their presence and the opportunity to get to know them.
80WH
The UK and Japan are partners in the world. It has been said that we are both island nations and as such we have much in common. We both drive on the left, and I have been told that that is because of the horseback knightly tradition, which is different in each country. That may or may not be true.
I look forward to an expansion of our partnership in the world. In the past, it has been said that Japan has been a little reluctant to play its full part in world affairs. In the 1980s, the concept of Japan's internationalisation was much talked about. That is now a reality. I particularly look forward to the UK, Japan and other nations working together in Africa as part of the new African partnership. The plight of many African nations is a shame to the civilised world. It is up to relatively wealthy nations—Japan, the UK, other European nations and, of course, the USA—to work together to help African nations, and to help them to help each other.
Although relations between our two nations remain good, some issues can be an irritant to their maintenance. For example, our two nations take a different position on whaling. Rather than insulting the Japanese Government, as some anti-whaling groups do—with the best intentions—it would be better to work together to solve the issue.
I could not continue without mentioning the World cup. I am delighted that Japan is to be one of the host nations. Japan plays very good football—I shall not compare Japanese with Korean football because that is for another debate. English football fans have a reputation that goes before them. For the vast majority of fans, the reputation is unjustified. It would be unfair to ask English football fans to acquaint themselves with Japanese culture in any depth before they travel to Japan. However, I hope that they will remember that drinking beer is not a competitive sport, but to be enjoyed in moderation, as Japanese people understand. Some of the best beer in the world is produced in Japan, and I hope that our football fans go there and drink Sapporo beer in moderation.
There is a beer hall in Sapporo where people can pay an entrance fee and then drink as much beer as they want, until they have had enough—I shall not give out its address.
Mr. MacShane: I have to announce the sad news that, for the duration of the matches in Sapporo, that beer hall will be closed.
Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate the management of that beer hall on its wise decision.
I hope that our football fans take part in the life of Japan while they are there. They will find a warm welcome and much that is familiar, although they will find an entirely different culture. What has not been emphasised in discussions about relations between the UK and Japan is the cultural influences that we have upon each other. I am not talking in particular about great works of art or theatre, which we know about but which are rather rarefied. I am talking about, for example, sumo wrestling, which has been shown on television in this country. When I lived in Japan, I became a great fan of sumo wrestling, and I have long

81WH
hoped that there could be sumo in this country. Sumo challenges our assumptions about sport and athletics. The bulk, body fat and mass of the wrestlers leaves one to believe that they could not possibly be consummate athletes, but that is exactly what they are. The spectacle is to be recommended to all.
Japan has had other cultural influences on the UK, well known to young people in particular. The influence of manga cartoon on our film and on our young people's television has not been emphasised enough. It has been a great influence on European artists and altered the look of many of our cartoons and films. It is an important cultural tradition in its own right. There is a spectrum of cultural influences, including the phenomenon, with which I hope hon. Members here are familiar, "Hello Kitty".
We have a long way to go in developing our relations, but we have come a long way already. I know that we, Britain and Japan, will go forward together, shoulder to shoulder, as key players in the world and as a joint force for good in it. I look forward to greater progress.
3.12 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: This is a very important debate. It might even be timely, as many hon. Members have referred to the World cup, although, to Scottish ears, the slightly gratuitous over-repetition of references to the World cup this afternoon does not necessarily chime positively. None the less, I liked the suggestion from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) that, as an ambassadorial gesture, the English fans might be kitted out in kilts. If the Minister or the Minister for Sport wishes to take that up, I can suggest a company of leading kilt makers in my constituency, Lochcarron of Scotland, that would, I am sure, be delighted to help out. That would give a whole new take on international diplomacy.
The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) made some interesting points, particularly on the cultural aspects of the debate. She made two suggestions: that we should learn Japanese or take up sumo wrestling. I had not imagined learning Japanese, but if there is to be a choice between the two, I think that that would be the easier and I would have to sign up for it very speedily.
Seriously, this is an important debate. We in this House should acknowledge regularly the significance of Japan and Britain's relationship with Japan. Japan is a phenomenally important world economic power and, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, has an important and growing world diplomatic role. We in this country must be seen to encourage that positively.
On 22 February at Ditchley park, the Minister made a speech on Japanese relations, in which he mentioned four themes: the importance of strengthening bilateral relations between our two countries, the need for us to focus on international security and the fight against terrorism, the pressing need to open trade and remove the forces of protectionism and the importance of building democracy. Not surprisingly, we have heard echoes of those matters today. They are a useful focus for this debate and I want to turn my attention to them.
82WH
Japan has been the key economic success story of the post-war period. In recent years, there has been a danger of that being forgotten because of undoubted difficulties in Japan. Stripping away the occasional example of schadenfreude, we must recognise that Japan is of huge importance. That should be encouraging to us because it is good for Britain. The complacency in this country about Japan's role in the world that was evident 30, or even 20, years ago has been brutally shaken up. In a generation, we have moved from sneering to cheering—from mocking Datsun Sunny cars to queueing up for PlayStation 2 releases. That is an image transformed and a success that we would do well to replicate in our country.
However, there are problems that have consequences for the region and the world economy. We must hope that Japan finds its way out of its present economic difficulty. In that process, trade will be of key importance. This country, and the west in general, used to be concerned about old-style protectionism in Japan. That protectionism has largely disappeared and the trend towards openness is continuing. The balance of trade is still rather one way, and Britain has to make up much ground.
Nevertheless, I would highlight the strengths of British success in Japan. To make another reference to my constituency interests, Locharron of Scotland is an important part of a textile industry that is still finding strong markets in Japan. The key industry in the borders is knitted cashmere. My home town, Innerleithen, features such world names as Ballantyne, which has top shops in Tokyo as well as in other key world capitals. Although some of these matters are now devolved, we would welcome whatever support the Minister and his colleagues could give to help small British companies to promote top-quality products and expand their markets in Japan.
In the papers this week, an interesting story showed that things have moved on. An Oxfam report highlights that the European Union is deemed to be more protectionist than Japan in its dealings with developing countries. That is not the self-image that we would want to have in Britain and is another wake-up call for us. We should consider that carefully.
Trade is not just a bilateral issue; it is multilateral. The current dispute about steel in the World Trade Organisation is a good example of an issue on which Britain—as part of the EU—and Japan have similar interests in their dealings with the United States, and their concerns about the consequences of its actions. I am sure that Japan is watching carefully how Europe handles the matter. I am anxious because I am a veteran of the banana war between the USA and Europe, where collateral trade damage to other trade issues and countries became a great concern. Japan will be taking careful note of that at the moment. It is a warning to us all that it is not just a matter of ensuring that the USA behaves properly in the dispute, but that Europe does, too. In doing so, we must not work against the interests of our other trading partners across the world.
The WTO has become particularly topical in Asia recently. Japan's huge neighbour, China, is now a member of the organisation, which must surely give Japan a different perspective on it. I hope that it will also make Japan join in the reformist agenda, which recognises the strengths of the idea of the WTO—what

83WH
it stands for—but is not oblivious to its problems and failings. There is no question but that disputes between international trading blocs are becoming more complex and bitter and that the WTO is unable to cope with them. Some of its decisions are opaque, and at times it certainly does not provide international leadership. As Japan observes and co-operates with China's entry to the WTO, I hope that it will act with Britain and others to ensure that the organisation has the skills and resources that it needs to do the very important job of policing world trade.
Investment is closely linked to trade and, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) mentioned, there is a vital relationship between our two countries in that regard. A statistic that I believe has already been highlighted—I hope that it is right; it comes from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website—is that the UK receives about 45 per cent. of all Japanese inward investment to the European Union. That affects a thousand companies and 88,000 jobs, which is not insignificant. There are still issues surrounding financial services deregulation in Japan, but in Britain we certainly have a very strong Japanese presence. I understand that the second largest of the overseas-owned banks in the City of London is Japanese.
I do not wish to provoke the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who seems to be enjoying himself this afternoon. However, Japanese investors increasingly raise the issue of the single currency and ask whether Britain will be part of it. The FCO website says that
"increasing numbers of Japanese investors have expressed concern about the high value of sterling and UK's policy on the Euro."
I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I would be wary of entry to the single currency at the current rate, but we cannot duck for much longer the long-term questions about the future of outside investment in this country—particularly Japanese investment—if we do not do something about the single currency.
Mr. Spring: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a good way of dealing with that very important issue would be to invite the Government to produce a White Paper, for which we have consistently asked, on the economic, political and constitutional implications of the single currency as well as the possible investment impact, and to elevate the debate beyond website level?
Mr. Moore: I am very conscious, Mr. Gale, that I will soon be in deep trouble if I attempt to turn this into a debate on the single currency, so I will not seek to do so. Instead, I invite the Minister to comment on the hon. Gentleman's and my observations when he replies.
A priority in our trading, investment and economic dealings with Japan must be a commitment to the open and competitive relationship that has developed in leaps and bounds during the past 30 years. I hope that it will continue.
For much of the post-war period, Japan's foreign policy was largely dominated by the events of the war and its role in it. As a consequence, there has been considerable nervousness about any development of an external role for Japan, and there has at times been some concern in the region around Japan about its domestic
84WH
developments. Not long after he became Prime Minister, Mr. Koizumi caused some concern with his visit to the Japanese war graves. There was also concern from South Korea and China about the content of certain school textbooks. That sensitivity might have grown into something bigger, but during the past year the skill of the Japanese Prime Minister has taken Japan into a more outgoing, expansionist phase instead of moving into an isolationist phase. That move could cause concern, but I view it positively and hope that it will continue.
Some Opposition politicians have made unwise comments about the potential development of nuclear weapons. By contrast, the recent visit by the chairman of the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress was a great success and provided a flavour of the growing confidence of different countries in dealing with one another. What is good for the region must be good for the rest of the world, particularly Britain. The Minister highlighted the fact that we have been strengthening our direct ties, and the UK-Japan 21st century group, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), plays an important role in that and should be encouraged.
Japan is playing a more confident world role, not least in building democracy. Its work on behalf of Afghanistan is clear and strong. It hosted the conference on the rebuilding and development of Afghanistan in Tokyo on 21 and 22 January. That was important and the generosity of Japanese aid pledges has not gone unnoticed.
The hon. Member for Reading, East made an important point about the new partnership for African development. Japan is a key player in G8, alongside the United Kingdom, and helps to drive that initiative forward. The initiative was born in Africa, which is taking the lead but needs western industrialised support. Potentially fatal hesitation might have resulted from the wrong reaction to Zimbabwe and its role in the Commonwealth, but President Mbeki of South Africa played an important role in keeping Africa focused on the right issues. I hope that Japan and the United Kingdom will respond positively to that development and give every support to the initiative.
The Minister referred specifically to the prospect of Japan becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and Liberal Democrats strongly support that aspiration. Its present set-up, which reflects a bygone age, should be changed and Japan has developed an important new role.
If I may say so in passing and not too cheekily, today marks the creation of the International Criminal Court, which will become effective at the beginning of July. Some permanent members of the Security Council—most importantly, America and China—have not adopted or do not support the court, and perhaps the Government will encourage Japan to endorse it as a sign of its commitment to a peaceful world order and the development of the United Nations role.
On the whole, our relationship with Japan is positive, but it would be wrong not to touch briefly on some trickier issues that bedevil it. One area of difficulty between our two countries concerns the nuclear issue. The Conservative Member who referred to the nuclear

85WH
stockpile of plutonium and how it could be developed into nuclear weapons may have been speaking wide of the mark, but I should be interested to know what discussions and representations the Government are having with the Japanese to discover the reason for that stockpile and how it may be used. Nuclear energy is a fraught issue, to use British understatement, and the fiasco of BNFL's falsification of records concerning MOX waste was the defining moment in that relationship. It regularly sends delegations to Japan to seek to reassure it that that serious matter was a one-off.
Japanese domestic opinion is alarmed about what is going on, and trust, which is a key word, may not be possible in those circumstances. Perhaps the Government can grasp the issue and recognise that many countries across the world are not interested in nuclear energy and will move away from it as a future fuel source. Such countries will consider BNFL's future to be dealing with the clean-up of existing problems with nuclear energy, and not trying to develop technologies for a new generation of nuclear stations. Japan is rightly and proudly associated with environmentalism, not least symbolically through Kyoto, and it is important that we support it in improving that reputation.
The hon. Member for Reading, East referred to whaling, and I should like to ask the Minister a couple of brief questions about that. Whaling has been a long-running source of international tension. Non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace have highlighted their worries about the increasing number of whales caught for scientific research. Perhaps more seriously, they have also made allegations about the ways in which bilateral aid between Japan and other countries is being used to influence votes at the International Whaling Commission. Those are damning and damaging allegations that are in the interests neither of Japan nor the rest of the world. The Government surely have a role to play in understanding that issue, explaining its dangers to Japan and its truth to the rest of us. I hope that the Minister will be able to touch on that in his closing comments.
Those are two difficult issues, but I do not want them to overshadow what I regard as a very positive and overwhelmingly beneficial relationship between our two countries. It is important that we build on the success of the past 50 years since the second world war. We need, particularly in economic areas, to build on what has developed very strongly during the past 20 or 30 years. Japan is rightly taking a stronger international role, which Liberal Democrat Members support, and we also support the Government in strengthening those ties.
3.32 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: I have never been to Japan, but I was recently a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation that was involved in extensive discussion with countries from all over the world. Japanese parliamentarians made a very positive and intense contribution on globalisation.
Globalisation is an all-embracing term defining the economic and communications revolution set in track by industrialisation and imperialism. Over a considerable period, it has shaped the contours of the
86WH
modern world in which we live. The effect of that process has been far-reaching, and it has had an impact on all of us, wherever we live, on whichever continent. Globalisation will continue to have an enormous effect on the world that our children inherit. It has given birth to an economic market without frontiers; it has increased the nature, extent and volume of world trade; and it has created a truly global community that makes us more closely linked and interdependent.
Although that process originated as a product of our industrial revolution, and other western countries' subsequent industrial revolutions, Japan has undoubtedly made a huge contribution to it. Its 19th-century cultural revolution, which was set in train by the Meiji restoration, opened what had traditionally been a very closed society to western thought, industrial change and innovation. As a graduate in modern history who specialised in courses on the far east, I have studied Japanese history. Japan's tremendous growth and the cultural changes that it went through are hugely engrossing areas of study that should be of interest to us all.
The United Kingdom and Japan have had historic links through the industrial revolution and globalisation, and it is important to stress the involvement and input of Scotland in such a special relationship. It is worth emphasising that although the formal treaty relationship was struck in 1902, informal contact and economic exchanges had occurred between the two countries for the greater part of the 19th century. I refer to two important links that were forged between north-east Scotland and Japan in the middle decades of the 1800s. At this point, I may fall out with the Minister. He said that Henry Brunton was an Englishman, but my records show that he was an engineer from Muchalls near Aberdeen, who went to Japan in 1868 and stayed there for eight years to supervise the installation of a scheme for lighthouses for the entire coast of Japan. Thomas Glover was certainly a Scotsman. He was another product of north-east Scotland and was born in Fraserburgh. He went to Japan in 1859 and was involved in various business ventures in Nagasaki. His house continues to be a popular tourist attraction.
Subsequent to such visits by the Scots, the first real intergovernmental Iwakura mission to be mounted by the Japanese Imperial Government was to the United Kingdom and America. It visited Scotland in 1872 during a two-year programme of intense fact-finding in the outside world as part of the Meiji restoration. The mission was led by Ambassador Iwakura and included four associate ambassadors, 48 delegates and 54 students. It was a forerunner of the foreign excursions frequently undertaken by our all-party groups. The mission precipitated the development of important cultural and industrial links between Scotland, the rest of the UK and Japan. Indeed, two Scotsmen, Henry Dyer and Sir Alfred Ewing, became principals of prestigious engineering colleges in Japan.
That close reciprocal relationship was disturbingly disrupted by war in the 1930s and 1940s, but happily it was resumed with greater vigour and enthusiasm by both countries in the later decades of the last century. As a result, we have witnessed the creation of a special relationship between two highly industrial, modern market economies of constitutional democracies, which,

87WH
although separated by the extent of the globe, have many things in common. It is not well known, but Japanese society is based on an intense clan society such as the one that existed in Scotland before the highland clearances. Much of Japan's industrial development was based on a system whereby clan chiefs received money from the Government for giving up their feudal rights for the clansmen. Japan has a prosperous and developing constitutional monarchy with bicameral Houses of Parliament.
A century on from our initial formal treaty of alliance, we are now partners in a new alliance to create better understanding between two great countries. We have the joint aims of creating a peaceful and co-operative world order to eradicate terrorisms and third world poverty, and to promote greater and more equitable levels of prosperity and well-being throughout the world.
When contact between the countries was first made, the United Kingdom was truly the workshop of the world and Scotland was a significant component of the UK economic equation. Since then, compared with the Japanese economy, the UK has suffered a relative economic decline. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, Japan became the innovative centre of new technologies and new industries throughout the world. In the past decade, however, I am glad to say that the UK has witnessed a resurgence of its enterprise, with Scotland again playing a leading part in the development of the high-tech IT revolution. It is creating and enjoying a synergy with our industrial and economic partners in Japan and the United States of America, with which both countries have close relationships.
A joint goal for all three countries in the industrial partnership is to continue to foster a positive and progressive partnership and to encourage trade, enterprise and prosperity. At the same time, they want to ensure that the growing economic strength and potential of Japan's close neighbour, China, is harnessed and productively channelled into constructive economic relationships with its Asian and western trading partners. They also, whenever possible, encourage democratic reform in the Chinese system of government.
As major players in the process of globalisation, and as two of the four major economies that have benefited from the world economic system, Japan and the UK are morally obliged to ensure that more disadvantaged emerging countries can more equitably share in the wealth and material well-being produced by our two countries' entrepreneurial efforts. There is also an obligation—this is the nub of the debate—to ensure that proper management of our economies is a top economic goal. We must ensure that the international economic trade regime enshrined in the WTO operates equitably so that the depressions that caused so much chaos and despair in the past are consigned to the bin of history. We look forward to more even economic progress in decades to come. A major feature of that economic management is ensuring that the production and extraction processes needed to fuel economic activity and development take place within the parameters set by the Kyoto agreements.
I welcome the positive comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister on 22 February in a speech entitled "A new Japan/UK alliance for the 21st century". He
88WH
suggested that our two nations have a pivotal role in ensuring a wider world community for peace and prosperity. At the centre of that is the creation of greater understanding in our two countries of our respective values and cultures. Much has been made of this year's World cup, to be played in Japan and Korea. That will be a lesson for the Japanese population, who will witness at first-hand the football tribalism so evident in both British and English society—a culture that, to judge from watching television, the Japanese community has taken to heart. Unfortunately, the civilising influence of Scotland's tartan army will not be available in the tournament. However, the people of Japan have already taken tartan and Scottish whisky to their hearts. Japan is one of whisky's best customers and biggest importers, and long may that last. There is whisky, as well as beer, to be enjoyed and to supplement the sake.
As in the earlier period of the UK-Japanese relationship, Scotland plays a major role as an economic partner and cultural collaborator. Indeed, my own city, Dundee, on the east coast of Scotland, is playing a major role in heightening that greater cultural understanding. I draw the Chamber's attention to an article that appeared in the Daily Record of 20 November 2000 with the headline "Our Dennis is big in Japan". According to the byline, the journalist is Alistair Munro. The Dennis in this case is not my hon. Friend the Minister, but none other than Dundee's own Dennis the Menace. The rest of the headline reads: "Menace helps teach kids English". The article states that research shows that the Dundee-born tearaway comic strip is doing more to help Japanese children to learn English than the usual English textbooks, with growing numbers of schools in Japan using the Beano, Dennis the Menace and Gnasher. I have many back copies because of my young family, and anyone present is welcome to take them home.
On a more serious, academic note, I draw the Minister's attention to another link that Dundee has with Japan. The prospectus of the university of Abertay, Dundee offers a course that is not matched anywhere else in the UK. It is a BSc honours course in computer games technology with Japanese studies. The course is progressive, and the university of Abertay has many links with the far east and near east. The course is a variation of a highly regarded computer games technology course that is already available at the university, and it allows students who are in the concluding years of their studies to gain work experience at placements with Japanese games companies and research facilities. Such collaboration is the essence of our relationship both today and in the future.
Hopefully, the initiatives that have been undertaken in my home town are being replicated throughout the United Kingdom. Our relationship has been built on inward investment into the UK through, obviously, the growth of the Japanese motor industry and through IT investment from Japan, which is all too evident in Scotland. That will continue to secure friendly and prosperous relationships between our two great countries. We should examine fields in which my city has great potential, such as biomedical research, which is a strong point of the Dundee economy.
The point was made that we should try to learn Japanese. My grasp of languages is fairly poor, but I had a joyful experience when I was at the Scottish business

89WH
school at Edinburgh university. One of my friends in the class was a Japanese banker who came to the university to study the postgraduate MBA course. His English was not so good, but his mathematics was red hot, and he gave me a great deal of help with business economics. We had a great Burns night together when he gave a good rendition of Japanese drinking songs that mirrored some of the more bawdy works of Burns from his productive times. There was a great feeling of comradeship and enjoyment, and the event was much more sophisticated than the karaoke that occurs in other hostelries throughout Scotland.
There is growing awareness and collaboration between the two countries, which I am sure the Minister and his team encourage. In the long term, it is for our mutual benefit and for the benefit of the wider global community that Japan and the UK—and Scotland, as part of the UK—build greater bridges and links to continue the dialogue that has existed since the 19th century. We should learn from the mistakes of the past to ensure that the economic future of the globe is peaceful and prosperous so that future generations will have a pleasant existence in a harmonious world that works for the benefit of all.
I am glad to have made my contribution. As I said, I have never been to Japan, but I hope that the links between Dundee and Japan have been relevant to the debate. I look forward to hearing subsequent contributions.
3.47 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I echo many things that were said about the UK and Japan. However, I start on a negative note by referring to the comments of the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) about whaling. I share her worries, but surely the matter is not without the possibility of a reasonable settlement. I share the hon. Lady's view that it is inappropriate to throw insults at each other—particularly from this direction towards our friends in Japan. I hope that we will be able to conclude that rather unfortunate part of the relationship between Japan and the UK, and that the Minister will comment on that.
When the Minister opened the debate, he mentioned the forthcoming World cup finals in Japan. We have heard about that event so many times, and it grates on the Welsh ear because we have no representation there. Repeating that does not help—the fact becomes more hurtful as time goes on.
However, speaking of football—rugby football—there was a time when the Welsh rugby team could defeat the Japanese team comfortably. Alas, for two main reasons, that is not so now. There has been a vast improvement in the standard of Japanese rugby. It has grown in leaps and bounds over the past 10 to 15 years, but there has been a sad transient reversal of the standard in Wales. I was at one of the first post-war matches between Japan and Wales some years ago in the old Cardiff Arms Park stadium. On that splendid occasion I had the great fortune to sit next to the coach, Shiggi Kono, who I believe is still associated with the game in Japan. The sun is rising on Japanese rugby, and I wish it well.
90WH
Economic links between Japan and Wales began about 50 years ago. Some 50 major Japanese companies have set up in Wales. Japan is traditionally a significant investor in Wales and an important export market for Welsh goods. In the first three quarters of 2001 the Welsh export market to Japan was worth £60 million, which is a considerable sum for a relatively small economy. Wales has gained significantly from that relationship, which has brought it jobs and good training, and has helped to create a viable high-tech industry there. Workers were given high-quality training to ensure that they developed the essential skills for a dynamic industry and the opportunity to run high-quality high-tech factories.
Not only those who work for the manufacturing plants have benefited. Japanese companies have also helped indigenous Welsh companies. Over time, firms moved their sourcing of components from Japan to local companies, and smaller Welsh firms have flourished as satellites around the plants. Japan has contributed a great deal to the economic development of Wales, and the legacy of all that it has done is crucial to our future. I pay tribute to the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies in Wales that had the foresight to visit Japan early on, many decades ago.
Like many people, when I purchase electronic goods I look at the Japanese products first, because of their high standard and reliability. I can think of hardly any electrical or IT goods in my household—or, indeed, in any offices—that are not manufactured by Japanese companies. However, those companies are going through a tough time. Hitachi, NEC, Toshiba and Fujitsu have announced global job losses and drops in profits last year caused by the falling demand for electronics and other IT goods around the world. The effects of that have been felt badly in Wales, with several plant closures and inevitable job losses. Many Japanese firms have relocated from Wales to eastern Europe. For example, Hitachi moved 350 jobs from Hirwaun to eastern Europe. The closure at Christmas was a sad moment, as it spelled the end of nearly half a century of television production, nearly two decades of which was under the management of Hitachi, one of the first Japanese companies to invest in Wales.
More than 2,000 redundancies were announced last year at Japanese plants in south Wales. There have also been some positive announcements, such as a £100 million investment programme by Toyota at its Deeside engine plant, but the overall pattern is still one of slight decline. However, I am sure that that can be addressed when the economic outlook improves. The Government are doing a lot, and I hope that they continue to do all that they can to secure Japanese investment in Wales. The Minister is positive on that point as on others, and I am sure that he has his eye on the ball.
The Japanese companies that I mentioned are under great pressure. Their tighter profit margins mean that considerations such as the cost of labour must be uppermost in their minds, hence the relocations to Europe. Possibly, the relocations are also partly due to the euro debate; I do not know, but I think that they could be. Leading Japanese industrialists have recently made statements that hint that something should be done, and that an indication, one way or the other, should be given about the euro.

91WH
I hope that the Government will create the correct economic environment to secure those jobs. As I have said, that environment will be influenced by the strength of the pound. It is vital that those jobs—which are highly skilled and essential to local communities—are retained, and that we are able to sustain the high level of investment not only in Wales, but in the other constituent parts of the UK.
In September 2000, the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales led a trade delegation to Japan. This is what he had to say:
"The warmth of welcome that we received everywhere emphasised the regard Japanese industry has for Wales and the remarkably high profile of Wales relative to our size. They also recognise the top quality goods and services produced in Wales and this is confirmed by the significant number of orders won in the Japanese markets."
That is excellent news, and it continues to happen. Since then, I understand that there has been a further delegation, and that the Minister has visited Japan. I hope that that relationship between Wales, the UK and Japan will go from strength to strength.
Because of the falling demand for electronic goods, Japanese technical expertise focuses increasingly on systems, services and software. We need to ensure that the partnerships between Wales and Japan continue into that new era. Wales has an excellent record in engineering expertise. For example, the world's first fibre-optic cable was developed and manufactured in St. Asaph in north Wales, and I hope that Japanese companies will make increasingly large investments in that sector in Wales—and throughout the UK. I strongly believe that if that happens, those investments will prove to be as successful for Wales and Japan as Japanese investment in the traditional manufacturing sector in its heyday.
The Minister rightly referred to the need to encourage more knowledge-based industries. That is a crucial sector, in which Wales needs to make headway. A report by the Cardiff-based economics consultancy Robert Huggins Associates describes how the percentage of knowledge-based business in Wales increased by only 0.4 per cent. between 1983 and 2001, despite the expertise that Wales has in that sector. Therefore, Wales has a lot of ground to make up.
Trade and investment are not the only links between Japan and Wales; tourism is also important. In 2000, there were 13,000 trips by people from Japan to Wales, and their estimated spend was £4 million. That is a small but significant part of the overseas visitor market, and I hope that it will rapidly grow, not just because such trips bring economic gain to Wales, but also because they give Japanese people the opportunity to visit Wales and its people.
Last year was excellent for Welsh-Japanese investment because, as part of the Japan 2000 festival, several events were held in Wales. For example, the Fujisawa male voice choir joined Côr Bro Ogwr at Sony hall, Pencoed, when the choirs sang in each other's languages. Other highlights have been a matsuri at the museum of Welsh life at St. Fagans in Cardiff, and the creation of a traditional Japanese garden at the national Welsh botanic garden. Many Welsh arts organisations that have never been to the far east are now planning to stage work there, while their Japanese counterparts are planning return visits to Wales. That can only be good for the future.
92WH
My children told me to say that some Welsh groups, such as Gorkys Zygotic Mynci, Super Furry Animals and Big Leaves—all of which record in the Welsh language as well as in English—are big in Japan. That is what my kids have told me, anyway—although I am not in a position to deny or confirm that.
Not a lot of people know that there are at least two universities in Japan that offer courses in the Welsh language. Both courses are hugely over-subscribed. I happen to be—for my sins—a member of the White Robes of the Gorsedd of Bards in Wales. I am not bragging when I say that that honour is not readily bestowed. I was privileged at Llanelli national eisteddfod to see the induction of a Japanese professor of Welsh into the White Robes. His Welsh speaking was beyond perfection. I hope that we can build on that excellent cultural exchange between our two countries for the good of our economies, our future happiness and growth, and the creation of mutual respect.
I am upbeat about relations between our countries. There has been a slight downturn in the Japanese economy, but it will come back. It is a strong country and will come back stronger than ever, and I hope that when that happens, we in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom can share in the growth.
4 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: I am proud to speak as joint secretary of the all-party British Japanese group which, I am happy to say, is the second largest in Parliament—an indication of the friendship and good feeling between our colleagues here and in Japan.
I congratulate the Minister on securing this debate. I do not always agree with him on those issues about which he is wrong. I make that distinction, because many agree with him even when he is wrong, simply because he is the Minister, whereas I choose not to do so. However, he has been absolutely first class on issues related to building links between the United Kingdom and Japan. I especially wish to pay tribute to the way in which he was able to increase from five to 10 the number of hon. Members in the parliamentary delegation who recently visited Japan, which made the visit more successful than it might otherwise have been.
The Minister mentioned heated roads in Japan, to show the prosperity of that country. There are heated roads in my constituency sometimes—when one of the neighbours has set cars on fire in the street. I agree that recent reports about the economic crisis in Japan are exaggerated. I have been there on many occasions and, goodness me, if that is a crisis, I would certainly like to have some of it in my constituency.
British parliamentarians' recent visit to Japan to meet our counterparts followed a visit by Japanese delegates to the House some 18 months earlier. I hope that the Minister will encourage such visits, because the relationships and dialogue built up during the process of parliamentary debate and discussion are valuable and ought to be encouraged. I am grateful for the efforts of Keith Haines of Japan Airlines who ensured that those of my colleagues who are not as accustomed to travelling as I am were able to do so in comfort and security. We were well looked after.

93WH
It was noticeable that our discussions with Japanese colleagues were frank and open. That is usually a euphemism for an argument, but that was not the position in this case. The Japanese delegates were more open than has sometimes been the case about the difficulties that they face and the way in which they want us to co-operate. Frank and open discussion was especially helpful when we discussed our countries' relationship with the United States. There is a growing appreciation, both in the United Kingdom and in Japan, about the extent to which our positions are parallel. We both see ourselves as allies and friends of the United States, but we do not wish to be taken for granted or to provide uncritical support. We both feel that there are occasions when the Americans do not fully take into account the views of others in the world, and they sometimes need to be led to solutions that more fully reflect a world view. On several occasions, the Americans have acted in a unilateral manner and have sought to bully others in their own interests.
We need to build on our links with Japan to ensure that we act in accordance with our mutual interests as a restraining force in the world. Both countries can take credit for having restrained the Americans, especially in their response to the events of 11 September, which were so horrendous. The undoubted gut reaction in the United States was to lash out vigorously and immediately. What we achieved there as allies of the Americans was remarkable, and the Minister and the Prime Ministers of Britain and Japan are to be congratulated on their work.
We should also consider building on our relationship with Japan as regards aid to the third world. Japanese generosity in that respect is well understood and noted by those involved. However, there may be scope for greater co-operation. Operating with insufficient dialogue between us is not necessarily the most efficient way of utilising our resources. I am aware that third world countries who do not wish to reform practices that we would regard as corrupt tend to play donors off against each other. Presenting a more united front would help to promote good governance. As the Minister and others mentioned, Japan's role in East Timor is to be supported, as is its increasing role as a peacekeeper throughout the world. The British armed forces recognise and appreciate the support that Japan has been providing to British naval forces in the Indian ocean, and I hope that we can build on that support.
Co-operation in military matters should be taken further. Is the Minister prepared to reconsider enhancing procurement collaboration between the UK and Japan? We have a mutual interest in not becoming dependent on the United States for procuring high technology. Neither Britain nor Japan can go it alone in so many high-cost military spheres, but together we could achieve a greater balance between the United States and the rest of the world. I endorse the comments about continuing our support for Japanese membership of the UN Security Council, which is long overdue.
People-to-people links are also important, as are links at a high political level. It is only appropriate to draw to the attention of the Chamber the series of matches that have been held between the British and Japanese parliamentary rugby teams. We have each won a match,
94WH
which is a politically balanced outcome. We should pay particular tribute to the work of Yoshiro Mori, the former Prime Minister of Japan, who has been a moving force behind the Japanese team and one of its stars. Following on from his previous proud sporting record as a stand off, he has transformed himself into a prop forward, which has different physical characteristics, as those who are familiar with the game will know. He scored a try in a recent game in Tokyo after the British players agreed that we would co-operate by freezing when he was near the line with the ball. Unfortunately, our planning had not extended to explaining our intention to the Japanese players.
Mr. Mori did not move at the fastest of speeds, and when he received the ball, the Japanese players pushed in behind him. As there was no resistance, he was completely flattened by his own players, which demonstrated the truth of the old political adage that it is not those in front that one has to watch out for, but those behind. However, we explained our intention to them later, and Mr. Mori succeeded in scoring a try. An attractive picture of it was taken, which he then displayed in the office that he occupied as Prime Minister. It was obviously the subject of discussion on several occasions. The building of such links is very important. As far as I am aware, no other country has its players displayed on the wall of a Prime Minister's office in a picture that shows the Prime Minister himself scoring a try.
In that context, it is only fair to draw attention to the multi-talented nature of British ambassadorial staff in Japan. Both Sir David Wright and Stephen Gomersall played in games against the Japanese Parliament, which, if not the greatest of sporting achievements, was greatly to their diplomatic credit. The Japanese parliamentary team have also played here on occasions, and their friendliness and sportsmanship was apparent, not least in the recent World cup parliamentary tournament.
It may be appropriate to mention, on behalf of the Government and the Opposition, how disappointing it is that the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore)—despite coming from an area with a long tradition of playing rugby and being young enough to make a contribution—has not managed to turn out for the parliamentary team. I mention that to several of his constituents, including my father, when I meet them. It is a great cause for regret that the Liberal Democrats have yet again betrayed the traditions of Parliament by showing themselves as weak-kneed and lily-livered. Does the hon. Gentleman have an explanation?
Mr. Moore: No. The hon. Gentleman is consistent in his attempts to attract me into this great parliamentary sporting body. I have to say, however, that I do more for world peace by staying off the rugby pitch.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. As the hon. Gentleman's sporting integrity was challenged, I felt obliged to allow him to respond, but I now ask that we return to debating the matter in hand.
Mr. Davidson: How very perceptive of you, Mr. Gale; I had just reached that point.
Hon. Members who have been to Japan, either through sporting or parliamentary visits, would want to pay tribute to the support that we received from

95WH
embassy staff. It is always difficult to single out individuals, but I want to mention Mara Myers who was particularly helpful. I hope that my reference to her helpfulness will not result in her transfer to Paraguay or somewhere similar. Foreign Office staff in this country have also been helpful, but it would be invidious to mention them by name, as they are too junior to have learnt how to be unhelpful while appearing pleasant. No doubt they will correct that as they develop their careers in the service of this country in the Foreign Office.
The World cup has been mentioned. I speak as the chairman of the Scotland-Nigeria Friendship Society, which will take a keen interest in the first round. Many of my colleagues have found an affinity with Sweden; others with South Africa: hopefully someone will support England in due course. Many English football fans are barbarians and I hope that the Minister will pursue the problem vigorously and seriously. This country's reputation, built up over many years, is in real danger of being destroyed by the misdeeds of some fans and by inappropriate cultural behaviour. I was horrified when my attention was drawn by some of my colleagues to alcohol-dispensing slot machines on the streets of Tokyo. The mind boggles at what English football fans might make of that. Many bars in Japan allow customers to run up tabs and pay at the end of the evening. I anticipate difficulties, especially if fans order without ascertaining the price and seek to avoid payment.
The Japanese have made strenuous efforts to ensure that the World cup will he a success. Some of my colleagues and I had the privilege of visiting one of the stadiums where England will play and of looking at some of the facilities. Excellent arrangements have been made, but the event could too easily be spoilt by inappropriate behaviour. I hope that the Government will make enormous efforts to ensure that it goes as well as possible.
Finally, we have similarities with Japanese parliamentarians. There, too, "finally" usually means that Members are 40 per cent. through their speech, but they want to give their audience hope that they are about to draw it to a conclusion. As in this country, Japanese parliamentarians say that they will not repeat what their colleagues have said but go on to do so. I want to avoid that, and mention a couple of points, not about trade, which has been adequately covered, but about cultural and social links, and the considerable efforts that have been made to build them up.
It worries me that the culture involved is what may be described as high culture, appealing only to an elite. We have not made quite as much effort as we should have done to promote popular culture as well as high artistic endeavour. I was impressed recently in Glasgow with a group doing Japanese drumming which had been trained in one of the local secondary schools. It was entertaining and gave people an interest in and a feel for Japan; many of the group's school mates were involved in a constructive way. The Government should try to focus more of their expenditure in the area on such issues.
I hope that in time the Government will establish people-to-people links with Japan that are as strong as those that have rightly been established with our European partners. I appreciate that the costs are higher
96WH
and that the effort must therefore be greater, but earlier expenditure will bring results in the longer term, and I hope that the Government will take heed of that.
I want to pick up some of the points made about Japan's economic future and its present policies. When Labour Members and I were in Japan recently, we were a bit concerned that Japanese parliamentarians had a rose-tinted and misleading understanding of this country's economic reform, especially under Mrs. Thatcher, which they seemed to think had been relatively pain free. We explained that it had led to mass unemployment and social unrest on an almost unparalleled scale. Perhaps there is a role for the British embassy in compensating for the over-enthusiastic view of right-wing economic and monetarist reforms expressed by the consultants who are shipped out to Japan. We are in danger of giving the Japanese a distorted view of the process of Thatcherism. I am sure that the Minister, who is aware of the issue, will take it into account when further discussions take place.
I want to follow up the points made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about the euro. It has been my impression for a while that the economic difficulties that would be caused by a rush into the euro and the problems of entering the euro at an inappropriate exchange rate have not been adequately explained to the Japanese. There is undoubtedly a loss of investment from Japan and other countries to the United Kingdom. That loss affects not only the UK, but the whole of western Europe, as Japanese firms move to the low-wage economies of eastern Europe. I have, discussed the matter with a number of Japanese colleagues and companies as well as in other eastern locations. The advantages that we offer in language, transport and skills remain, irrespective of our membership of the euro.
Planning issues have been identified from other potential inward investors. I note with interest that the Government are moving to overcome some of those difficulties. In my experience, Japanese inward investors welcome above all our friendliness and responsiveness. Gratitude has been expressed for Japanese inward investment, particularly by communities in Wales. Japanese inward investors also welcome the economic, social and political stability, which goes beyond questions of foreign exchange rates. It is too trite to say that the lack of membership of the euro is the main or only factor that discourages Japanese investment. We need to take a wider and more mature view of those issues.
I endorse the points on whales and whaling made by my co-secretary of the Japanese group, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths). The issue has caused a great deal of concern to many in this country. We should continue to reflect our anxieties to the Japanese on those matters.
I have enjoyed greatly the links that I have established with Japanese parliamentary and other colleagues. They have always struck me as having an extremely good sense of humour. Their love of scotch and golf makes them similar in many ways to the Scots. We have a bond. Had we been given the choice of having the Japanese or the English as neighbours, I am not sure that we would necessarily have ended up in our current position, but we are where we are and we have to make the best of it. Antisocial neighbours are always a problem. I hope that

97WH
the Minister will take on board the points that I have made and redouble his considerable efforts to ensure that we build on our already good relationship with Japan.
4.22 pm
Mr. MacShane: This has been an agreeable debate. There have been no manifestations of inappropriate cultural or nationalistic behaviour, but simply the natural effervescence of people who believe that the English football fan in a kilt would be a peace-loving horticulturist who would lay off alcoholic drinks just as long as he wore that noble garment. I will pass that on to the other Government Departments that are specifically concerned with that issue.
Throughout the debate reference has been made to points of policy that are the responsibility of other Government Departments. At the Foreign Office we try to co-ordinate and make a common international position that is tenable and sustainable, but I hope that remarks made in this debate will be noted, whether on whaling, which is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or on tourism, which is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with its oversight of the British tourist industry.
We have had good contributions from real experts on Japan, who have been there often: the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has visited both as an hon. Member and in a private business capacity. It is probably fair to say that this is not an area where there is a great deal of bipartisanship. That is why, having greeted with some dismay the news that Baroness Thatcher will never make a speech in public again, this may be the moment to draw the veil of history over her activities as Prime Minister. It is time for all of us to start living in the 21st century.
Mr. Spring: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: The 20th century would like to speak.
Mr. Spring: May I presume that the Minister is paying tribute to the extraordinary role played by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister in encouraging so successfully huge inward investment from Japan into this country?
Mr. MacShane: This week, Lord Callaghan celebrated his 90th birthday. There was no doughtier a champion of Japanese inward investment, particularly into the Principality. A great strength of Welsh politics is that it has not sought to make party political points; all sides have worked for economic investment into Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading. East (Jane Griffiths) invited us all to learn Japanese. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is committed to all his Ministers speaking at least one civilised language. I should be happy to undertake Japanese lessons. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about learning Japanese; I have many friends who have learnt the language and they confirm that although it seems mysterious at first,
98WH
it has the same vowel sounds as Italian and a reasonably logical structure. The fact that it is an ideographic language may make it difficult for us to read, but we should not be put off. The company Linguaphone generously distributed its cassettes to hon. Members last year and if any hon. Member would like to start learning Japanese, I will do what I can to help.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) made an important point about Britain's high niche exports. I have been encouraging all our embassies aggressively to promote Scottish whisky, in its many splendid varieties, as an after-dinner drink. The UK produces fabulous textiles and woollens, and I would be happy to help the industry, through Trade Partners UK or in any other way, to promote its products.
I am reluctant to enter the debate on the euro because that could prolong my speech. Japanese firms come to the UK for many reasons. We are probably the most international and open economy in Europe, and our regional and municipal authorities go out of their way to make our friends from Japan welcome. All Prime Ministers, whatever their political views, have a strong commitment to such inward investment. However, the fact that we are part of a single market of 350 million people—a figure that will increase to 500 million in the next couple of years—is also important; if one produces in this country, one can export anywhere, duty-free and tariff-free, in the world's biggest market.
The issue of the single currency must be considered. I do not know how easy it would be to invest and sell in the United States if California, Wisconsin and Florida, for example, each had to deal with its own, separate currency. I must put on the record comments—not specific warnings—that make it clear that if at any stage there were a perception that Britain were turning its back definitively on the single currency and thus on Europe, the future of Japanese investment would need considerable rethinking. I put it no more strongly than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) has not been to Japan. "Go east, young man," is all I can say to him. It is a wonderful and welcoming country of extraordinary stillness and beauty. It has lively politics, a great ecological movement and one of the most expressive youth cultures in the world. I have enjoyed every moment that I have spent in Japan. Apparently, the best way of getting there is by becoming a great parliamentary rugby player: I therefore invite my hon. Friend to polish his jockstrap and start training, in the hope of an invitation to be scrum half—since it seems that no hon. Member from Wales can play any better than most of its club sides.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about Japanese whaling. One must be honest: that is a pebble in the shoe of the relationship between our two countries, as it is with many others. The problem is not unique to the UK and Japan; many countries are concerned about Japanese whaling, but they are equally concerned about whaling by Norway. That country is a close ally, friend and partner of Great Britain, although we believe that there is no justification for whaling, other than perhaps for some subsistence whaling by indigenous people.

99WH
We have expressed concern: we have told Japan that extending the JARPN II research programme is unnecessary and provocative. We strongly oppose any effort to lift or weaken the moratorium on commercial whaling, which was put in place by the International Whaling Commission. We will make that clear at the IWC meeting in May, but I stress that Japan is not being singled out. The British Government's position is clear.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) referred, in the serious part of his speech, to the need for greater co-operation on overseas development issues. The new permanent under-secretary at the Department for International Development, Dr. Chakrabarti, recently visited Japan, where he signed what I think was called a "sister alliance" between the relevant two Departments, along exactly the lines that my hon. Friend suggested.
I agree that we need to step up foreign policy discussions, but I do not think that there will be many takers in Japan for anything other than a welcome for the United States security contribution in the region, just as we welcome its security contribution in Europe. I particularly welcome the contribution that the US makes in the Balkans, where I have some ministerial responsibility.
The swift action by Prime Minister Koizumi after 11 September showed how clearly the Japanese understood the need to tackle terrorist action. Their willingness to change the law and provide refuelling support for the US and the Royal Navy on the high seas showed that Japan was prepared to match a political
100WH
commitment not only with words, but with concrete military action. The Government very much welcome that.
I could not agree more with the points made about popular culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East referred to manga cartoons, and all our children are imbued with Japanese culture every morning. If we do not get up early enough to switch the blasted television off, there they are, watching the best cartoon films for children in the world. The extraordinary strength of Japanese sport and culture, and the way in which Japanese artists are able to absorb and transform the best of western European art and culture, are a marvel to us all.
I hope that parliamentary links can be strengthened, and I am pleased that we could help to increase the delegation's size. I hope that those hon. Members who have participated in the debate will be able to visit Japan more often. There are problems with finance, but I hope that Parliament may consider changing the rules to allow hon. Members to make more visits on the parliamentary vote. That is certainly my wish.
So long as I am the Minister responsible, I will continue to support all efforts by any hon. Member to get to know that great country and to invite friends from the Japanese Diet to visit us, and to ensure that, in the 21st century, Japan and the UK march as friends, allies and partners, grow together and work jointly to solve many of the problems in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Five o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to dispose of L5A7 plastic baton rounds; and how many have been retained for future use. [17763]

  Jane Kennedy
  All stocks of L5A7 baton rounds held by the police in Northern Ireland have been disposed of to the Ministry of Defence and none have been retained for future use.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those public bodies that are not designated for the purposes of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [38295]

  Mr. Browne
  Under section 75(3)(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the authority to designate "any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967…"

  The most recent list of bodies under Schedule 2 to the 1967 Act totals 237. Of these, 26 have been designated and a further 39 remain under consideration. These are:

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Boundary Commission

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Commonwealth Institute

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom

  Community Development Foundation

  Consumer Council for Postal Services

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research

  Councils Economic and Social Research Council

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  Food Standards Agency

  494W

  Gas and Electricity Markets Authority

  General Social Care Council

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Information Commissioner

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Medical Research Council

  Ministry of Defence

  National Biological Standards Board (UK)

  National Care Standards Commission

  National Radiological Protection Board

  National Savings (part of the Treasury)

  National Environment Research Council

  Office of the Director General of Fair Trading

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  Pensions Compensation Board

  Post Office Users' Council for Northern Ireland

  Postal Services Commission

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  UK Passport Agency (part of the Home Office)

  United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board

  War Pensions Agency (part of the Department for Work and Pensions)

  War Pensions Committees.

  Of the remainder, 130 have no remit in Northern Ireland. It is not appropriate to designate a further 42 as they have no scope to affect equality in Northern Ireland (for example because their role is purely advisory). These are listed below:

  Bodies with no remit in Northern Ireland

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Arts Council of England

  Benefits Agency

  Britain-Russia Centre and the British East-West Centre

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  British Museum British Potato Council

  British Tourist Authority

  Cabinet Office

  Central Office of Information

  Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employers' Associations

  Charity Commission

  Child Support Agency

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS)

  Civil Justice Council

  Coal Authority

  Commission for Health Improvement

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Commission for the New Towns (English Partnerships)

  Committee of Investigation for Great Britain

  Competition Commission

  Construction Industry Training Board

  495W

  Consumers' Committee for Great Britain under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  Countryside Agency

  Court Service

  Crafts Council

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Crown Estate Office

  Department for Education and Skills

  Department for International Development

  Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Department of Health

  Development Corporations for new towns

  Disability Rights Commission

  Docklands Light Railway

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency

  Education Transfer Council

  Employment Service

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  English Heritage (Historical Buildings and Monuments Commission for England)

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  English Nature

  English Partnerships (Urban Regeneration Agency and Commission for the New Towns)

  English Sports Council

  English Tourist Board

  Environment Agency

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Fleet Air Arm Museum

  Football Licensing Authority

  Forestry Commission

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Gas and Electricity Consumer Council

  Geffrye Museum

  Health and Safety Commission

  Health and Safety Executive

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Highways Agency

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Prison Service

  Horniman Museum and Gardens

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Horticultural Development Council

  Housing Corporation

  Imperial War Museum

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Land Registry

  Legal Services Commission

  Local Government Commission for England

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Meat and Livestock Commission Milk Development Council

  Museum of London

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  496W

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  National Army Museum

  National Consumer Council

  National Employers' Liaison Committee

  National Film and Television School

  National Forest Company

  National Gallery

  National Maritime Museum

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  National Portrait Gallery

  Natural History Museum

  Office for National Statistics

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England (OFSTED)

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland

  Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

  Office of the Director General of Water Services (OFWAT)

  Oil and Pipelines Agency

  Ordnance Survey

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Parole Board

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Public Record Office

  Rail Passengers' Committees

  Rail Passengers Council

  Regional Development Agencies (other than the London Development Agency)

  Remploy Ltd

  Residuary Bodies

  Royal Air Force Museum

  Royal Armouries Museum

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (now merged with English Heritage)

  Royal Marines Museum

  Royal Naval Museum

  Royal Navy Submarine Museum

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  Strategic Rail Authority

  Tate Gallery

  Teacher Training Agency

  The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses

  The Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond

  UK Sports Council

  Urban Development Corporations established for urban development areas wholly in England

  Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships)

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Wallace Collection

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

  Bodies with no scope to affect equality

  Advisory Board on Family Law

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  Advisory Council on Public Records

  497W

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board

  British Educational Communications and Technology Agency

  British Film Institute

  British Hallmarking Council

  Building Societies Commission

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Consumer Panel

  Design Council

  Electoral Commission

  Food Advisory Committee

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Immigration Services Commissioner

  Investors in People UK

  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  Lord President of the Council's Office

  Medical Practices Committee

  Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee

  Millennium Commission

  National Debt Office

  National Lottery Commission

  New Millennium Experience Company Ltd

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA)

  Registry of Friendly Societies/Friendly Societies Commission

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Royal Mint

  Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  Standing Dental Advisory Committee

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee

  Standing Nurse and Midwifery Advisory Committee

  Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  The Great Britain-China Centre Treasure Valuation Committee

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Women's National Commission.

  Under section 75(3)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Secretary of State can designate "any other person". This is not a finite list and it is not, therefore, possible to list those bodies not designated under 75(3)(d).

  Litigation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have defended in (i) industrial tribunals and (ii) the courts in each year since 1997; how many were concluded in their favour; and what the total cost to his Department of litigation was in each year. [41109]

  Dr John Reid
  Northern Ireland Office did not defend any industrial tribunal cases in the years concerned.
  498W
  The information in respect of court cases is not held in the format requested. However, between 1997 and 2002, 12 cases were defended, four of which were concluded in the Department's favour.

  The return for Agencies is as follows:

  year

  Cases Defended

  Concluded in favour of Agency

  Industrial Tribunals

  1997

  1

  1

  1998

  3

  3

  1999

  1

  1

  2000

  -

  -

  2001

  1

  1

  2002

  -

  -

  Courts

  1997

  13

  9

  1998

  22

  20

  1999

  19

  15

  2000

  30

  19

  2001

  20

  10

  2002

  -

  -

  Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 485W, in what manner the PSNI activity data collection will break down activities of the police; what the objectives and terms of reference for this exercise are; and in what way the results of such analysis will be made public. [29809]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI activity analysis collection will break down activities in accordance with the ACPO National Police Activity Based Costing Model. This model is focused on the District/Basic Command Unit and encompasses the total cost of policing a given geographical area. It includes all of those policing services which are delivered by DCU staff, and includes contributions from Headquarters operational or organisational support units. The six core areas of policing activity to be analysed are crime, road traffic, public order, public reassurance, call management and prisoner handling. Each of these core areas are broken down into Incidents (and by association incident related activities) and Non-incident Related Activities. For example, Crime is broken down into Violence (sexual offences, robbery, violence against the person), Burglary (dwelling, other), Theft of or from a Motor Vehicle, Theft other (shoplifting), Criminal Damage, Drugs (Class A), Other Crime and Crime Desk/Telephone Investigation Bureau.

  The objectives of the Activity Analysis/Activity Based Costing Project are as follows:
  To provide complete, accurate and timely activity information through user friendly, on-line access to relevant systems;
  To make transparent the full cost of providing policing services, including by way of activity based costing;
  To assist in the delegation of operational and financial decision-making to the lowest level consistent with strategic direction and control;
  To link Activity management with Corporate Planning, Performance, Best Value and Inspection and Review.
  499W
  The main outputs from the Project will be as follows:
  Standard classification of policing activities linked to organisational objectives;
  Develop and conduct activity analysis programmes;
  Carry out research into other GB Forces' activity based costing and activity sampling systems and make appropriate recommendations;
  Identification of overheads;
  Development of overhead apportionment rules; Develop interfaces with other PSNI systems as required;
  Activity based costing extracted from existing computer systems;
  Activity sampling;
  Internal and external benchmarking;
  Trading accounts for Administration Departments;
  Costed Service Level agreements for Administration Departments.

  The analysis will be made public to enable informed decisions to be made about the allocation of scarce resources. Activity analysis will also help inform future funding debates and make explicit how resources are allocated across core police functions.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will break down the number of complaints received by the Police Ombudsman by(a) perceived community origin, (b) gender and (c) other recorded categories of complainant. [43890]

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Reg

  Ftr

  Reg

  Ftr

  Reg

  Ftr

  Reg

  Ftr

  Reg

  Ftr

  Reg

  Ftr

  A

  557

  256

  536

  237

  536

  227

  522

  235

  514

  219

  480

  198

  B

  447

  374

  455

  344

  445

  378

  427

  350

  413

  342

  412

  327

  D

  721

  356

  713

  327

  727

  326

  720

  317

  712

  306

  721

  286

  E

  404

  374

  401

  364

  414

  372

  412

  355

  406

  335

  377

  310

  G

  290

  165

  295

  156

  300

  154

  307

  153

  313

  149

  296

  139

  H

  368

  230

  373

  203

  352

  210

  343

  205

  324

  188

  322

  172

  J

  266

  146

  267

  131

  277

  133

  284

  129

  299

  135

  285

  123

  K

  241

  141

  263

  139

  239

  140

  227

  140

  228

  125

  231

  114

  L

  434

  238

  428

  211

  413

  217

  406

  204

  412

  192

  396

  174

  N

  369

  215

  387

  197

  380

  203

  358

  192

  351

  176

  352

  169

  O

  295

  167

  307

  158

  292

  163

  301

  163

  291

  155

  287

  137

  P

  266

  109

  270

  106

  278

  109

  291

  101

  290

  96

  275

  85

  Total

  465

  277

  469

  257

  465

  263

  459

  254

  455

  241

  443

  223

  8

  1

  5

  3

  3

  2

  8

  4

  3

  8

  4

  4

  Jane Kennedy
  The numbers of regular and full-time reserve members of the Police Service in Northern Ireland in 2002, following the replacement of Divisions with District Commond Units (DCUs), are as follows:

  2002 (as at 15 March 2002)

  Ftr

  Reg

  N BMEN DCU

  108

  23

  N BMON DCU

  60

  14

  N COLE DCU

  109

  43

  N FERM DCU

  188

  82

  N FOYL DCU

  223

  83

  N LARN DCU

  68

  22

  N LIMA DCU

  63

  28

  N MFEL DCU

  88

  54

  500W
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many recipients there are of pensions paid(a) for their service and (b) by virtue of their husband's service in the Royal Irish constabulary including Auxiliaries. [44658]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are(a) no recipients of pensions paid to former officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary including Auxiliaries and (b) four recipients of pensions paid to widows by virtue of their husband's service.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prosecutions are under way against members of the Police Service in respect of activity carried out by them in the course of their duties in the period up to May 1998. [43434]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised that there is no record of any prosecutions underway against members of the Police Service in respect of activity carried out by them in the course of their duties from 1996 to May 1998. Records prior to 1996 are held in a form which is not readily retrieved.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) reserve members of the Police Service there were in each police division in Northern Ireland in each year since 1996. [43433]

  Jane Kennedy
  The numbers of regular and full-time reserve members of the Police Service in each police division in Northern Ireland in each year from 1996 to 2001, are as follows:

  2002 (as at 15 March 2002)

  Ftr

  Reg

  N MOYL DCU

  24

  11

  N OMAG DCU

  118

  41

  N STRB DCU

  100

  56

  S ARDS DCU

  121

  51

  S ARMA DCU

  124

  62

  S BANB DCU

  80

  29

  S COOK DCU

  84

  37

  S CRAI DCU

  165

  71

  S DAST DCU

  166

  72

  S DOWN DCU

  153

  85

  S NEWM DCU

  174

  87

  U ANTR DCU

  99

  54

  U BELE DCU

  196

  126

  501W

  2002 (as at 15 March 2002)

  Ftr

  Reg

  U BELN DCU

  334

  109

  U BELS DCU

  276

  142

  U BELW DCU

  254

  205

  U CFER DCU

  70

  52

  U CREA DCU

  104

  72

  U LISB DCU

  197

  112

  U NABB DCU

  129

  26

  U NDOW DCU

  139

  88

  Total

  4,014

  1,925

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people identified as(a) Protestant and (b) Rzoman Catholic who have applied to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (i) were found to be suitably qualified and (ii) were not offered a position within the Police Service. [45756]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the first Police Service of Northern Ireland recruitment competition, 419 candidates identified as non-Catholic and 173 candidates identified as Catholic were found to he suitably qualified.

  To date 245 candidates from the non-Catholic group have been informed that the Chief Constable cannot offer them an appointment, in accordance with Section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. No candidate in the Catholic group has to date been refused an appointment.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure has been made on the refurbishment of the police Land Rover fleet in Northern Ireland in each year since 1995; what tendering processes were held for the award of the contracts; and what the benefit to the public purse will be of using low cost substitute Land Rover components in the refurbishment work. [46032]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that expenditure made on the refurbishment of the Police Landrover fleet since 1995 is as follows:

  Business Year

  Expenditure & Number

  Cost (New)

  Saving

  1995–96–97–98

  0

  0

  0

  1998–99

  £1250k (50 x vehicles)

  £2,250k

  £1,000k

  1,999–00

  £1,300k (50 x vehicles)

  £2,350k

  £1,050k

  2,000–01

  £980k (35 x vehicles)

  £1,645k

  £665k

  502W

  Business Year

  Expenditure & Number

  Cost (New)

  Saving

  2001–021

  £510k (15 x vehicles)

  £900k

  £390k

  Totals

  £4,040k (150 x vehicles)

  £7145k

  £3105k

  1 Phase 3 TD5 Land Rover approved power-train conversion.

  The refurbishment engineering programme was originally tendered through the Government Puchasing Agency and ratified via the Support Services Committee of the Police Authority.

  Later programmes have been tendered through the Government Purchasing Unit and ratified via Police Transport Policy Committee.

  The refurbishment programme includes the utilisation of discounted and approved Land Rover parts, which include a warranty period of 12 months. It is not possible to quantify separately the savings arising from the use of these component parts.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he expects the 2002 target for ethnic minority representation in the Home Civil Service Senior Civil Service Group will be met on time. [45988]

  Dr. John Reid
  In its 2001 Departmental Report, the Northern Ireland Office declared its continued commitment to progressing Home Civil Service (HCS) targets for increased ethnic minority representation in the Senior Civil Service. The aim is to have 5 per cent. ethnic minority representation by the end of 2002.

  Currently, 4.3 per cent. of the Home Civil Service Senior Civil Service Group are from an ethnic minority background.

  Crime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the strategy and quantified targets for tackling crime were published by March 2001. [45999]

  Jane Kennedy
  Quantified targets for tackling crime were set out in the Annual Policing Plan 2001–02 published by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland in April 2001. The RUC Crime Strategy published in April 2000 remained valid for the year commencing April 2001.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press officers there were in his Department on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available date. [46889]

  Dr. John Reid
  Information is not held in the format requested.

  Statistics relating to the number of Information Officers in the Northern Ireland Office is as follows:

  (a) at 1 April 1997 there were 11 Information Officers; and

  (b) at 27 March 2002 there were 13 Information Officers.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of staff who have been seconded to his Department from the private sector since May 1997, indicating(a) the names of the organisation from which each has come, (b) their responsibilities and Civil Service grades within his Department, (c) the organisation responsible for paying their salary and (d) the start and end dates of their secondment. [35831]

  Dr. John Reid
  No staff have been seconded to this Department from the private sector since May 1997.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27299]

  Dr. John Reid
  The cost of fraud to the Northern Ireland Office budget, since 1 May 1997, is £51,728.65, however the Department has recovered £11,187.09 of this amount.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [42997]

  Dr. Whitehead

  (a)

  Only those services in part (b) have been market tested in the last five years

  (b)

  Internal Press Cuttings Distributions

  (i)23.5k

  (ii) 100 per cent.

  DTLR Mailing Database

  (i)10.0k

  (ii) 75 per cent.

  Design Drawing and Print Services

  (i)443.8k

  (ii) 47 per cent.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many members of staff at his Department are justices of the peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44558]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The DTLR does not keep a centralised record of those members of staff who are justices of the peace.

  My department supports members of staff who wish to become justices of the peace and provides special leave with pay in order to assist staff in their role.

  Equal Opportunities
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and 504W
  age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997 to the Latest date for which information is available. [46494]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer Tuesday 26 March 2002]: In DTLR, two statistical series incorporating the specified variables have been commissioned in the time period in question. These are two household surveys, the survey of English Housing and the National Travel Survey. All four variables have been collected on the Survey of English Housing since before 1997 and ethnicity was included in the National Travel Survey in 2001.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47156]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office on 10 April 2002 [Ref 47193].

  Railtrack
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions pursuant to his statement of 25 March,Official Report, column 586, if he will give the reasons underlying his statement that a company limited by guarantee would be a good successor body to Railtrack plc in administration; [48166]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195W–197W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the Railtrack Plc administrator to make available a prospectus to prospective bidders. [47989]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the likely outcome of an interim review for Railtrack. [47387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 370W.

  Sony Display Screens (Swanwick)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the Health and Safety report of 15 March into the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992 of the equipment at NERC Swanwick, what he is doing to ensure that all the defects mentioned in the report are rectified and in what time scale; for what reason the Health and Safety Executive relied on information
  505W
  supplied by NATS in relation to the size of the characters on the Sony display screens; and if they will take their own measurements. [47654]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has asked NATS to set out in writing the action it proposes to take on each of the items raised in the report together with a proposed timetable. HSE will consider what if any further action needs to be taken once it has received those proposals and will continue to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, how many safety reports have been made by planning and tactical air controllers as a result of confusion of reading alpha numeric data on the Sony screen at NERC Swanwick. [47653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for NATS.

  Public Service Obligations (Airports)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department has received concerning the imposition of public service obligations on regional airports with London; and what its response to these representations has been. [47955]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: The Scottish Executive has requested that a Public Service Obligation should be imposed on Inverness-Gatwick air services. The government expects to announce its decision shortly.

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to raise private sector investment in the railways through special purpose vehicles. [47396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Special purpose vehicles are expected to be an option for securing private sector investment in infrastructure projects. But private sector investment in the railways may also be secured by other means, and special purpose vehicles will not be suitable for all infrastructure projects.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed transfer of special purpose vehicles to Railtrack's successor after construction. [47394]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 728W.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the state aid rules as they apply to Network Rail; [48188]

  (2) if state aid rules will apply to the standby loans to Network Rail. [48189]
  506W
  Mr. Jamieson
  If Network Rail's offer for Railtrack plc's shares is successful any financial support provided to the company by Government would be notified to the European Commission as a potential state aid.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Network Rail will be able to replace commercial debt with standby loans from the SRA at a later date. [48187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department is statutorily obliged to meet additional costs resulting from an interim review of Railtrack's finances. [47398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 783W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who holds responsibility for deciding whether Network Rail takes over the network. [48184]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is for Railtrack Group to consider, with its shareholders, the proposal from Network Rail for the purchase of its shares in Railtrack plc. If the proposal is accepted, the Secretary of State would in due course need to consider the exercise of his powers under the change of control provisions in the existing network licence held by Railtrack plc. In addition, the Court would need to order, on an application by my right hon. Friend, that the Railways Administration Order should be discharged. It is for the Administrators to decide how to continue with their process in the light of their responsibilities and the proposal that has been made.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the funding of Network Rail or another successor to Railtrack for Control Period 3. [48183]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 956W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the directors and putative directors of Network Rail and their previous experience(a) in the railway industry and (b) in business. [47121]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The details of its proposals are a matter for Network Rail.

  Channel Tunnel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last spoke to his French counterpart about rail freight carriage through the Channel Tunnel. [47512]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers maintain regular contacts with their Friends counterparts on this issue.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with(a) the EU Transport Commissioner and (b) the French Transport Minister on the indefinite suspension of the Channel Tunnel rail

  507W
  freight facilities; what assessment he has made of the impact on his rail freight target of the indefinite suspension of the Channel Tunnel rail freight facilities; and if he will make a statement. [47915]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department, and others, are in regular contact with both the European Commission and the French Government on this matter.

  We will be producing a review of the 10 Year Plan in July this year.

  South West Trains
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the upgrades to the South West Trains routes will be transferred from a special purpose vehicle into operation when they are completed in 2004. [47397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 4 February,Official Report, columns 728W and 729W, as well as my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 18 March, Official Report, column 21W.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason the public sector comparator with the London Underground PPP includes the management costs associated with the administration of the private sector contracts. [47511]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Public Sector Comparator does not include any London Underground management costs associated with managing the private sector PPP contracts. It is London Underground's view that any public sector alternative would incur similar contract management costs in aggregate. As a result, such costs have been excluded from the value for money analysis, because they would not differentiate between the options.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the draft comfort letters that he is intending to issue in respect of the London Underground PPP. [48293]

  Mr. Byers
  I have decided to extend the consultation period for the comfort letters laid before this House on 20 March. This will provide the customary notification period.

  Brownfield Developments
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans there are to(a) cut taxes on brownfield developments and (b) introduce incentives to encourage builders away from green fields. [48589]

  Ms Keeble
  Budget 2001 introduced a tax relief for cleaning up contaminated land, 100 per cent. capital allowances for developing flats over shops and a number of VAT reliefs to encourage conversions and the renovation of empty property. From 30 November 2001, land and property transactions worth up to £150,000 in the UK's most deprived communities have 508W
  also been exempt from stamp duty. The aim of this fiscal package is to encourage and create incentives for the re-development of brownfield land and re-use of empty property, helping to protect greenfield sites.

  Any further changes to taxation policy are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  Housing (VAT)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans there are to(a) abolish VAT on the renovation and conversion of existing houses and (b) to introduce VAT on building new houses. [48590]

  Ms Keeble
  Budget 2001 reduced the rate of VAT to 5 per cent. on the renovation of dwellings empty for three years or longer and on residential conversions that result in a change in the number of dwellings. Budget 2001 also introduced an adjustment to the zero rate of VAT to provide relief for the sale of renovated houses that have been empty for 10 years or more.

  Any further changes to VAT policy are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what conclusion he has drawn from the research by TRL on the effect of mobile phones on driver concentration; and if he will make a statement. [48194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]. The report confirms advice given in the Highway Code that drivers should never use hand-held phones while driving and that using a hand-free phone is also likely to distract a driver's attention from the road.

  Airport Security
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what extra security measures his Department has taken at(a) London City Airport and (b) Gatwick Airport since 11 September 2001. [47375]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: Following the attacks on 11 September, heightened aviation security measures were introduced at all UK airports, including London City and Gatwick, and for all airlines operating from the UK. Security remains at an enhanced level, with the measures applying equally at all UK airports. We do not discuss the details of our aviation security requirements.

  Inquiry Costs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost was of the(a) inquiry into the Clapham Rail Crash on 12 December 1998, (b) Sheen Inquiry into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster on 6 March 1997, (c) Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry after the collision of 5 October 1999, (d) Marchioness Inquiry, (e) Piper Alpha Inquiry and (f) Southall Rail crash Inquiry. [48031]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of the public inquiries are as follows:
  509W

  (a) Clapham Inquiry——figures could only be retrieved at disproportionate cost

  (b) Herald of Free Enterprise Inquiry——figures could only be retrieved at disproportionate cost

  (c) Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry——£7.0 million

  (d) Marchioness Inquiry——£5.1 million

  (e) Piper Alpha Inquiry——a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  (f) Southall Rail Inquiry——£2.25 million.

  Malicious Fires
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many malicious fires and incidents of abandoned vehicles there were in(a) London Borough of Havering and (b) Romford in (i) 1997, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001; and what steps he is taking to effectively tackle these problems. [47314]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Data on malicious fires are only available at Fire Brigade level. In 1997 the London Fire Brigade reported 6,388 malicious fires, of which 2,971 (47 per cent.) occurred in road vehicles. Provisional figures for 2000, the most recent year for which data are available, show there were 9,419 malicious fires of which 6,098 (65 per cent.) occurred in road vehicles.

  Information obtained form the London Borough of Havering shows that in 2000 the Borough reported 2,995 abandoned vehicles; the number for 2001 was 4,505. No information is available for 1997.

  No information on abandoned vehicles is available for Romford.

  The problem of abandoned cars is one part of a more general problem——the existence of a hard core of more than a million cars in the United Kingdom that are unlicensed and for which it is difficult to trace an owner. Not only are these vehicles at the heart of the problem of abandoned vehicles: they are untaxed, uninsured, have no MOT certificate, and in many cases it is not possible to trace their current owners when they are involved in accidents, parking and motoring offences and wider crime.

  Regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reduce the notice periods after which local authorities can remove abandoned cars to 24 hours in many cases came into effect on 9 April. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a package of related measures on 10 April which will enable local authorities, the police and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to tackle the problem of abandoned cars more effectively.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48399]
  510W
  Mr. Raynsford
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in future Departmental Annual Reports.

  School Transport (Safety)
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to help local partnerships finance safe transport to school. [44492]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government is providing increased levels of funding through local transport plans to enable authorities, in partnership with transport operators, schools and local people to improve children's safety on the journey to and from school.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the per capita aggregate external funding is for the Sedgefield District and Durham county councils for the most recent year for which information is available. [48384]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Sedgefield Borough Council and Durham County Council have reported the following figures.

  Aggregate External Finance (AEF per capita for Sedgefield Borough Council and Durham County Council (2000–01 Outturn)

  Figures in £000s unless stated

  Durham County Council

  Sedgefield Borough Council

  Revenue Support Grant

  163,866

  3,447

  Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates

  126,543

  3,400

  Ring-fenced Grants inside AEF

  30,375

  303

  Total AEF

  320,784

  7,150

  Population figures (thousands)

  506

  89

  AEF per capita (£'s)

  634

  80

  Source:

  Revenue Summary return.

  Notes:

  AEF is central government support towards total standard spending. It comprises of Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Non-domestic rates, and certain Ring-fenced grants.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the per capita aggregate borrowing permission is to Sedgefield district and Durham county councils in the most recent year for which information is available. [48386]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In 2000–01, per capita aggregate borrowing permission to Sedgefield District Council and Durham County Council respectively was £32.27 and £35.40.

  Source: Capital Outturn Return (COR4) for 2000–01. Mid-year population estimate for 2000 (ONS).

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Goverenment and the Regions what per capita aggregate capital grant is paid to the
  511W
  Sedgefield district and Durham county councils in the most recent year for which information is available. [48385]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In 2000–01 the per capita aggregate capital grant from central Government sources, paid to Sedgefield District Council and Durham County Council respectively was £5.34 and £16.15.

  Source: Capital Outturn Return (COR4) for 2000–01. Mid-year population estimate for 2000 (ONS).

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what Band D council tax is payable by householders in Sedgefield district to their district and county councils. [48387]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The average total Band D council tax payable in the area of Sedgefield Borough Council is £1,194. This is made up of:

  £145 for parish and town councils:

  £157 for Sedgefield Borough Council;

  £828 for Durham County Council; and

  £64 for Durham Police Authority.

  The figure of £1,194 per Band D property in Sedgefield is equivalent to £784 per dwelling. The difference is due largely to the fact that almost 90 per cent. of dwellings in the area that are liable to pay council tax are in Bands A, B or C.

  Local and Unitary Development Plans
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to publish a report on progress on adoption of area wide local plans and unitary development plans. [48707]

  Ms Keeble
  A report on the progress made by local authorities in England in preparing and reviewing their Local Plans and Unitary development plans will be published in May.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to tackle low housing demand and abandonment. [48708]

  Mr. Byers
  Nine areas, where streets of boarded up and abandoned homes have led to a spiral of decline and misery for thousands of local residents, will get the opportunity to work with Government to establish pathfinder projects. Their aim will be to provide lasting solutions for communities blighted by derelict homes through investment and innovation. The lessons learnt can then be applied to other areas.

  Pathfinders will be formed in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, East Lancashire, Oldham and Rochdale, South Yorkshire, Humberside (Hull), Tyneside, North Staffordshire (Stoke), and Birmingham and Sandwell. The size of the pathfinders will be significant ranging from 40,000 to 120,000 properties.

  I am clear that the pathfinder projects will have to make some radical decisions in order to regenerate these areas. It is not sufficient to tackle the housing problem alone. Local authorities must work closely together with
  512W
  their partners——the police, the health authority, the Regional Development Agency, Housing Corporation and private sector——to rejuvenate our towns and cities.

  Low demand and abandoned housing is a major problem. But it also provides a unique opportunity to restructure and rebuild our cities for the twenty first century. We must now seize that opportunity. The Government will work with local people to deliver the change necessary and bring hope to those communities.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority; and if he will make a statement. [49013]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today published directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are available on my department's website at: www.railways.dtlr.gov.uk.

  The directions and guidance set the SRA two main objectives: to work with the rail industry to achieve substantial lasting improvements in performance; and to work within its statutory framework to deliver the key targets for rail in our Ten Year Plan. The SRA also has other objectives, especially in relation to: leadership for the rail industry; driving up standards of punctuality, safety and comfort across all franchised services; and a much clearer and focussed approach to franchising.

  A response to the consultation on the draft directions and guidance has been published today and is available on my department's website.

  Cullen Report
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what date he estimates the recommendations of Lord Cullen's report will be fully implemented. [47517]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Cullen recommended that all his recommendations be fully implemented within three years of the publication of his final report, ie by September 2004.

  The Health and Safety Commission will publish regular reviews of progress, including implementation dates.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff have been employed by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42453]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 19 March(Official Report, column 295W).

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases have been brought
  513W
  against her Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost to public funds to date in (a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45093]

  Dr. Howells
  Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge. The department is involved in comparatively little litigation. However, it has been involved to date in three cases where proceedings have been brought which raise issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is often difficult to attribute costs specifically to the human rights aspects of cases, so it is not possible to give an aggregate figure for legal costs defending human rights points. The department has not to date made any compensation payment associated with a Human Rights Act case.

  Independent Television Commission
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what costs the ITC has incurred in advising her Department on the creation of OFCOM. [46594]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the ITC

  Ofcom
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has received from the ITC on the issue of preparation for OFCOM; and what form they have taken. [46591]

  Dr. Howells
  The ITC has welcomed the proposals to establish OFCOM and has been closely involved, along with the other regulators who will go to make up OFCOM, in the early preparations for creating the new body.

  Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in her Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47804]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: Estimated outturn figures for 2001–02 will be published in the Budget Report on 17 April.

  DCMS Public Appointments

  Sponsored body

  No. of members

  Remuneration range—— board (per annum unless stated)

  Remuneration chair (per annum unless stated)

  Within remit of Commissioner for Public Appointments

  Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  3

  31,800

  Yes

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites

  13

  Yes

  Advisory Council on Libraries

  1

  7,730

  32,010

  Yes

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  15

  Yes

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  10

  No

  Arts Council of England

  12

  Yes

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  12

  14,930–26,250

  77,590

  Yes

  Chair of British Film Institute

  1

  No

  British Library Board

  14

  Yes

  British Museum

  25

  Yes

  British Tourist Authority

  6

  7,883–8,120

  41,930

  Yes

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  12

  16,310–38,530

  50,990

  Yes

  Churches Conservation Trust

  7

  No

  Channel 4 Television Corporation

  8

  8,330–18,260

  59,310

  No

  Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

  14

  5,000–8,000

  30,000

  Yes

  The Community Fund

  17

  25,000

  Yes

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47108]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  Appointments
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list all the boards, committees and trustees that(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department are wholly or partly responsible for appointing members to, listing for each one (i) the total membership of each board, committee or trustees, (ii) the procedure for making each appointment, (iii) the remuneration made and (iv) the term of office. [48376]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: The bodies for which I am wholly or partly responsible for the appointment of members are set out in the following table. This includes appointments made by other Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on my behalf and appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or through him, by Her Majesty The Queen, on which I advise. The table also includes bodies where appointments are the responsibility of others, but where I have an approving role. There are also bodies where I am responsible for making some appointments but where I have no role in others. Appointments which fall under the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments follow procedures which meet the requirements of her Code of Practice. For other appointments, the spirit of the Commissioner's Code is encouraged. Appointments to DCMS sponsored bodies are usually for terms of between three and five years.
  515W

  DCMS Public Appointments

  Sponsored body

  No. of members

  Remuneration range—— board (per annum unless stated)

  Remuneration chair (per annum unless stated)

  Within remit of Commissioner for Public Appointments

  Crafts Council

  1

  No

  English Heritage

  17

  2,235–5,000

  54,000

  Yes

  English Tourism Council

  7

  7,880

  37,440

  Yes

  Film Council

  15

  2,100

  Yes

  Football Licensing Authority

  8

  5,000

  Yes

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  5

  16,447

  Yes

  Geffrye Museum

  12

  Yes

  Historic Royal Palaces

  9

  Yes

  Horniman Public Museum and Public Park Trust

  11

  Yes

  Horserace Betting Levy Appeals Tribunal for England and Wales

  3

  187–265 per day

  48,250

  No

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  3

  14,900–19,800

  83,552

  Yes

  Horserace Totalisator

  9

  9,613

  33,026

  Yes

  Imperial War Museum

  22

  Yes

  Independent Football Commission

  1

  Yes

  Independent Television Commission

  11

  19,900–26,250

  77,590

  Yes

  Millennium Commission

  9

  Yes

  Museum of London

  17

  Yes

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  12

  Yes

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  14

  1,800–2,700

  22,660

  Yes

  National Gallery

  14

  Yes

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  15

  4,440–17,590

  32,132

  Yes

  National Lottery Commission

  5

  6,378

  Yes

  National Maritime Museum

  16

  Yes

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  18

  Yes

  National Portrait Gallery

  16

  Yes

  Natural History Museum

  12

  Yes

  New Millennium Experience Co.

  11

  11,110

  Yes

  New Opportunities Fund

  13

  8,309–12,500

  24,133

  Yes

  Public Lending Right Advisory Committee

  8

  Yes

  Public Lending Right Registrar

  1

  48,706

  Yes

  Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team

  6

  41,020

  Yes

  Radio Authority

  9

  14,930–19,690

  58,180

  Yes

  Chair of Culture South West

  1

  Yes

  Chair of East Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Chair of East of England Regional Culture Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Chair of North East Regional Cultural Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Chair of North West Regional Cultural Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Chair of South East Regional Cultural Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Chair of West Midlands Regional Cultural Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Chair of Yorkshire and Humber Regional Cultural Consortium

  1

  Yes

  Resource

  17

  Yes

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Arts

  8

  Yes

  Royal Armouries

  11

  Yes

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  18

  Yes

  Royal Opera House

  15

  No

  Royal Parks Advisory Board

  9

  No

  S4C

  8

  8,300

  44,480

  Yes

  Science Museum

  17

  Yes

  St. John Soane's Museum

  9

  Yes

  South Bank Centre Board Ltd.

  16

  No

  Spoliation Advisory Panel

  11

  5,631

  Yes

  Sport England

  19

  2,220–15,195

  25,205

  Yes

  Tate Gallery

  12

  Yes

  Theatres Trust

  15

  No

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  6

  Yes

  UK Sport

  16

  1,220

  36,705

  Yes

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  19

  Yes

  Wallace Collection

  8

  Yes

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list all the individuals that(a) she and her predecessors and (b) Ministers in her Department and their predecessors have appointed to boards, committees and trustees since 2 May 1997. [48378]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: The information you requested is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The list shows people who have been appointed or reappointed since 2 May 1997 by myself or by predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Chris Smith). This includes appointments which have been made by Ministers in my Department on my behalf. It
  516W
  does not include appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or, through him, by Her Majesty The Queen, on which I advise.

  Digital TV
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the methods employed by her Department to calculate the take up of(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable in the United Kingdom. [48374]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: My Department mainly uses information on subscriber figures from platform operators to give an indication of the take up figures of digital pay television for different platforms.
  517W
  The Office for National Statistics' omnibus survey has recently included a question which asks how households in Great Britain access digital television, which will enable us to assess take-up across individual platforms. We expect that this will give a more accurate figure in the light of increasing numbers of non-subscription digital viewers.

  BBC Accountability
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the means by which the British Broadcasting Corporation is accountable to Parliament. [48371]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: The BBC's accountability to Parliament is reflected primarily through the Royal Charter and Agreement. The Royal Charter is debated by Parliament before it comes into force and the Agreement is subject to formal approval by this House. In addition, the BBC's Annual Report and Accounts are laid in Parliament and Members have the opportunity ti ask the BBC Chairman and Governors questions at an open event on the day of publication. The BBC is also subject to inquiry by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which in recent years has held hearings on the BBC's Annual Report, and the Secretary of State is often required to answer questions in this House concerning the BBC. Under the 1991 transfer of responsibilities agreement between the BBC and the Home Office, when the Corporation assumed responsibility for administering the television licensing system, the BBC is accountable to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee for the value for money of the collection and enforcement arrangements.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list the dates on which(a) she, (b) Ministers, and (c) officials of her Departmen t have met (i) the Director General and (ii) other members of the Executive Committee of the British Broadcasting Corporation in the last 12 months; [48381]

  (2) if she will list the dates on which (a) she, (b) Ministers and (c) officials in her Department have met (i) the Chairman, (ii) the Vice Chairman anti (iii) other members of the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation. [48331]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer Wednesday 10 April 2002]: I, Ministers and officials have met members of the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee regularly in the course of business both at formal meetings or at other functions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conclusions of his Performance and Innovation Unit on the existing structure of institution involved in United Kingdom energy policy-making and delivery. [48687]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU's conclusions on the 518W
  existing structure of institutions involved in United Kingdom energy policy-making and delivery are set out in Chapter 8 of the Energy Review. For the status of these conclusions and future government action, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Mann) on Thursday 14 February, Official Report, column 613W.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will publish its report on privacy and data-sharing. [49043]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report"Privacy and Data-Sharing: The Way Forward for Public Services" is being published today. The report is important in the continuing development of customer-focused public services and sets out a strategy for improving the use of personal data in the public sector, while still safeguarding individual's privacy, including:
  (i) Making better use of technology to deliver more secure, more joined-up services——using technology to ensure data is secure at all times and to enable more joined-up, more personalised service delivery:
  (ii) Improving data quality——ensuring that the data held for public service delivery is good quality and up-to-date;
  (iii) Building public trust——ensuring that clear prinicples govern the way that personal information is used across the public sector and that there is greater oppenness in the interactions between public services and their consumers; and
  (iv) Addressing legal problems——ensuring that public services are clear about how the law regulates data-sharing, together with consultation on possible options for legislative changes.

  There are a number of recommendations in the report where we need a proper debate before final decisions are made. On those recommendations——set out in the report——the Government is seeking views from all interested parties. For the other recommendations, the Government wants to see early progress in taking them forward as part of the strategy in delivering the overall objectives.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office a nd the Libraries.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  South Middlesbrough Academy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if a decision has been made on a funding agreement between her Department and the proposed South Middlesbrough Academy. [48638]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department has been supporting the development of plans for a City Academy in South Middlesbrough. I welcome the commitment of the sponsors and Middlesbrough Council to establish an Academy which will raise standards in the area and meet the needs of local pupils and the wider community. I expect soon to be in a position to consider whether to enter into a funding agreement with the Academy.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by his Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48361]

  Robin Cook
  My Department does not subscribe to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite or (c) digital cable television. However, my Department does own a number of Sky Digiboxes to receive free-to-air digital channels.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47139]

  Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Country

  No. of special advisers

  Overall cost of trip £

  October 2000

  Mexico

  1

  16,012.17

  September 2000

  Switzerland and Germany

  1

  6,697.21

  January 2001

  America1

  1

  48,387.01

  1The office of the Leader of the House was then responsible for the Business Co-ordination Unit which has since been transferred to the Cabinet Office.

  The cost of these visits attributed to Special Advisers is not available.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47114]

  Robin Cook
  None.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask President of the Council if he will take steps to improve the response time to parliamentary questions. [47724]

  Robin Cook
  In its response to the Public Administration Select Committee's Second Report of Session 2000–01 on Ministerial Accountability and parliamentary questions, the Government made clear its commitment to providing prompt and accurate answers to parliamentary questions. This continues to be the Government's position.

  My Department will continue to improve on its performance. Arrangements are being made for additional training to be given to officials in my Department who provide draft replies.

WALES

  Foot and Mouth
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales w hat discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly on expenditure levels in(a) Wales arid (b) England on measures to alleviate FMD problems in 2001. [34911]

  Mr. Murphy
  [holding answer given on 11 February 2002.]: I have met the First Minister and the Rural Affairs Minister of the National Assembly for Wales regularly throughout 2001 and subsequently. A wide range of issues connected to FMD were discussed, including measures to alleviate FMD problems through compensation to farming businesses and measures to assist businesses (including tourism) affected by FMD.

  Additionally, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was a member of the Rural Task Force set up to e Gamine and alleviate the effects of FMD on rural areas and rural businesses. The National Assembly for Wales was also a member of this group.

  Health and Safety (Computers)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees in his Department who regularly use computers have taken up the provision of a free eye test; and how this service is advertised to(a) current and (b) new staff. [36692]

  Mr. Murphy
  The Assembly operates this scheme for the Wales Office and maintains a log of applications, which is not broken down by operational unit. Hence, an aggregate figure for Wales Office is not readily available. To date about 420 Assembly staff have rrxeived a free eye test, some of these would have been Wales Office staff.

  The scheme is widely advertised through an induction questionnaire, induction course, on-line computer training package and Health and Safety bulletin board. Soon the scheme will be advertised through an intranet Health and Safety page, which is currently under development.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) percentage and number of rail journeys undertaken on first class tickets, (b) average cost of a first class journey by rail and (c) total cost of rail travel in each of the past four years broken down by grade of civil servant. [37503]

  Mr. Murphy
  My staff undertake official rail journeys in line with the guidance and principles set out in section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code and departmental staff handbook.

  The information on (a) is not held centrally and collating it would involve disproportionate costs.

  In case of (b) the commonest rail journey is that between Cardiff and London for which the average first class return fare is around £140.
  521W
  Information on (c) is not available in the form requested. However, spending on UK travel by the Wales Office during 1999–2000 (since 1 July 1999) was £117,000, in 2000–01 £62,000 and in 2001–02 (to end of January 2002) £55,000.

  Television Sets
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) analogue and (b) integrated digital television sets his Department has purchased in each of the last 24 months; and if he will make a statement. [38174]

  Mr. Murphy
  My Department has bought thrt e analogue television sets in the last 24 months.

  As with all procurement decisions, officials ai e expected to find the most cost-effective solution to meet the expressed need.

  Capita Contracts
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many contracts the Department has wit It Capita; and how much they are worth; [38372]

  (2) if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Department. [39341]

  Mr. Murphy
  None.

  European Union Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to his Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39121]

  Mr. Murphy
  My Department has not had responsibility for the implementation of any European Union directives and regulations since its creation in July 1999.

  Cynon Valley
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the plans of the National Assembly for Wales for the NHS in the Cynon Valley. [40533]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have not recently discussed with the First Minister or Health Minister of the National Assembly for Wales Assembly plans for the NHS specific to the Cynon Valley. However, I understand that the Assembly have reaffirmed their commitment to addressing areas of health deprivation in all parts of Wales by endorsing the Townsend report with a view to starting the implementation process in April 2003.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap amongst staff in his Department. [40991]
  522W
  Mr. Murphy
  The permanent civil servants in my Department are all secondees from elsewhere and so their home departments determine their salaries. However, the Assembly who supply most of the secondees work closely wit the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and has assisted in the development of an equal pay model to allow employers to carry out pay audits. It has conducted pay audits for the past two years and will be doing so again this year.

  In carrying out the equal pay audit and reforming their pay system, the Assembly have taken particular note o f the EOC Task Force report "Just Pay". They have developed several initiatives to close the gender pay gap including no penalty for mothers who take career breaks to raise families, that is they return to the pay scale point they would have been on had they continued working.

  Working Conditions and Practices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [41010]

  Mr. Murphy
  Job sharing is only one of a number of alternative and flexible working patterns that staff at the Wales Office are welcome to take up. The flexibility of the pattern is decided in consultation with management to suit an individual's need and the needs of their work.

  At the present time the Wales Office has eight staff out of 40 who work a flexible pattern, none of these job-share.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42416]

  Mr. Murphy
  At the present time the Wales Office does not have any job share or term working staff. However, out of the 40 staff at the Wales Office eight enjoy alternative and flexible working patterns.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of staff were employed by the Wales Office on secondment from non-Governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45221]

  Mr. Murphy
  One staff member was seconded to the Wales Office from a non-Governmental organisation in the year 2001. There were none in 1999 or 2000.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [35936]

  Mr. Murphy
  Work related stress has only been separately identified as a cause of absence for the last six months. During this period there is no record of any member of Wales Office staff having been absent for work related stress.
  523W
  Wales Office staff have available to them the resources of the Assembly in tackling stress. These include a new draft policy on stress and will shortly include a Health, Safety and Welfare intranet site providing guidance on stress at work, including details of stress awareness training.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46807]

  Mr. Murphy
  [holding answer given on 10 April 2002]: My Department's press office consists of three full-time people; its running costs are not separately identified.

  The Wales Office was created in July 1999; figures for 1996–97 would therefore relate to the much larger predecessor department and would not be comparable.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the journeys made to Wales by(a) him and (b) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in his official capacity over the last 12 months; what the purpose of each visit was; and what mode of transport was employed. [48609]

  Mr. Murphy
  Both myself and my hon. Friend live in Wales and so any travel from home on official business originates in Wales. Furthermore, a substantial amount of our time is spent on official duties in Wales. Due to the very large number and routine nature of the journeys made to, from and within Wales no separate record is kept of either their frequency or mode, though all journeys are made within the terms of the ministerial code.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including g(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48396]

  Mr. Murphy
  No Wales Office projects have been sponsored since the Department's creation in July 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Future of Europe Convention
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place in the Library a verbatim report of the proceedings of the European Convention on the Future of Europe. [46256]

  Peter Hain
  The Convention does not provide verbatim reports of each plenary session. It is, nevertheless, committed to making its proceedings transparent. Plenary sessions are open to the public and broadcast live on the Convention's website (http://524W
  etiropean-convention.eu.int). It also contains summary records of these sessions, details of its future work pr ogramme, and all documents submitted in the course of its work.

  Burma
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 435W, on Burma, what assessment he has made of measures taken in partnership with the EU designed to promote human rights, national reconciliation and democracy in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [46379]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I very much welcome the EU's united position and involvement in Burma. In recent weeks there has been an EU Troika delegation visit to Burma, joint action over forced labour in Burma at the International Labour Organisation, an EU demarche to press for the reinstatement of a planned visit to Burma by the UN Secretary General's Special Representative to Burma, and we are currently preparing a resolution on Burma for adoption at the United Nations C ommission on Human Rights.

  I remain gravely concerned about the overall situation in Burma. Although there has been some very niodest political progress there in the past 16 months, we now need to see evidence of substantive change if confidence in the political process in Burma is to be maintained.

  Community Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost will be to the EU in 2002 of the CAP(a) in cash terms a rid (b) as a percentage of the overall EU budget; how much each EU member state will receive from the CAP; and if he will make a statement. [46136]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The cost to the EU budget of the CAP in 2002 is forecast to be 44,480 million euro, which is 46.5 per cent. of the budget. The following table gives CAP receipts for each member state in 2001, since there are no forecasts available for these receipts in 2002.

  Member State

  Euro (million)

  Austria

  1,052

  Belgium

  934

  Denmark

  1,112

  Finland

  815

  France

  9,221

  Germany

  5,858

  Greece

  2,612

  Ireland

  1,584

  Italy

  5,324

  Luxembourg

  29

  Netherlands

  1,104

  Portugal

  874

  Spain

  6,176

  Sweden

  780

  United Kingdom

  3,997

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Spain was invited to attend the recent talks under the terms of tile Brussels Process before an invitation was extended to the Government of Gibraltar. [47406]

  Peter Hain
  The Brussels Process, involving the UK and Spanish governments, was established in 1984 with the aim of overcoming both government's differences over Gibraltar and promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis.

  We informed the Chief Minster of Gibraltar in June 2001 of our intention to re-launch the Brussels Process. We and the Spanish Government made clear from the outset that Gibraltarian engagement would be an important element in carrying the process successfully forward.

  The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been invited to attend al the Brussels Process meetings since then. The offer remains open for him to participate in future meetings, having his own and distinct voice on the British side of the table: as the formula "three voices two flags".

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis European Union funds are not made available for the economic development of Gibraltar. [48307]

  Peter Hain
  Gibraltar has access to European Union Structural Funding. For the period 2000–06 Gibraltar has been allocated €8 million of Objective 2 funding (assisting regions affected by the decline of traditional industries), and €7 million of Objective 3 funding (combating long-term unemployment and promoting the integration of young people into the labour market). In addition, Gibraltar is involved in three INTERREG III programmes, with an allocation of €425,000 for each.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government will formally seek the views of the Government of Gibraltar on proposals being discussed with the Spanish Government before agreeing any such proposals with a view to these the being placed before the people of Gibraltar for referendum. [48308]

  Peter Hain
  The aim of the current Brussels Process talks between the UK and Spanish Governments is to produce a set of proposals offering a framework for a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar. We want Gibraltar to have a voice in the talks. That is why we and the Spanish Government have invited the Chief Minister to participate with his own voice on the British side of the table, a formula known as: "three voices two flags". The offer stands and we continue to hope the Chief Minister will take it up.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the date for the next round of talks between Britain and Spain on the future status of Gibraltar. [47317]
  526W
  Peter Hain
  A further Ministerial meeting under the Brussels Process will be held in the coming months. The date has not yet been fixed. Our aim remains to conclude a comprehensive agreement by the summer.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether Gibraltar's social tax status would be a barrier to integration into the UK. [47315]

  Mr. Hain
  None. The Government does not regard integration with the UK as an option for any of the British Overseas Territories.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to encourage the United States Administration to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty; and what information he has in respect of the shortfall in payments made to the CTBT organisation in Vienna. [48079]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. John McDonnell) on 10 December 2001,(Official Report, column 711W.)

  In previous years, payments to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organisation have averaged over 95 per cent. of the annual approved budget.

  By 3 April this year, the organisation had already received over 50 per cent. of its current budget contributions. This compares favourably with this time last year, when the figure stood at 45 per cent. The US have contributed US$16.6 million for 2002, which represents more than 95 per cent. of their assessed contribution.

  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proceeds from the sale of the former Cambodian Embassy in London. [48825]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The proceeds from the sale of the former Cambodian Embassy premises and subsequent interest thereon, amount in total to £2.6 million, were transferred to the Foreign Ministry of Cambodia on 21 March. We hope the Cambodian Government will use these funds to establish a permanent diplomatic presence in the UK.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods subject to strategic controls have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [48826]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export laboratory equipment for use by secondary schools in Northern Iraq. The export included 6.25kg of sodium sulphide which is subject to the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000 as amended. The UN Iraq Sanctions Committee approved this export to Iraq under the Oil for Food programme (OFF). Under OFF Iraq is allowed to export unlimited quantities of oil to fund the
  527W
  purchase of humanitarian goods. The export is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for April and (b) major European Union events for the period between 30 April and September. [48827]

  Peter Hain

  April 2002

  5–6——Brussels——Luxembourg——Migrations Council (ASEM Informal)

  8——Luxembourg——Fisheries Council

  13–14——Luxembourg——ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16——Luxembourg——General Affairs Council

  22–23——Valencia——Euromed Conference

  22–23——Luxembourg——Agriculture Council

  25–26——Luxembourg——Justice and Home Affairs Council

  27–30——Luxembourg——Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  The following are the principle events in the EU between 1 May and September 2002 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).

  May

  2——Washington——EU/US Summit

  3–4——Brussels——Tourism Council (Ministerial Informal)

  6——Brussels——Eurogroup (Evening)

  7——Brussels——ECOFIN

  8——Madrid——EU/Canada Summit

  9——Europe Day

  13——Brussels——General Affairs Council and Defence Ministers Meeting

  17–18——Madrid——EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit

  21——Brussels——Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  23——Brussels——Culture and Audio-visual Council

  24–26——Brussels——Environment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28——Brussels——Agriculture Council

  30——Brussels——Development Council

  30——Brussels——Education and Youth Council

  31–1 June——Brussels——Transport Council (Ministerial Informal)

  June

  3——Brussels——Employment and Social Affairs Council

  3——Brussels——Eurogroup (Evening)

  4——Luxembourg——ECOFIN

  6–8——Brussels——Foreign Affairs Council (ASEM Ministers)

  6–7——Brussels——Industry and Energy Council

  10–11——Brussels——General Affairs Council

  10–11——Brussels——Agriculture Council

  528W

  11——Brussels——Fisheries Council

  13–14——Brussels——Justice and Home Affairs Council

  17–18——Brussels——Transport and Telecoms Council

  17–18——Brussels——General Affairs Council

  21–22——Seville——European Council

  24——Brussels——General Affairs Council (Evening)

  24–25——Brussels——Environment Council

  25——Luxembourg——ECOFIN

  26——Brussels——Health Council

  July

  6——Copenhagen——ASEM Ministers for Finance

  12——Brussels——ECOFIN

  12–13——Kolding——Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers (Informal)

  15–16——Brussels——Agriculture Council

  19——Brussels——Budget Meeting

  19–21——Arhus——Environment Ministers Meeting (Informal)

  22–23——Brussels——General Affairs Council August

  31–1——Elisnore——Gymnich (Ministerial Informal) September

  6——Brussels——ASEM Economic Ministers Meeting

  6–8——Copenhagen——ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  8–10——Nyborg——Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13——Copenhagen——Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23——Copenhagen——ASEM Meeting

  23–24——Brussels——Agriculture Council

  26——Brussels——Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council

  27——Tent——ACP-EU Ministers Meeting

  30——Brussels——General Affairs Council

  30——Brussels——Research Council

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the International Criminal Court. [48828]

  Mr. Straw
  This is an historic day or international justice and for the human rights of every citizen of the world. Today, at the United Nations in New York, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Ireland, Mongolia, Romania and Slovakia deposited their instruments of ratification to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). These ratifications
  529W
  bring to 63 the number of states to have committee I themselves to this landmark Convention and therefore activates the Statute, which will enter into force on 1 July 2002.

  The ICC will try those individuals accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, irrespective of their rank or position. In future, tyrants will know that their actions are not beyond the reach of international justice. The victims of their crimes will, for the first time, be able to look forward to the prospect of real justice. The culture of impunity, which has shrouded human rights violations for too long, will be over.

  This government has always been an enthusiastic supporter of the Court. It is our belief that the global rule of law is stronger than the local rule of tyrants. We played a major part in drafting the Statute, and worked hard to secure the passage of the International Criminal Court Act through this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, to enable us to be amongst the first 60 states to ratify. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and to all those who have worked to see establishment of the ICC.

  The ICC will be a permanent court acting as a permanent deterrent for all potential tyrants. In time, this will be the law which transcends borders and embodies global values. As ever with all institutions of the law, its practice will be as important as its founding principles. We are committed to ensuring that it does its job fairly and impartially. We hope shortly to nominate a British candidate to be one of the judges of the Court.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48404]

  Mr. MacShane
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report form the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44832]
  530W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding reply 25 March 2002]: In relation to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, so far as I am aware, there have been no instances of criminal damage to the Department's building in each of the last four years.

  In relation to those Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a database in respect of incidents or costs arising from criminal damage to its buildings. The Crown Prosecution Service could not obtain such information without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  None of the Treasury Solicitor's Department's premises have suffered criminal damage over the last four years.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not suffered any criminal damage over the last four years.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General how many people employed by her Department under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [45091]

  The Solicitor-General
  My Own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, is a small one and the staff are all seconded from other Government Departments. It has not, therefore employed any staff under the New Deal schemes during the last four years.

  In the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible, details are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has not employed anyone specifically under the New Deal for Young People scheme over the last four years.

  However, two people within the Young People scheme age group were employed by the Department under a general New Deal recruitment scheme. Both employees were placed on one year fixed term contracts (unsubsidised). One person was released after a couple of months, as the outcome of the pre-employment enquiries proved unsatisfactory. It is not known whether this person returned to claim jobseekers' allowance or any other benefits. The second person resigned after a year to commence a college course.
  531W
  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has never specifically allocated vacancies to be filled by New Deal applicants, although where the Department has recruited at Administrative Officer level and below, it has always circulated these vacancies on the New Deal Network, through the local Job Centre.

  Two Support Grade Band 2s were recruited in May 2000, who were New Deal registered. These employees were offered permanent posts from the outset and therefore no subsidies were claimed.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not employed any staff under the New Deal Schemes during the last four years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General, what recent assessment she had made of whether the PSA target to increase by March from 93 per cent. to 100 per cent. the proportion of prosecution witness expenses sent no later than 10 working days from receipt of a correctly completed claim form will be met. [47813]

  The Solicitor General
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information about progress on PSA targets will be published in the Law Officers' 2002 Departmental Report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts were let by her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–00, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33847]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information from the Department's systems indicate that contracts let by core DTI to PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers are as follows:

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  No. contracts

  Total value £

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  9

  354,657

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  16

  636,623

  1 April 2001 to 4 January 2002

  13

  870,199

  Contracts let by core DTI to Ernst & Young are as follows:

  Ernst & Young

  No. contracts

  Total value £

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  3

  407,165

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  58

  829,043

  1 April 2001 to 4 January 2002

  10

  879,679

  532W
  Contracts let by core DTI to Deloitte & Touche are as follows:

  Deloitte & Touche

  No. contracts

  Total value £

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  6

  1,265, 252

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  6

  1,839,428

  1 April 2001 to 4 January 2002

  4

  4,489,189

  Contracts let by core DTI to KPMG Touche are as follows:

  KPMG

  No. contracts

  Total value £

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  1

  11,642

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  4

  30,009

  1 April 2001 to 4 January 2002

  3

  92,131

  Information is not held centrally for the earlier years and could only be obtained at disproportionate costs.

  For contracts let to Andersen I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr on 11 February 2002, Official Report, column 62W where exceptionally information was given for earlier years.

  The Department's Executive Agencies will be responding separately.

  Letter from Dr. J. W. Llewellyn to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the number and value of consutlancy services commissioned by NWML in recent years in respect of PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst and Yong, Deloitte Touche, KPMG and Andersen.
  NWML has not engaged any of these organisations during the period specified.

  Letter from David Irwin to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  I set out below details of contracts issued by the Small Business Service since its inception on 3 April 2000, together with its predecessor directorates, to two of the companies listed in your question to Mrs. Hewitt.

  Company

  Financial Year

  Number of contracts

  Value (£)

  KPMG

  1997–98

  1

  19,387

  1998–99

  1

  254,232

  2001–02

  Secondee

  35,000

  Ernst & Young

  1997–98

  2

  75,719

  No contracts were issued to PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche, or Andersen.

  Letter from Chris de Grouchy to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about contracts let to various companies.
  In 1999–2000 the Agency let one contract to KPMG. Remuneration for the work amounted to £1,522,460 ex-VAT.
  533W
  Letter from Dr. Roger Heathcote to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question on 4 February 2002 to Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerning how many contracts were let by her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to (a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration made in each case.
  The Employment Tribunals Service awarded one contract Lo Deloitte & Touche for (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. The remuneration made was is follows:
  Financial year 2000–01 payment of £21,319.20 was made on 22 February 2001;
  Financial year 2001–02 payment of £10,184.90 was made on 12 April 2001; and
  Financial year 2001–02 payment of £21,576.53 was made on 19 July 2001.
  The Employment Tribunals Service awarded this contract to Deloitte & Touche as a result of a competitive tender. The contract was funded from the Civil Service Reform Fund and both the work and payment spanned the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  I refer to your written Parliamentary Question 2001/2674 I have been asked to respond for Companies House.
  A contract was let to PricewaterhouseCoopers in June 1998, via a mini-competition using SCAT suppliers, for consultancy advice related to procurement of a Millennium-compliant accounti ig system, at a cost of £127K.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question as to how many contracts were let by The Insolvency Service to (a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen tor consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–00, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration made in each case.
  The Insolvency Service has had no consultancy contracts with these firms during the specified years.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Don Foster, dated 11 April 2002:
  I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question 2674 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry relating to contracts let to PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG and Andersen for consultancy services for each of the financial years from 1997 to 2001.
  No contracts have been let by the Patent Office to any of the above for consultancy services in any of the financial years from 1997 to 2001.

  ECGD Assistance
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list by name and location, the fossil fuel power projects that have been built with the involvement of UK companies in receipt of ECGD assistance since(a) 1992 and (b) 1997; and which of those are coal-powered. [44620]
  534W
  Ms Hewitt
  The tables below list the project name, country and fuel type for which ECGD has provided guarantees since 1992 and 1997.

  In addition, ECGD has provided Overseas Investment Insurance and other insurances for 11 fossil fuel power projects. These projects are not disclosed, since such cases are treated as commercial in confidence.

  For most of the projects listed, the UK exporter is one of several contractors and ECGD is guaranteeing only part of the total project financing.

  Table 1: Power Projects Supported by ECGD 1992–1997

  Project Name

  Country

  Fuel Type

  Balagarh

  India

  Coal

  Budge Budge

  India

  Coal

  Fuzhou

  China

  Coal

  Nantong

  China

  Coal

  Dalate

  China

  Coal

  Fushan City

  China

  Coal

  Gao Bei Dian

  China

  Coal

  Omblin

  Indonesia

  Coal

  Dalian

  China

  Coal

  Dandong

  China

  Coal

  Majuba

  South Africa

  Coal

  Shaijao

  Hong Kong

  Coal

  Hare and Munyati

  Zimbabwe

  Coal

  Shandong

  China

  Coal

  Sual

  Philippines

  Coal

  Doha East

  Kuwait

  Oil

  Pulau Seraya Stage III

  Singapore

  Oil

  Outer Island

  Indonesia

  Oil

  Manah Power Station

  Oman

  Gas

  Blackpoint

  Hong Kong

  Gas

  Tetouan

  Morocco

  Gas

  Samarinda

  Indonesia

  Gas

  Manjung

  Malaysia

  Gas

  Kakinda

  India

  Gas

  Table 2: Power Projects Supported by ECGD since 1997

  Project Name

  Country

  Fuel Type

  Shandong

  China

  Coal

  Bulawayo

  Zimbabwe

  Coal

  Munjung

  Malaysia

  Coal

  Naptha Jhakri

  India

  Coal

  Afsin——Elbistan

  Turkey

  Coal

  AK Enerji

  Turkey

  Gas

  Bilkent

  Turkey

  Gas

  Manzanillo

  Mexico

  Gas/Oil

  St Kitts Power

  St Kitts and Nevis

  Oil

  Elege Alimentos

  Brazil

  Oil

  Anguilla Electricity

  Anguilla

  Oil

  Ghubrah

  Oman

  Oil

  San Pedro

  Dominican Republic

  Oil

  Magnesita

  Brazil

  Oil

  Outer Islands Power

  Indonesia

  Oil

  Economic Reform
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she intends to pursue the Lisbon agenda of economic reform after the Barcelona Summit. [47975]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government view the Barcelona Summit as a significant success. The conclusions registered solid progress on economic reform and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
  535W
  stressed in his post-Summit Press Conference, it "symbolised an important change of gear for Europe's economy and its economic policy".

  The Lisbon agenda is a 10 year programme and there is still much to be done. We wait to ensure that individual Councils make a practical reality of the Barcelona conclusions on the liberalisation of energy markets, the availability of Broadband, final agreement on a Community Patent and the adoption of an EU R&D Framework. Member states will also need to work closely with the European Commission in its work on an Entrepreneurship Green Paper, reform of state aids policy and exploiting biotechnology.

  In taking this work forward, both Ministers and officials will continue to be constructively engaged with the Commission, our opposite numbers in other member states and the European Parliament, as well as ensuring that the voice of UK and European business is listened to by all key EU players.

  Pay (Heywood and Middleton)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to commission data on the gender pay gap in Heywood and Middleton constituency. [48634]

  Alan Johnson
  The Office for National Statistics publishes data on the gender pay gap in the New Earnings Survey. However, in the case of the Heywood and Middleton Constituency, the data is not sufficiently reliable for publication.

  Current trends in women's individual incomes have been explored in two studies published last year by the Women and Equality Unit (WEU). Copies of these reports are available on the WEU website (http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/publications/research-and-publications.htm).

  WEU Gender Briefing, which provides statistical briefing on the position of women compared with men in the labour market, is also available on the website (http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/gender-briefing/home.htm).

  There are no plans to commission further research into the gender pay gap in Heywood and Middleton.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the

  UA or LA Ward

  Criterion for inclusion

  Index of multiple deprivation on 1998 lowest decile?

  Population 19961

  Un-employed census 1991

  Working age census 1991

  Hastings

  Maze Hill

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  4,300

  219

  2,105

  Mount Pleasant

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  5,800

  249

  3,220

  Old Hastings

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  4,100

  192

  2,314

  Ore

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  5,100

  221

  3,000

  West St. Leonards

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  6,500

  236

  3,615

  Castle

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  3,600

  315

  2,257

  Central St. Leonards

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  4,500

  381

  2,555

  Dover

  Sandwich

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  4,900

  123

  2,601

  Thanet

  Cecil

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  2,300

  148

  1,338

  Central Eastcliff

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  6,400

  525

  3,623

  Ethelbert

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  2,100

  222

  1,328

  536W
  Department's review of the oil and gas industry's code of practice dealing with the negotiations for access to oil and gas infrastructure. [48852]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House recommendations to industry to consider limited bi tt worthwhile changes to its Infrastructure Code of Practice. The proposed changes are intended to improve the transparency and conduct of negotiations for third party access to UKCS pipelines and processing facilities. This is the final element of the Departmental response to its consultation on Oil and Gas Infrastructure: Access Provisions and Voluntary Arrangements, which included a review of the effectiveness of the voluntary Code. The recommendations build on views expressed and suggestions made in response to that consultation.

  Mineworkers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for giving mineworkers a greater share of the surplus from their pension fund; and if she will make a statement. [44495]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the Member for Barnsley Central on 17 January,Official Report, column 403W.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the wards in the South arid South East of England which have EU objective 2 status, in the grouping which enabled them to qualify for objective 2 status, listing for each grouping its(a) position relative to the lowest decile of deprivation indices, (b) population, (c) unemployment according to the last census, (d) average income per head according to the most recent information available, (e) population of working age and (f) county. [48389]

  Alan Johnson
  Groups of wards were submitted to the European Commission for consideration for Objective 2 status according to the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999. The table shows the groups for wards in the South West and South East of England, and shows which NUTS 3 and 4 areas the wards were in. The table shows(a) whether the ward was ranked in the tenth lowest wards according to the 1998 index of deprivation, (b) the population as estimated for 1996, unemployment according to the 1991 census, the population of working age according to the 1991 census.

  No information is available on average income per head for wards.
  537W

  UA or LA Ward

  Criterion for inclusion

  Index of multiple deprivation on 1998 lowest decile?

  Population 19961

  Un-employed census 1991

  Working age census 1991

  Minster Parish

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  3,300

  94

  1,901

  Newington

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  5,000

  359

  2,843

  Northdown Park

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  6,300

  401

  3,357

  Pier

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  2,500

  266

  1,439

  St. Lawrence

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  4,500

  141

  2,365

  St. Peters

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  6,000

  180

  3,146

  Salmestone

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  4,800

  198

  2,615

  Southwood

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  4,700

  182

  2,576

  Thanet Parishes

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  1,800

  48

  1,057

  Bristol

  Ashley

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  12,800

  1,315

  7,943

  Easton

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  11,500

  711

  6,721

  Filwood

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  11,000

  900

  6,091

  Lawrence Hill

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  12,900

  1,275

  7,129

  Windmill Hill

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  14,400

  885

  8,680

  North Devon

  Bishop's Nympton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  57

  1,025

  Bishop's Tawton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  38

  983

  Bratton Fleming

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  48

  1,112

  Braunton East

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,800

  111

  2,218

  Braunton West

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,800

  101

  1,980

  Chittlehampton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,900

  56

  1,138

  Chulmleigh

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  57

  1,121

  Combe Martin

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,200

  133

  1,777

  Fremington

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  7,500

  216

  4,100

  Georgeham

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  42

  826

  Heanton Punchardon

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,700

  67

  1,691

  Ilfracombe Central

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,900

  275

  2,113

  Ilfracombe East

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,100

  175

  1,888

  Ilfracombe West

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,100

  176

  2,317

  Instow

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  45

  949

  Landkey

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,600

  79

  1,543

  Longbridge

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  75

  927

  Lynton and Lynmouth

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,900

  54

  1,120

  Marwood

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  55

  1,110

  Mortehoe

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,300

  84

  1,369

  Newport

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,900

  148

  2,236

  North Molton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  29

  825

  Pilton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,000

  92

  2,441

  St Mary's

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,300

  160

  1,953

  South Molton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,300

  117

  2,386

  Swimbridge

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,100

  60

  1,286

  Tawstock

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,200

  51

  1,230

  Trinity

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,900

  265

  2,869

  Witheridge

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  48

  1,044

  Yeo

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,500

  200

  2,077

  South Hams

  Avon and Harbourne

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  64

  1,239

  Avonleigh

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  40

  889

  Bickleigh and Shaugh

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,500

  133

  3,082

  Brixton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  34

  759

  Charterlands

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  62

  1,121

  Cornwood and Harford

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,200

  31

  722

  Dartington

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  68

  958

  Dartmouth Clifton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,900

  87

  1,498

  Dartmouth Hardness

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,000

  96

  1,620

  Dart Valley

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,900

  60

  1,108

  Eastmoor

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,200

  35

  750

  Erme Valley

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  29

  828

  Garabrook

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  40

  1,022

  Ivybridge

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  9,800

  252

  6,030

  Kingsbridge

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  5,200

  145

  2,747

  Kingswear

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,300

  44

  736

  Malborough

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  27

  749

  Marldon

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  59

  1,166

  Modbury

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  32

  776

  Newton and Noss

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  46

  989

  Salcombe

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,200

  48

  1,135

  Saltstone

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  40

  835

  Skerries

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  27

  721

  South Brent

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,900

  74

  1,573

  Sparkwell

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,100

  40

  692

  Stoke Gabriel

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,300

  27

  714

  Stokenham

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  45

  943

  Thurlestone

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  39

  892

  Totnes

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,700

  220

  2,614

  Totnes Bridgetown

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,500

  103

  1,291

  Ugborough

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  62

  930

  Wembury

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,000

  60

  1,811

  West Dart

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  45

  927

  Yealmpton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,100

  79

  1,242

  538W 539W

  UA or LA Ward

  Criterion for inclusion

  Index of multiple deprivation on 1998 lowest decile?

  Population 19961

  Un-employed census 1991

  Working age census 1991

  Torridge

  Appledore East

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,200

  67

  613

  Appledore West

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,100

  27

  594

  Bideford East

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,000

  150

  2,214

  Bideford North

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,600

  207

  2,532

  Bideford South

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  5,100

  187

  2,861

  Broadheath

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  27

  848

  Clovelly Bay

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  43

  868

  Coham Bridge

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  34

  875

  Forest

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  34

  880

  Great Wood

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,300

  51

  722

  Hartland Point

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  57

  958

  Heanton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,900

  58

  1,110

  Holsworthy

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,800

  57

  1,467

  Kenwith

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  47

  955

  Melbury

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  65

  1,044

  M once

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  36

  939

  Northam Central

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  44

  781

  Northam North

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  89

  936

  Northam West

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  65

  670

  Orchard Hill

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,300

  33

  674

  Rolle

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  40

  954

  Stafford

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,300

  35

  725

  Tamarside

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  51

  813

  Torrington

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,700

  157

  2,629

  Waldon

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  51

  866

  Westward Ho

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  95

  809

  Winkleigh

  Rural article 4(96)

  No

  1,600

  41

  892

  West Devon

  Bere Ferrers

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  3,000

  104

  1,676

  Bridestowe

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  41

  884

  Buckland Monachorum

  Rural article 4(96)

  No

  3,600

  74

  2,000

  Burrator

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  58

  917

  Chagford

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  38

  753

  Courtenay

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  38

  951

  Drewsteignton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  29

  780

  Exbourne

  Rural article 4(96)

  No

  1,000

  30

  599

  Hatherleigh

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  70

  956

  Lew Valley

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  42

  830

  Lydford

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,800

  82

  1,119

  Mary Tavy

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,700

  50

  982

  Milton Ford

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  44

  852

  North Tawton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,600

  43

  893

  Okehampton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,700

  126

  2,645

  South Tawton

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,200

  36

  671

  Tamarside

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  50

  894

  Tavistock North

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  4,600

  160

  2,698

  Tavistock South

  Rural article 4(9h)

  No

  5,800

  172

  3,150

  Thrushel

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,500

  56

  883

  Walkham

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,900

  103

  1,744

  Plymouth

  Budshead

  Industrial article 4(5)

  Yes

  12,900

  783

  7,144

  Compton

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  11,000

  463

  6,461

  Drake

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  12,400

  770

  7,369

  Efford

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  12,700

  649

  7,359

  Estover

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  16,400

  512

  9,496

  Ham

  Industrial article 4(5)

  Yes

  12,000

  816

  6,781

  Honicknowle

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  13,000

  642

  6,882

  Keyham

  Industrial article 4(5)

  Yes

  14,100

  933

  9,067

  Mount Gould

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  10,600

  687

  6,507

  St Budeaux

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  12,500

  625

  6,893

  St Peter

  Industrial article 4(5)

  Yes

  11,900

  1,209

  7,031

  Southway

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  14,200

  602

  8,828

  Stoke

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  12,700

  827

  7,475

  Sutton

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  10,600

  853

  6,212

  Trelawny

  Industrial article 4(5)

  No

  10,300

  402

  5,556

  Torbay

  Blatchcombe

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  10,300

  516

  5,496

  Cockington-with-Chelston

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  10,300

  363

  5,718

  Furzeham-with-Churston

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  9,100

  317

  4,530

  St Peter's-with-St Mary's

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  10,000

  442

  5,395

  Tormohun

  Urban article 4(7)

  Yes

  10,400

  718

  6,099

  Torwood

  Urban article 4(7)

  No

  9,500

  611

  5,202

  West Somerset

  Aville Vale

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  700

  22

  341

  Dulverton and Brushford

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,900

  34

  970

  Exmoor

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  800

  20

  492

  Haddon

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  900

  40

  547

  Holnicote

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  700

  18

  405

  Old Cleeve

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  2,000

  57

  989

  Porlock and Oare

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  1,400

  39

  690

  Quarme

  Rural article 4(9b)

  No

  900

  26

  504

  1 Population estimates were made by DTI

  540W

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of her Department's projects halve received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the dale of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48393]

  Ms Hewitt
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

  EU Structural Funding
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 26 Marc h 2002, ref. 44277/44278, what percentage of the population of(a) each NUTS 2 area and (b) each shire county, unitary authority London borough or metropolitan borough which is not terminous with a NUTS 2 area lies within an area holding EU objective 2 status. [48388]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is available for NUTS areas 1–4, and has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) amount and (b) proportion of the current overall EU Objective 2 budget for the UK has been (i) committed and (ii) spent in each of the U K Objective 2 regions. [45816]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  As soon as the information has been collated I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service, in its corporate Plan 2001–04, includes the objective to "develop policy and legislative solutions needed to support and underpin a modern commercial and financial infrastructure and which reflect both national and global changes in economic and business dynamics, and perceptions and expectations of society".

  In addition, the Insolvency Service undertakes or commissions research to inform both the development of policy and the formulation of operational strategy.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the objectives are of the Insolvency Service; [42083]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the development of the Insolvency Service's research function, including its role in (a) policy formulation and (b) operational strategy formulation. [42079]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Insolvency Service objectives are set out in its published Corporate Plan 2001–04 a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Merchant Ships (Steel)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will ban the use of grade A steel for the construction of merchant ships. [47571]

  (2) if she will reappraise the use of high tensile steel in the construction of merchant vessels. [47572]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The toughness grades of steel used in shipbuilding are regulated by the International Association of Classification Societies through their unified requirement UR S6. The current version of UR S6 permits limited use of grade A mild steel, as well as grade AH high tensile steel, in structures contributing to overall strength.

  This standard limits the use of grades A and AH steels according to their rolled thickness and mean air temperatures in expected area of operation, requiring grades with a higher standard of fracture toughness for high thickness and low temperature.

  There are no plans to ban the use of grade A mild steel or to reappraise the use of high tensile steels for merchant ship construction, given the fracture toughness now achieved with grades A and AH.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been brought against his Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45057]

  Mr. Wills
  We do not collect central records of all cases in which the Human Rights Act 1998 is relied on. Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge. We do monitor centrally those cases which we consider may be of particular significance to this department. We have recorded 29 cases to date.

  We do not collect separate information centrally about the costs to public funds, legal fees or compensation payments in cases which include a human rights issue. In most cases it will be difficult to identify costs referable to the human rights element.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will answer the quesion tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough on 26 February regarding the closure of courts. [45686]

  Mr. Wills
  I am sorry that your question tabled on 26 February was not answered. You ask how many(a) county courts, (b) crown courts and (c) magistates' courts have been closed in each year since 1 May 1997. Based on the latest survey information the numbers of courts closed since that date are:

  543W

  Year

  Magistrates' Courts

  County Courts

  Crown Court Centres

  19971

  16

  7

  0

  1998

  24

  6

  0

  1999

  8

  2

  0

  2000

  13

  4

  0

  2001

  29

  1

  0

  20022

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  90

  20

  0

  1 from 1 May 1997

  2 to date of answer

  Specific details of the Magistrates' courthouses and county courts closed are given in the attached tables.

  Court Closures 1997–2002

  Court

  Date of Closure

  Post Closure Jurisidiction

  Andover2

  30 June 1997

  Basingstoke, Salisbury, Winchester

  Braintree+

  1 December 1997

  Chelmsford, Harlow and Colchester

  Bishop's Stortford

  1 December 1997

  Cambridge, Harlow and Hitchin

  Alnwick +

  15 December 1997

  Morpeth

  Blyth

  15 December 1997

  Morpeth

  Berwick upon Tweed1

  15 December 1997

  Amalgamated with Morpeth

  Bridlington+

  24 December 1997

  Scarborough

  Rochdale

  7 September 1998

  Oldham and Rawtenstall

  Holywell*

  7 September 1998

  Rhyl and Chester. * (Caller Office formally closed wef 17 January 2002)

  Camborne and Redruth+

  24 December 1998

  Penzance

  Hemel Hempstead+

  24 December 1998

  Aylesbury, Luton and Watford

  West Bromwich

  24 December 1998

  Birmingham, Dudley and Walsall

  Loughborough

  31 December 1998

  Derby, Leicester and Nottingham

  Corby+ (local sittings on trial basis to July 1999)

  1 March 1999

  Kettering and Peterborough

  Bridgewater+

  20 December 1999

  Taunton

  Great Yarmouth+

  31 January 2000

  Lowestoft and Norwich

  Grays Thurrock

  31 January 2000

  Basildon

  Lichfield

  3 July 2000

  Burton on Trent, Stafford, Tamworth and Walsall

  Caerphilly

  30 November 2000

  Cardiff and Blackwood

  Workington

  2 January 2001

  Whitehaven

  Chepstow+

  1 April 2002

  Newport, Hereford and Gloucester

  Monmouth

  1 April 2002

  Newport, Hereford and Gloucester

  218 courts left when Chepstow and Monmouth courts closed.

  1 courts with caller office status

  2 courts where Circuit Administrators have undertaken to continue local District Judge sittings in suitable accommodation subject to demand

  544W

  Magistrates' Courts

  Magistrates' Courthouse

  Closure Date

  Bromsgrove

  31 May 1997

  Ledbury

  31 May 1997

  Hebburn

  5 June 1997

  South Shields (Kepple Street)

  5 June 1997

  Bargoed Chippenham (Market Place)

  30 June 1997

  Monmouth

  30 June 1997

  Pontlottyn

  30 June 1997

  Pontypool

  30 June 1997

  Ashton under Lyne (Manchester Road)

  31 August 1997

  Duckinsfield

  31 August 1997

  Thorne

  31 August 1997

  Braintree

  31 December 1997

  Clacton on Sea

  31 December 1997

  Saffron Walden

  31 December 1997

  Stokesley

  31 December 1997

  Malton

  6 February 1998

  Appleby

  31 March 1998

  Bishop's Stortford

  31 March 1998

  Chertsey

  31 March 1998

  Farnham

  31 March 1998

  Hatfield

  31 March 1998

  Hitchin

  31 March 1998

  Market Rasen

  31 March 1998

  Marlborough Street

  31 March 1998

  Oxted

  31 March 1998

  Lutterworth

  31 July 1998

  Ripon

  1 August 1998

  Barnard Castle

  31 December 1998

  Clerkenwell

  31 December 1998

  Corwen

  31 December 1998

  Diss

  31 December 1998

  Felixstowe

  31 December 1998

  Haverhill

  31 December 1998

  Lytham

  31 December 1998

  Newmarket

  31 December 1998

  Saxmundham

  31 December 1998

  Sheerness

  31 December 1998

  Stowmarket

  31 December 1998

  West Malling

  31 December 1998

  Abingdon

  31 March 1999

  Christchuch

  31 March 1999

  Henley on Thames

  31 March 1999

  Morley

  31 March 1999

  Pudsey

  31 March 1999

  Windsor

  31 March 1999

  Stow on the Wold

  30 June 1999

  March

  31 December 1999

  Apmthill

  1 January 2000

  Biggles wade

  1 January 2000

  Apmthill

  1 January 2000

  Dunstable

  1 January 2000

  Leighton Buzzard

  1 January 2000

  Lichfield

  31 March 2000

  Keighley

  1 April 2000

  Keswick

  30 April 2000

  Appleby

  31 May 2000

  Windermere

  31 May 2000

  Wigton

  31 May 2000

  Gravesend

  9 June 2000

  Wootton Bassett

  2 October 2000

  Abergele

  31 December 2000

  Alfreton

  1 January 2001

  Ashbourne

  1 January 2001

  Bakewell

  1 January 2001

  Matlock

  1 January 2001

  Leigh

  31 March 2001

  Middleton

  31 March 2001

  Leek

  31 March 2001

  Worcester

  31 March 2001

  Macclesfield Park Green

  1 April 2001

  Warrington Patten Hall

  1 April 2001

  Bideford

  30 April 2001

  Exmouth

  30 April 2001

  545W

  Magistrates' Courts

  Magistrates' Courthouse

  Closure Date

  Kingsbridge

  30 April 2001

  South Molton

  30 April 2001

  Teignmouth

  30 April 2001

  Tavistock

  30 April 2001

  Axminster

  4 May 2001

  Tiverton

  4 May 2001

  Newquay

  30 June 2001

  Womborne

  31 August 2001

  Southampton (Commercial Road)

  31 August 2001

  Gillingham

  30 September 2001

  Bridlington

  9 November 2001

  Brough

  9 November 2001

  Driffield

  9 November 2001

  Hull (Guildhall)

  9 November 2001

  Hull (Lowgate)

  9 November 2001

  Pocklington

  9 November 2001

  Withernsea

  9 November 2001

  Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the recommended time is for departments to decide the results of an internal appeal under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [48611]

  Mr. Wills
  It is for individual bodies subject to the Code to make their own arrangements for the procedure used to review cases internally where information has been refused and the applicant has made a complaint. Appendix 5 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information Monitoring Report for the year 2000, published in September 2001, sets out the target times adopted by bodies subject to the Code for deciding the results of an internal appeal. The majority have adopted a target of 20 working days or less. The target for decision on an internal appeal within this Department is 20 working days.

  Freedom of Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library copies of each version of the guidance distributed to officials to advise them on how to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [48612]

  Mr. Wills
  A circular (IT Security News) was issued to staff in November 1999 about the Data Protection Act. I have placed a copy of IT Security News, Issue 6 in the House Library. No separate guidance has been issued since then. I expect to be able to make an announcement on central guidance on handling subject access requests shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will reply to the letter to him dated 18 February for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Wellings. [47768]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor wrote in reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton's letter of 18 February on 27 March 2002.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including details of(a) the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48406]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

  Fraud (Dentists)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many dentists have received custodian sentences since 1997 arising from a conviction for fraud against the NHS. [43813]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1997, of all National Health Service fraud and corruption cases involving dental contractors, there have been eight cases, which have been successfully prosecuted. Of these five received a custodial sentence. There are currently six cases awaiting court proceedings and 34 alleged cases of fraud and corruption under investigation by the NHS Counter Fraud Service.

SCOTLAND

  Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by her Department in each of the last four years. [38929]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  In buildings where the department is the sole occupier, there are no in-house canteen or catering services. In accommodation shared with the Scottish Executive, catering services are provided by that department as the major occupier.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by her Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost to public funds in each case is. [38935]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  No equipment leasing arrangements have been made by the Department since that date.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41063]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the contracts agreed by her Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42110]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  The Department has had no contracts with accountancy firms since that date.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42435]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44882]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has no private finance initiative or public private partnership projects.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44828]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  There have been no cases of criminal damage to the Department's buildings since that date.

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of staff were employed by her Department on secondment from the private sector in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45259]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff employed by my Department were seconded from the private sector between 1999 and 2001.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of staff were employed by the Scotland Office on secondment from non-Governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45223]
  548W
  Mrs. Liddell
  One member of staff was seconded to the Scotland Office from a non-governmental organisation ir. 2001.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of her Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48394]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards on Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

  Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what crèche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44859]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No creche facilities are provided by my Department.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44889]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what crèche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [44857]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44830]

  The Advocate-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Value for Money
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General, pursuant to her answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 181W, on value for money, what specific measures she has put in place to provide for efficient operation and a contribution towards securing bet ter value for money. [45782]
  549W
  The Advocate-General
  My office, like the rest of the Scotland Office, has been in existence for less than three years and, in developing suitable working systems, officials have sought to ensure that the work is done in a way which makes the most efficient use of staff and other resources.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government Agencies and Quangos
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 876W, what assessment he has made of (a) the total number of Government agencies and quangos operating in each of the regions and (b) their annual budgets. [42260]

  Mr. Leslie
  In respect of(a), I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green on Wednesday 13 March 2002, Official Report, column 1070W.

  In respect of (b), information on the total gross expenditure of individual non-departmental public bodies, and information on the funding of this, is set out in the annual publication "Public Bodies", copies of which can be found in the Libraries of the House. Information on annual budgets of executive agencies is set out in each Agency's Annual Report and Accounts.

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many members of staff were employed by the Cabinet office on secondment from non-Governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45235]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of secondees employed in the Cabinet Office from non-governmental organisations for the period 1 April 1999 to date are as follows:

  Period

  Number of Staff

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  41

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  37

  1 April 2001 to date

  35

  Note: This data only includes Governnment Offices for the Regions for 2001–02 as they joined the Cabinet Office in June 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned lo jobseekers' allowance or other benefits. [45079]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Cabinet Office.

  Three people employed by the Cabinet Office, initially under the New Deal for Young People (one in 1998 and two in 2000), have subsequently been employed by the Cabinet Office on permanent contracts following fair and open competition. We do not hold information on people employed under the scheme who have not left the Department.
  550W
  Cabinet Offices Agencies and Government Offices of the Regions

  (i) Government Car and Despatch Agency

  No staff employed by the GCDA under the New Deal arrangements have subsequently been employed by the GCDA on permanent contracts. GCDA do not hold information on people employed under the scheme who have now left the Department.

  (ii) Central Office of Information

  COI have not employed anyone under the New Deal for Young People, However, the Department has employed one person under the New Deal for Lone Parents who was subsequently employed by the Department on a permanent contract.

  (iii) Government Offices for the Regions

  No staff employed by the GO under the New Deal arrangements have subsequently been employed by the Government Offices on permanent contracts. GO do not hold information on people employed under the scheme who have now left the Department.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people have been employed by his Department in each of the last three years under(a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) the New Deal for the Over 50s and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents, and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44927]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State

  Cabinet Office

  Since April 1999 11 people have been employed by the Cabinet Office under the New Deal arrangements and are categorised as follows:

  Young People

  Lone Parents

  Over 50's

  1999

  4

  -

  -

  2000

  4

  1

  -

  2001

  2

  -

  -

  2002

  -

  -

  -

  The average cost per placement was £17,833 (which is made up of basic salary, Employers National Insurance and Pensions Contributions).

  Cabinet Office Agencies and Government Offices of the Regions

  (i) Government Car and Despatch Agency

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency has employed 1 person under the New Deal for Young People for one week in 2001.

  The cost of this placement was £220 inclusive of Employers National Insurance and Pensions Contributions.

  (ii) Central Office of Information

  Since the New Deal began in COI, the Department has employed one person. This person was employed under the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  The cost of this placement was £7,320 (which is made up of part-time basic salary, Employers National Insurance and Pensions Contributions.
  551W
  (iii) Government Offices of the Regions

  The Governement Offices for the English Regions have been taking people under unsubsidised New Deal arrangements since October 2000. Since October 2000 the GOs have employed 4 people.

  Young People

  Lone Parents

  Over 50's

  1999

  -

  -

  -

  2000

  2

  -

  -

  2001

  2

  -

  -

  2002

  -

  -

  -

  1 The average cost per placement was £17,045 (which is made up of basic salary and employers NI).

  Criminal Damage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost has been of criminal damage to his Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44843]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures requested are as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  1,600

  1999–2000

  2,000

  2000–01

  1,100

  2001–02

  1,000

  1 There has been no lasting damage done to the fabric of any of the department's buildings.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its Public Service Agreement targets. [47183]

  Mr. Leslie
  Progress on/against PSA targets will be reported and published in the Cabinet Office's annual Departmental Report for 2002.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many special advisers there were in his Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46944]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  At 9 April 2002, there were four special advisers in my office, including two part-timers.

  On salaries, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April. Official Report, column 11W.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47100]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  Since 1999 this Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet 552W
  Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which or his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48405]

  Mr. Leslie
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many serving magistrates live in(a) St. Helens, South constituency and (b) St. Helens Metropolitan Borough. [46987]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the appointment of magistrates in Merseyside, has provided the following information.

  There are 50 magistrates serving on the St. Helens Bench who live in the St. Helens South constituency.

  There are 93 magistrates serving on the St. Helens Bench who live in the Metropolitan Borough of St. Helens which covers the constituencies of St. Helens North and St. Helens South.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to compel pension trustee boards to appoint independent chairmen. [43953]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have no plans to compel pension trustee boards to appoint independent chairmen.

  We believe that requiring independent chairmen for trustee boards would discourage employers from continuing to provide occupational pension schemes, would be difficult to implement in practice, and would make little difference to the way schemes are run.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been spent to date on the New Deal for Young People. [44898]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to March 2001 £1,063 billion was spent on the New Deal for Young People, of which £860 million was funded from the Windfall Tax and £203 million from the Department's own resources. Forecast expenditure for 2001–02 will be published in the Departmental Report in May this year.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work arid Pensions if he will list the IT Projects being undertaken by his Department; and which companies have been awarded the contracts. [46317]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding reply 26 March 2002]: Our main IT suppliers are:
  EDS——for our Employment Service modernisation programme;
  Affinity, (led by EDS with IBM UK, PricewaterhouseCoopers and AT Kearney)——for our Department for Work and Pensions modernisation programme (major contracts include Child Support Reform, Strategic Outsourcing and some elements of the Department's Early Office Infrastructure programme);
  Arcway, (led by BT Syntegra with Bill Information Systems and Schlumberger Sema)——for the new network needed to support our modernisation programme.

  Incomes
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the latest figures on households below average incomes to be published. [49445]

  Mr. Darling
  Today I have published Households Below Average Income for 1994–95 to 2000–01. This is a report published under National Statistics arrangements with results that cover Great Britain. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report shows the position during the financial year 2000–01. Consequently, it does not reflect the full impact of policies introduced part way through that year, or the changes introduced since——for instance the Children's Tax Credit or enhancements to tax credits and benefits made in 2001.

  Nonetheless the report shows that this Government's policies are working. The new economic stability has delivered strong income growth since 1996–97 that is consistent across the whole income distribution. Furthermore our priority to target help to those most in need has delivered real improvements for those on the lowest incomes. There have been significant falls in the numbers of people below "absolute" low-income lines (1996–97 low-income thresholds in real terms). There are now 1.4 million fewer children and 1.1 million fewer pensioners below 60 per cent of 1996–97 median income in real terms (after housing costs).

  Against this backdrop of rising prosperity across the income distribution, we are still reversing the long-term trend of rising relative income poverty for children that we inherited. There are now around half a million fewer children living in households below 60 per cent of contemporary median income.

  Jobcentre-Plus Offices
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made of the impact of the decision to remove screens from the pilot Pathfinder offices; and if he will make a statement. [45507]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding reply 25 March 2002]: The Pathfinder offices are delivering the new Jobcentre Plus service in a predominantly unscreened environment. In every Jobcentre Plus area there remains screened provision for dealing with those customers and transactions known to give rise to particular risk.

  Fifty-six Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices are open and operating effectively——with positive feedback from staff and customers. For each of these offices a risk assessment has been conducted and its recommendations implemented in full. These assessments will be regularly reviewed in light of experience.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to tackle pensioner poverty. [45912]

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to ensure that pensioners share in the nation's prosperity. [44516]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are committed to tackling pensioner poverty. In 2001–02 around £5 billion extra has been spent on pensioners as a result of our policies since 1997. In 2002–03 this will rise to £6 billion a year. This includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners.

  This government introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee and is committed to raising this in line with earnings throughout this Parliament, ensuring that pensioners share in rising prosperity. From April, around 1.8 million of the poorest pensioner households will be over £1,000 a year better off in real terms as a result of the Government's tax benefit reforms.

  From 2003 the Pension Credit will ensure that it pays to have saved, with those entitled standing to gain an average of around £400 a year.

  Advertising/Public Relations
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list each(a) public relations and (b) advertising firm that has been employed by his Department since 1997, indicating the (i) subject area and (ii) campaign they worked on in each case. [33628]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department of Work and Pensions is a new department formed in June 2001. Since that time the following PR and advertising agencies have been employed in the subject areas and on the campaigns indicated:

  PR company

  Subject area and campaign

  Geronimo

  New Deal/Age Positive

  Media Moguls (ethnic specialists)

  New Deal

  555W

  Advertising agency

  Subject area and campaign

  Publicis

  New Deal for Disabled People

  A national campaign to launch NDDP, covering press advertising in national and regional titles, supported by a help line, website and publicity material.

  St Lukes

  New Deal 50 Plus

  A regional campaign to encourage more of the over-50s into work and to increase their awareness of the local help available.

  St Lukes

  New Deal 25 Plus

  A national campaign to inform the public about changes to the programme through radio advertising, a video and printed materials, supported by research.

  Ogilvy & Mather

  Work Incentives

  Advertising campaign on local radio to raise awareness of the range of financial initiatives available to those moving from benefits into employment if they meet the qualifying criteria.

  Delaney Lund Knox Warren & Craik Jones Watson Mitchell Voelkel

  Pension Education

  A publicity campaign to encourage people to save for their retirement and understand the pension options available to them.

  Ogilvy & Mather

  Winter Fuel Payments

  Information for people aged 60 plus and advisers about winter fuel payments and activity reminding them to claim and telling them how to claim for winter 2002 and relevant previous winters.

  D'Arcy

  Targeting Fraud

  A national advertising campaign on television, radio, press and posters to deter dishonest behaviour, reinforced by regional press advertising showing that benefit fraudsters are regularly caught and punished.

  D'Arcy

  Disability Discrimination Act Awareness

  A national, regional and trade press advertising campaign to raise the public's awareness of the DDA and specifically to encourage service providers to ensure that disabled people have access to their services.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the Public Service Agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43248]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Following machinery of Government changes in June 2001, the Public Service Agreement targets for the Department of Social Security were carried forward with the addition of the target shown below which was transferred from the Department for Education and Employment.

  "A continued reduction in the number of unemployed people over the age of 18 over the three years to 2004, taking account of the economic cycle."

DEFENCE

  Defence Medical Agencies
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the quinquennial review of the defence medical agencies; and if he will make a statement. [46935]

  Dr. Lewis Moonie
  As indicated in my written answer on 15 December 2000,Official Report, columns 274W–275W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) the Review has covered the functions and organisation of the Ministry of Defence's four medical agencies——the Defence Secondary Care
  556W
  Agency (DSCA), the Defence Dental Agency (DDA), the Defence Medical Training Organisation (DMTO) and the Medical Supplies Agency (MSA)——and other aspects of medical provision. I announced the results of the initial phase of work in my written answer of 17 October 2001, Official Report, columns 1223W–1224W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright).

  The Review Team has now completed its work, and I am today placing a summary of its conclusions in the Library of the House. In brief, the main points are that:

  There must be a clearer focus on delivery of the two key Defence medical outputs——deployable operational medical capability, and timely appropriate healthcare for Service personnel;

  Accountability for the delivery of these outputs by both central and single-Service authorities must be defined unambiguously, as part of a clear tri-Service strategy and plan;

  The Surgeon General (SG), working to the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, will be empowered to undertake effective oversight and direction of the DMS in meeting the key output requirements, including those elements which remain under single-Service management;

  A stronger partnership will be established between the DMS and the National Health Service;

  Management capabilities throughout the DMS will be strengthened, drawing on expertise from the parent Services and, where relevant, the NHS;

  The Defence Medical Services will be re-aligned and restructured to focus more effectively on the two key Defence medical outputs. The DSCA will be disestablished on 31 March 2003, with its training-related functions transferring to an expanded medical training agency, and healthcare commissioning being undertaken by a new group within the Surgeon General's staff. The MSA has now transferred into the Defence Logistics Organisation as of 1 April 2002.

  The review has provided an important opportunity to take stock of the progress that has been made since the announcement of the New Strategy for the DMS at the end of 1998. It is no surprise that it has concluded that while much has been done over the last three years there are further steps to be taken——and changes to be made—— that will help the process of restoring DMS capability and ensuring that key Defence medical outputs are delivered. The Government is committed to achieving those aims and, subject to the normal consultative process, to implementing the outcome of the review.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence What progress has been made with the quinquennial review of the medical agencies; and if he will make a statement. [8603]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to say that the review team have completed the first phase of its studies. As indicated in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) of 15 December 2000,Official Report, column 275W, the team has covered medical arrangements for personnel in Germany and Northern Ireland; and the inter?relationships between primary and secondary care as

  557W
  well as the functions and organisation of the Ministry of Defence's four medical agencies——the Defence Secondary Care Agency, the Defence Dental Agency, the Defence Medical Training Organisation and the Medical Supplies Agency.

  I have endorsed the broad lines of the review team's report on the first phase of its studies and have agreed a package of further work to underpin and confirm its provisional conclusions. A paper summarising the main features of the team's initial report and the phase 2 work, which will take place between now and the end of the year, is being placed in the Library of the House. As the paper indicates, this further work will result in

  detailed report which will form the basis of full consultation.

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence What new measures his Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [472511]

  Dr. Lewis Moonie
  [holding reply Wednesday 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 February 2002, (Official Report, column 682) which gave details of new and existing measures to deter and detect fraud and theft. It is a prime feature of delegated line management responsibility to operate procedures protecting assets from theft and damage. These procedures are always subject to review. They are enhanced where possible through central initiatives directed at the deterrence and detection of fraud and theft and the introduction of resource accounting arrangements. Recent developments include the promulgation of a policy statement on fraud and theft and the development of a programme of fraud and thef t awareness training across the department. Key controls, such as the maintenance of asset registers requiring a physical description of assets, spot checks and random searches, authorisation to remove assets from sites and physical security are underpinned by published guidance and direction.

  Joint Services Group
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Joint Services Group was formed; what its mission is; how many soldiers are assigned to it; what ranks are represented in its leadership; and to whom its commanding officer reports. [48026]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence).

  Warships
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his written answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 562W, on warships, if the companies mentioned will be involved with nuclear material as part of their contract; and if he will make a statement. [481781]

  Mr. Ingram
  Babcock Naval Services Limited at the Clyde and Devonport Management Limited at Devonport will be required to provide direct support to 558W
  Royal Navy nuclear powered submarines and this will involve nuclear material. Both of these companies are already engaged in work of this type.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made to celebrate(a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how his Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42298].

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The hon. Member is referred to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Tim Yeo) on 11 February 2002, Official Report, column 58W, in respect of her Department's responsibility for supporting and facilitating the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations.

  The Home Office flies the Union flag on St. George's Day arid St. David's Day, and this year will also be flying the flag on Coronation Day-2 June 2002.

  Staff will benefit from an additional bank holiday which will take place on Monday 3 June 2002 to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

  The Home Office issues a calendar of religious and cultural festivals each year and the Saints' days are included in that. Managers are encouraged to be flexible where possible and to make a reasonable accommodation for staff wishing to take leave for religious observance and festivals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  James Ashley
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) of 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 49–54, on James Ashley, what progress has been made in conducting disciplinary proceedings in relation to the police officers involved in the shooting of James Ashley. [43299]

  Mr. Denham
  One superintendent and two chief inspectors are facing a number of disciplinary charges. One officer has obtained leave for judicial review of his suspension. All three officers are seeking leave for judicial review of the chief constable's decision to proceed with disciplinary charges. It is unlikely that any disciplinary hearings will take place until those matters have been resolved.

  Court Hearings
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the performance of contractors in delivering prisoners to magistrates courts in the West Midlands in good time for court hearings. [43425]
  559W
  Beverley Hughes
  Premier Prison Services, who operate the court escort contract in the west Midlands and mid Wales, are required to deliver prisoners to magistrates courts in their area 30 minutes before court start time. In the six months to February 2002 over 20,000 prisoners have been escorted by Premier Prison Services to those courts and of these approximately 82 per cent. have arrived by the time stated in their contract. A further seven per cent. have arrived before court start time.

  All failures to meet the obligations placed on Premier Prison Services by the contract are examined by the Prison Service court escort monitor for the area and, where they are considered to be at fault, penalty points are imposed. If these exceed a prescribed level then financial remedies may be applied. Not all late deliveries are the direct fault of Premier Prison Services. Late discharges from prison, long journeys occasioned by the general population pressures on the prison estate and circumstances beyond the control of the parties involved may all be contributory factors in any individual case.

  Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on availability of sex offender treatment programmes in prison. [42891]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are five versions of the accredited Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTP) delivered in prisons: a core programme for all except those with learning difficulties and those at low risk of re-offending; an adapted programme for those with learning difficulties; an extended programme for those at high risk of re-offending; a rolling programme for those at low risk of re-offending; and a booster programme for those who have completed other versions of the programme and are preparing for release.

  The Prison Service's targets for numbers of prisoners completing versions of the programme in 2002–03 and 2003–04 are 950 and 1,240 respectively. Versions of the programme are currently delivered at 25 prisons. This is planned to rise to 27 prisons in 2002–03 and 28 in 2003–04. Prisoners may need to be transferred in order to undertake the programme.

  It is not possible to be precise as to whether provision exactly meets demand. For example, the programme is also delivered to those serving sentences for other offences but who have previous histories of sexual offending; and some offenders have to be excluded from treatment temporarily or permanently because clinical assessment at the start of the programme is that they are unlikely to be responsive. However, the Prison Service keeps the programme under review to ensure its availability to all eligible prisoners with sentences long enough to complete it.

  Premier Prison Services, who operate the court escort contract in the West Midlands and Mid Wales, are required to deliver prisoners to magistrates'courts in their area 30 minutes before court start time. In the six months to February 2002 over 20,000 prisoners have been escorted by Premier Prison Services to those courts
  560W
  and of these approximately 82 per cent. have arrived by the time stated in their contract. A further seven per cent. have arrived before the court start time.

  All failures to meet the obligations placed on Premier Prison Services by the contract are examined by the Prison Service Court Escort Monitor for the area and, where they are considered to be at fault, penalty points are imposed. If these exceed a prescribed level then financial remedies may be applied. Not all late deliveries are the direct fault of Premier Prison Services. Late discharges from prison, long journeys occasioned by the general population pressures on the prison estate and circumstances beyond the control of the parties involved may all be contributory factors in any individual case.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on overcrowding in prisons. [42893]

  Beverley Hughes
  At the end of February 2002, a total of 13,963 prisoners were held in overcrowded conditions. This is 20 per cent. of the prisoner population.

  Most overcrowding is attributable to the numbers held two in a cell designed for one, commonly known as doubling. Within the total overcrowding figure above, 12,516 prisoners were held doubled. The average rate of doubling for the current year to the end of February is 17 per cent. which remains below the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) target for 2001–02 18 per cent or less.

  Data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to address overcrowding in women's prisons. [43536]

  Beverley Hughes
  The female prison population on 15 March 2002 was 4,229. This was 146 below the total certified operational capacity of 4,375 for the same day. The Government sets no target for the prison population as it is for the courts to determine who is sent to prison. The Government will provide the places necessary to accommodate safely and securely those sentenced by the courts. New prison capacity is opening this year for female prisoners. Buckley Hall, a 350 place prison near Rochdale, will change function shortly from male to female use. Female capacity will increase by 80 places later this year when two ready use units are opened at Morton Hall in Lincolnshire. A further 810 places will be provided by 2004, in new prisons at Ashford (near Heathrow) and at Peterborough.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what aftercare is made available to women prisoners with mental health problems after they have been released. [43558]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Care Programme Approach (CPA), which is intended to address the health and social care needs of individual service users, applies to those women with mental health problems who leave prison in the same way that it applies to other mental health service users. It is intended to deliver care through a care plan to meet the individual needs of the
  561W
  service user, and is an effective co-ordination process. Most women prisoners with a serious mental illness should leave prison on enhanced CPA.

  Women prisoners with mental health problems should be able to access a full range of the community supports they need in order to promote their recovery and integration back into society through their CPA care co-ordinator or general practitioner. This should include housing, education, employment and leisure and the establishment of appropriate links with the benefits agency and probation service.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what ratio of prison officers to inmates is provided for(a) female and (b) male prisoners. [43539]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 31 January 2002, the ratio of prison officer grades to prisoner was——within public sector prisons:

  1:2.54——female prisoners;

  1:2.73——male prisoners,

  within privately managed prisons:

  1:2.18——male prisoners only.

  The definition of prison officer grades differs within the public and private sector. On 31 January 2002, no privately managed prison accommodated female prisoners.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if they Pay Review Board's recommendations for pay increases for prison offices will be met in full. [44420]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend (Huw Edwards) on 21 March 2002,Official Report, column 480W.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies from which his Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43407]

  Angela Eagle
  Current data capture systems do not enable the information to be reported in the format requested. From April 2001 the Department has instructed procurement staff to record information on timber and timber-based purchases by volume per species but there have been difficulties in obtaining the data. The Department proposes to review its capture of information on timber and wood purchases once cross government guidelines have been agreed.

  Knife Crime
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics his Department has collated on the incidence of knife crimes in Falmouth and Camborne. [43419]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prison workshops are in use at Wandsworth Prison. [44633]

  Beverley Hughes
  Workshops currently in use at Wandsworth prison are a Laundry, Data Entry Shop, Brush Manufacturing Shop, Textile Shop, Tailoring Shop and Contract Services Workshop.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at Wandsworth Prison are working gin prison workshops(a) full-time and (b) part-time, as at 15 March 2002. [44622]

  Beverley Hughes
  263 prisoners were employed in prison workshops at Wandsworth prison on 15 March 2002. Of these, 121 were employed full-time and 142 part-time.

  Arrest Statistics
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made, broken down by police force area, in each year since 1997. [44460]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the0 reply I gave the hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (James Paice) on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1246W.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 622W, if his Department is planning to apply for a special grant to pay for additional police officers and other exceptional additional costs which could not be met from within existing budgets for the Queen's Golden Jubilee; what the procedure is for applying for such a grant; how much money the Department anticipates requesting; and if he will make a statement. [44570]

  Mr. Denham
  Where it can be demonstrated that exceptional additional costs could not be met from existing police authority budgets or reserves it is open to forces to apply for a special grant. Any such application would be considered within existing Departmental provision for special grants.

  In general terms we would expect police authorities to meet the additional costs of policing Golden Jubilee events from within their existing budgets or reserves. Criteria for consideration of a special grant application were agreed in 2000 between the Home Office, Association of Chief Police Officers and Association of Police Authorities. Under those criteria police authorities are normally expected to meet additional costs up to 1 per cent. of the force budget set by the policy authority. Grant would be considered in relation to the balance of cost above that 1 per cent.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Department has spent on the Queen's Jubilee in each of the past three years; how it has been allocated; and if he will make a statement. [44571]
  563W
  Angela Eagle
  There was no Home Office expenditure in connection with the Golden Jubilee in 1999–2000. In 2000–01, £72,375.15 was spent on the administrative costs of setting up the Golden Jubilee Unit, which is co-ordinating the arrangements for the Jubilee celebrations

  Responsibility for the Golden Jubilee Unit was transferred to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport following the General Election. Funding had passed through the Home Office accounts in February 2002: up to that point £721,861.53 was spent by the Golden Jubilee Unit. This comprised £594,824 on the Unit's work in co-ordinating arrangements for the celebrations, £95,110 in grants and £31,927 on providing information about how to stage the jubilee events. Of the grant expenditure, the majority £50,000 was given to the "London String of Pearls" (as a contribution to the costs in opening up buildings to the public during Jubilee) and the rest to the Commonwealth Institute (to help towards the cost of its role in the planned national parade).

  Yarl's Wood
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prison officers were called to attend at Yarl's Wood during the recent riot. [44418]

  Beverley Hughes
  Yes. At the request of Group 4 and in accordance with the Prison Service's protocol with the Immigration and Nationality Department, prison officers were deployed to assist in restoring order at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre on 14 and 15 February 2002.

  Wellingborough Prison
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the number of prison officers at Wellingborough Prison attending prison visits. [44417]

  Beverley Hughes
  Management Consultancy Services (MCS) carried out a staffing and regimes review of Wellingborough Prison during October 2001. The MCS report contained recommendations about staffing levels required to supervise domestic visits. The report will now be discussed by MCS, management of the prison and the relevant staff associations.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community police officers there are in Greater Manchester, broken down by constituency. [42844]

  Mr. John Denham
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The information in the table has been provided by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (David Wilmot). The number of community police officers is shown for each police division. A breakdown by Parliamentary constituency is not available.

  Division

  Community Police Officers1

  North Manchester Division

  54

  South Manchester Division

  100

  The City of Salford Division

  75

  564W

  Division

  Community Police Officers1

  Tamside Metropolitan

  34

  Borough Division

  Stockport Metropolitan

  53

  Borough Division

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Division

  66

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Division

  53

  Tafford Metropolitan Borough Division

  38

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Division

  32

  Rochdale Metropolitan

  47

  Borough Division

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Division

  36

  Total

  588

  1 Greater Manchester police have defined a 'community police officer' as an officer who dedicates their duties to working within the community in partnership with other agencies, examples are a hool liaison officers and youth offender officers.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for review of notification of determination by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority there have been in each of the last three years; and what percentage of these requests subsequently result in a changed decision. [43990]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: he Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority have provided the following information:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Review requests

  19,891

  20,521

  18,002

  % Decision changed

  16

  15

  12

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for review of determination by the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority there have been in the current financial year; what the waiting time is for allocation of review requests; and what the average time is for completion of the review. [43991]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advise that 15,792 review requests were received in the period 1 April 2001 to 14 March 2002. The waiting time for allocation of review requests is currently 14 weeks and falling, and the average time for a completed review in the 2001–02 financial year is 439 days.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many determinations by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on which the application for compensation is declined due to the applicant refusing to give evidence in court there have been in each of the last three years; and what percentage of the total number of determinations were(a) approved and (b) declined. [43989]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advice that the number of applications rejected on account of the applicant's failure to give evidence in court was 236 in 1998–99, 158 in 1999–2000 and 274 in 2000–01. In the

  565W
  same three years, the percentages of all determinations approved were 54,52 and 53, and of those rejected were 46,48 and 47.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 834–5W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what was the nature of the data stored on such items in each case. [42642]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon.

  Percentage of positive tests from random MDT

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Cannabis

  17.2%

  14.5%

  10.2%

  7.5%

  6%

  Opiates (including heroin)

  4.3%

  4.5%

  4.3%

  4.7%

  4.7%

  Cocaine (including crack)

  0.2%

  0.3%

  0.2%

  0.2%

  0.2%

  All drugs

  20.8%

  18.3%

  14.2%

  12.4%

  11.4%

  1 Figures are based on the year to date——to 31 January 2002.

  No central record is kept of the amount of alcohol use in prisons. However, the best available indicator is the number of punishments handed down to prisoners for knowingly consuming alcohol. Between 1997 and 2000 these were:

  1997–297

  1998–524

  1999–632

  2000–547

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces in England and Wales keep records of alcohol-related crime. [44001]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The term alcohol-related crime potentially covers any criminal act where the perpetrator may have been drinking alcohol prior to, or at the time of, the offence. While the relevant offence may be recorded, there is at present no requirement on police forces to record whether or not the offender had been drinking. Many forces do, however make their own assessment of alcohol-related crime problems, to inform their operational policing decisions.

  The suite of Best Value Performance Indicators for the police for 2002–03 include both a measure of violent offences committed in connection with licensed premises and a measure of violent offences under the influence of
  566W
  Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44956]

  Angela Eagle
  For 2002–03 the Home Office targets for replying to letters will continue as follows:

  (a) Ministers to reply to 95 per cent. of MPs correspondence about the Prison Service within 20 working days, and within 15 working days on all other matters.

  (b) Officials to reply to 95 per cent. of correspondence from the public within 20 working days.

  Drug Use (Prisoners)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment what (1) the rate of testing for cannabis use among prisoners has been in each of the past five years. [45076]

  (2) what estimates his department has made of the use of (a) cannabis, (b) heroin, (c) crack cocaine, (d) all drugs, including alcohol among prisoners in each of the past five years. [45077]

  Beverley Hughes
  The most reliable indicator of drug misuse in prisons is data from the random mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme. National figures are given in the table.

  an intoxicating substance. This will provide a consistent measure of alcohol-related violence across all police forces in England and Wales.

  Special Urgency Provisions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1100W, if he will list the occasions on which his Department has applied the special urgency provisions of circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments), stating (a) the date, (b) the nature of the development and (c) a description of local consultations conducted. [45560]

  Angela Eagle
  Crown land is exempt from statutory planning control. Under the provisions of Circular 18/84 Government Departments instead must consult with local planning authorities before proceeding with Crown developments. In the event of an objection to the proposed development the matter may be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Stephen Byers), who may arrange for a non-statutory public local inquiry to be held. A decision will then be issued to all interested parties.

  Paragraph 22 of the Circular permits Departments to seek responses from local planning authorities within just 14 clays, instead of the normal eight weeks. Unlike the normal procedure there is no obligation on the local planning authority to seek third party views. If no

  567W
  response is received after 14 days the Department can proceed with the development by the service of notice on the authority.

  The special urgency provisions of circular 18/84 have been applied in the following cases:
  Globe House, 89 Eccleston Square, London SW1;
  Date: January 1999;
  Nature of development: New London Passport Office——removal of asbestos and stripping of the interior (Phase 1), redevelopment of the building, change of use and construction of a two-storey side extension (Phase 2);
  Description of consultations: Consultations took the form of meetings between retained consultants and Westminster City Council.
  Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre;
  Date: May 2000;
  Nature of development: Redevelopment and use of the site for an immigration detention centre;
  Description of consultations: Consultations included public meetings in Clapham and Milton Ernest village halls on 6 and 8 June 2000 respectively.
  Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre;
  Date: May 2000
  Nature of development: Redevelopment of the site to provide an immigration detention centre, with associated hearing centre, administration building, visitors centre and car parking.
  Description of consultations: An application letter and drawings were sent to the local planning authority and subsequent consultations were undertaken on an informal basis.
  Formerly Her Majesty's Prison Aldington (Immigration Detention Centre);
  Date: June 2000
  Nature of development: Construction of a 300-place immigration detention centre
  Description of consultations: Consultations took place with the local planning authority and three public meetings and an exhibition were held. This scheme has not been implemented.
  Logford House Removal Centre (Harmondsworth 2);
  Date: December 2001
  Nature of development: Development and use of the site as a second immigration detention centre.
  Description of consultations: An application letter and drawings were sent to the local planning authority and subsequent consultations were undertaken on an informal basis.
  Langhurst House, Horsham;
  Date: February 1999
  Nature of development: Construction of single-storey laboratory facility
  Description of consultations: An application letter and drawings were sent to the local planning authority and subsequent consultations were undertaken on an informal basis.

  The special urgency provisions have also been used for 120-place blocks at the following prisons:
  Her Majesty's Prison Garth, Chorley (June-July 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Holme House, Stockton-on-Tees (July 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison New Hall, Wakefield (June-October 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Bullingdon, Bicester (June-July 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Wetherby, Leeds (November 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Moorland, Doncaster (June 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Styal, Macclesfield (June 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Wymott, Chorley (July-August 1996)
  568W
  Her Majesty's Prison Onley, Daventry (June 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Guys March, Dorset (June 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Rangy, Ranby (August-October 1996).

  The special urgency provisions were also used for 40-place living units at the following prisons:
  Her Majesty's Prison Stocken, Rutland (November 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Norwich (November 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Downview, Banstead (November-December 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Kirklevington, Stockton-on-Tees (November-December 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Wayland, Thetford (November-December 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Haverigg, Millom (October-November 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Kirkham, Fylde (October 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Littlehey, Huntington (November 1996)
  Her Majesty's Prison Ashwell. Rutland (November 1996)

  In the period since the answer of 13 March 2002 special urgency provisions were applied in respect of 40-place rapid modular units at the following prisons:

  Her Majesty's Prison Acklington, Morpeth

  Her Majesty's Prison Eventhorpe, Brough

  Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Hatfield, Hatfield

  Her Majesty's Prison Haverigg, Millom

  Her Majesty's Prison Highpoint, Stradishall

  Her Majesty's Prison Hollesley Bay, Woodbridge

  Her Majesty's Prison Leyhill, Wot ton-Under-Edge

  Her Majesty's Prison Lindholme, Hatfield Woodhouse

  Her Majesty's Prison North Sea Camp, Boston

  Her Majesty's Prison Prescoed, Usk

  Her Majesty's Prison Ranby, Ranby

  Her Majesty's Prison Standford, Eastchurch

  Her Majesty's Prison Stocken, Stretton

  Her Majesty's Prison Spring Hill, Grendon Underwood

  Her Majesty's Prison Wayland, Thetford

  Her Majesty's Prison Wealstun, near Weatherby (clearance received in April 2002)

  Finally, special urgency provisions were applied in March 2002 in respect of a 40-place ready-to-use unit at the following prison:
  Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Morton Hall, Swinderby (clearance received in March 2002)

  In the case of all prison developments an application letter and drawings were sent to the local planning authority and subsequent consultations were undertaken on an informal basis.

  Animal Experiments
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on animal experiments. [45920]

  Angela Eagle
  The use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures is strictly regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which is widely regarded as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world. It offers a high level of protection to animals whilst recognising the need to use animals in
  569W
  research. It also requires the latest ideas and technology to be taken into account when deciding whether the use of animals is justified.

  We are working to ensure that the highest possible standards of animal welfare are applied and that animals are used only where it is fully justified. To this end, the Home Office has developed and put in place a strategy to ensure that policy is reviewed continuously as scientific and ethical considerations evolve, checking that the costs to animals are minimised and remain outweighed by the potential benefits of the work; compliance and high standards are reinforced through consistently applied inspection, training, guidance and (if necessary) infringement procedures; the advice of the Inspectorate, other welfare and scientific expertise, and the products of local ethical review processes is harnessed in ensuring that there are no alternatives which either replace animal use entirely, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). It also ensures that these are rigorously applied in every case and that the highest standards of animal welfare are implemented.

  It is also our strategy to encourage the development and use of alternatives and relevant databases through research funding and education, and through support for the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM); to take a lead in formulating European policies, standards and targets which neither disadvantage the United Kingdom nor drive work abroad to countries where lower standards apply; to liaise actively with legitimate interest groups and encourage the Animal Procedures Committee to take a more public role and offer broadly based and independent advice to Ministers; and to seek to make the administration of the 1986 Act as transparent as possible.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the cost of converting the Centrex Site at High Ercall, Shropshire to a centre for housing asylum seekers; [45165]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) Angel Development Corporation and (b) other interested parties on the suitability of the Centrex site at High Ercall, Shropshire, for housing asylum seekers since 27 November 2001. [45164]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Angel Group is under contract to the National. Asylum Support Service to provide accommodation for asylum seekers. I can confirm that no discussions have taken place with the Group or other interested parties into the possibility of using the Centrex site at High Ercall as a centre for housing asylum seekers. Since no discussions have taken place I am unable to estimate the cost of converting the site.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent changes have been made to the asylum support system. [49015]

  Angela Eagle
  Amendments to the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 came into effect on 8 April 2002. From that date levels of support provided to asylum seekers 570W
  and their dependants under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 have been increased. Also from 8 April all payments will be paid in cash.

  In addition, the Regulations have been amended to extend the prescribed period for discontinuing the support of asylum seekers whose claims have been fully determined. From 8 April when the Secretary of State notifies the claimant that he accepts the asylum claim, or notifies the claimant that the asylum claim is rejected but at the same time gives him limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or where an appeal by the claimant against the Secretary of State's decision has been disposed of (within the meaning of Section 94(4) of the Act by being allowed, the period is increased from 14 days to 28 days. In any other case, the period is increased from 14 days to 21 days.

  Amendments to the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 have also been made. These extend the duration of the Regulations until 5 April 2004; amend the prescribed period for asylum seekers supported by local authorities in the same way as for those supported under Section 95 of the 1999 Act and remove the restrictions on the payment of subsistence support in cash.

  The new rates of support for the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) supported asylum seekers are shown in the table:

  Levels of cash subsistence support for NASS supported asylum seekers and any dependants from 8 April 2002

  Rates

  Qualifying couple

  £59.26

  Lone parent aged Qualifying couple 18 or over

  £37.77

  Single person aged 25 or over

  £37.77

  Single person aged at least 18 but under 25

  £29.89

  Person aged at least 16 but under 18 (except a member of a qualifying couple)

  £32.50

  Person aged under 16

  £33.50

  Criminal Justice System Annual Report
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the criminal justice system annual report for 2000–01. [49014]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My noble and learned Friends the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor and I will today be publishing jointly an annual report for the criminal justice system for England and Wales.

  The document is a formal report back on the criminal justice system strategic and business plan, which was published in May 2000.

  Copies of the Report will be placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he expects to complete his five economic tests for determining whether the UK should adopt the euro. [44499]
  571W
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have made clear on a number of occasions to this House that the Treasury will complete the assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to present to Parliament regular progress reports on the preliminary technical work on the assessment of the five economic tests on the euro. [44519]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has said that it will complete the assessment within two years of the start of this Parliament. Once the assessment is complete, the Government will publish the conclusions and the report.

  Tourism Exports
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the level of tourism exports in the last five years from each region of the country. [44518]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures on incoming tourists by UK region, alongside estimates of their expenditure, are contained in Table 4.11 of the Office for National Statistics 2001 Travel Trends publication (ISBN 0 11 621477 55). This covers years up to and including 2000. Figures for 2001 will be published in the Autumn.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what action his Department is taking to reach its goal on lifting children out of poverty in this Parliament. [44521]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government is committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. As part of this commitment, we recently published a strategy document entitled "Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life" which will inform the Budget and Spending Review 2002. As a result of tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been.

  As part of the next stage of tax and benefit reform, a new tax credit for families with children——the Child Tax Credit——will be introduced from 2003, building on the foundation of universal Child Benefit. It will bring together the strands of support for children in Children's Tax Credit, Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Person's Tax Credit and Income Support/Job Seekers' Allowance, and will be a seamless and transparent system of support for children, paid to the main carer, whether the family is in or out of work. Decisions on rates and thresholds will be set out in Budget 2002.

  National Insurance
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the revenue implications of aligning the national insurance upper earnings limit with the higher rate of tax threshold. [44522]
  572W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 742W.

  NHS Funding
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with Derek Wanless regarding the contents of the final Wanless report. [44524]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr. Swayne).

  Sports Clubs
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received to implement separate tax proposals for community amateur sports clubs in the 2002 Budget. [44525]

  Mr. Boateng
  A range of responses to the "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document has been received. Decisions on the best way forward will be made with regard to these responses and in the context of subsequent meetings with sports' representative bodies and the Charity Commission. A summary of responses will be made publicly available at the time of any announcement.

  Manufacturing
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of trends in tax receipts from manufacturing industry in the south-west since January 2001. [44526]

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the changes in tax receipts from the manufacturing sector in the south-east of England during 2001. [44534]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested is not available. This is because the difficulties involved in apportioning taxes between different regions and sectors mean that the estimates would not be robust.

  Climate Change Levy
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from industry on the climate change levy. [44527]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of the normal process of contact with business, the Chancellor and the Treasury Ministerial team have met with a variety of business organisations and individual companies, and have heard a variety of representations on Climate Change Levy, and on other matters.

  Privy Council Silverware
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the Privy Council silverware. [44528]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 March,Official Report, column 46W.

  Oil Prices
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the economy of the recent rise in oil prices. [44529]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government will publish updated forecasts for the UK economy in the Budget on 17 April, taking into account all recent developments and risks.

  Unemployment (North-East)
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on measures being taken to reduce unemployment in the north-east. [44530]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures recently announced show that the employment level is at 28,232 million, and the claimant unemployment level stands at 951,000. Claimant unemployment stands at 5.3 per cent in the North East and in North Durham it is down by 44 per cent. since 1997. The New Deal has been a contributing factor to these reductions in unemployment.

  In particular New Deal for young people has been successful in its four years of operation; it has placed over 340,000 18–24 year olds into work. 27,858 individuals have been placed into work in the North East. The New Deal for 25 plus and the enhanced programme (since April 2001) has helped a further 92,000 long-term unemployed people into work. For the North East region, 4,934 individuals have moved into employment and since the enhanced programme 1,616 individuals.

  Action teams are in place to help individuals into employment, as well as Employment zones. For instance, within the North East region these have been launched in Stockton and Middlesbrough RC.

  To build on this performance, the Government has introduced further measures to increase the effectiveness of the New Deal and other employment programmes, including:
  Piloting greater flexibility in the Options section of NDYP from November 2001 to give personal advisers more freedom to tailor the provision of support to meet the needs of the individuals, local employers and local labour markets;
  Establishing a pilot mentoring scheme from January 2002 to assess how mentoring can best be used to improve employment chances and job retention under the New Deal;
  Step-up a new programme of transitional employment pilots will, from April 2002 target our hardest to help clients who have not been able to find a job through the New Deal are going to be in place for instance in, Knowsley and Lambeth areas. People who take up these jobs will receive individual support so that they can eventually make the transition to unsupported jobs in the open labour market;
  To support those communities affected by large-scale redundancies, the Government is allocating additional resources to strengthen the Job Transition Service over the next two years; and
  The Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) is helping to make work pay for low to middle income families' with children. Nearly 1.3 million families with children are currently receiving the WFTC, around 400,000 more than received its predecessor, Family Credit. On average these families are receiving £35 a week more on WFTC than under Family Credit.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the results of his welfare to work proposals in deprived areas. [44531]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures recently announced show that the employment level is at 28,232 million, and the claimant unemployment level stands at 951,000. Claimant unemployment in Tottenham is down by 44 per cent. since 1997. The New Deal has been a contributing factor to these reductions in unemployment.

  In particular New Deal for young people has been successful in its four years of operation: it has placed over 340,000 18–24 year olds into work. The New Deal for 25 plus and the enhanced programme (since April 2001) has helped a further 92,000 long-term unemployed people into work.

  To build on this performance, the Government has introduced further measures to increase the effectiveness of employment programmes in deprived areas, which include:
  Tackling the obstacles to employment in some of the worst affected regions in Britain, the Government has established 63 Action Teams in England, Scotland and Wales that suffer from particularly high levels of inactivity and long-term unemployment. Action Teams are a dynamic and innovative resource to tackle some of the UK's most deep-seated and protracted employment problems. So far 6,934 people have moved to work through Action Teams;
  The Government has PSAs targets for increasing employment in the most deprived areas within the UK. The employment rate for these 30 areas currently stands at 63.2 per cent. (Autumn 2001) up from 60.2 per cent. in Spring 1997;
  Step-up a new programme of transitional employment pilots will, in deprive areas such as Knowsley and Lambeth from April 2002 target our hardest to help clients who have not been able to find a job through the New Deal. People who participate in Step-Up will receive individual support so that they can eventually make the transition to unsupported jobs in the open labour market;
  The Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) helps to make-work pay for low to middle income families' with children. Nearly 1.3 million families with children are currently receiving the WFTC, around 400,000 more than received its predecessor, Family Credit. On average these families are receiving £35 a week more on WFTC than under Family Credit.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations his Department has made to call for the acceleration of debt cancellation under the HIPC process to the level required to help achieve international development targets set at the bank April meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. [44532]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government continues to press for rapid implementation of the HIPC debt relief initiative to ensure that all eligible countries benefit and achieve sustainable debt levels.

  The cost of achieving the International Development Targets has been estimated at an additional US$50 billion per annum, equivalent to a doubling of current global aid. Debt reduction under the HIPC initiative can therefore be only one element of the additional finance required. For this reason the Government has been calling for substantial increases in aid and has welcomed

  575W
  recent commitments by the US and EU, announced in advance of the UN Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey, of an US$12 billion per annum increase in aid levels.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department plans new bilateral loans to(a) the heavily indebted poor countries and (b) other countries. [45188]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  All DFID bilateral assistance to heavily indebted poor countries and to other developing countries is in the form of grants.

  Employment Tax Credit
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals for an employment tax credit. [44533]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In April 2003 the Government are planning to introduce the Working Tax Credit to help make work pay and tackle in-work poverty. The Working Tax Credit will replace the adult elements of the Working Families' Tax Credit, Disabled Person's Tax Credit and the Employment Credit 50 +. It will also extend the principle of Working Families Tax Credit to workers aged over 25 without children or a disability. The Working Tax Credit will be complemented by the Child Tax Credit. The rates and tapers of the Working Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit will be announced in Budget 2002.

  VAT
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the costs to small businesses of administering VAT. [44535]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on 26 November 2001,Official Report, columns 630W and 631W.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48407]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held centrally, and could only be assembled at disproportionate cost.

  Exports
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the level of UK exports if the pound fell 10 per cent. against the euro; and if he will make a statement. [44536]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 696W.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent steps have been taken by the Treasury concerning the planning and control of health expenditure. [44517]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  These are matters for consideration by the Chancellor prior to the Budget and Spending Review.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Secretary of State for Health to discuss planned levels of health spending after 2003–04. [44520]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor meets with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health to discuss a variety of issues on a regular basis.

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002, Ref. 37050, with reference to Clause 19 of the Cabinet Office Guidance to Departments on Sponsorship of Government Activities, if he will place the written agreement between his Department and Andersen in the library; and if he will make a statement. [39615]

  Ruth Kelly
  The commercial arrangements for the "Creating Knowledge: Creating Wealth" conference on 14 April 1999 were as follows. The Treasury paid £15,500.85 (including VAT) for the hire of the conference facility, catering, staging and audio/visual equipment. Arthur Andersen incurred costs of £5,499.15 for the preparation of conference packs and for graphic design.

  Arthur Andersen's role was to help identify speakers and with the administration of the event. I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of a letter from my officials dated 25 November 1998 setting out these arrangements.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44880]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:(a) PFI Projects Delayed
  Inland Revenue——Archer House project, Stockport. The delay was due to a proposed site change and an interim change of specification.
  (b) There have been no delayed PPP projects.

  Scottish Transport Group
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date his Department was first informed of the level of Scottish Transport Group pension scheme's surplus. [48168]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The wind up of the STG pension scheme is being taken forward by the Scottish Executive following privatisation. The Scottish Executive
  577W
  announced in December 2000 how the surplus was being distributed following agreement with Treasury Ministers.

  Scottish Bus Group
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules in respect of double taxation are applicable to the Scottish Bus Group employee pension fund. [48284]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A surplus from a pension fund scheme can carry a tax liability. A tax charge is provided for under section 601 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. It applies to all payments to an employer from the funds of an exempt approved pension scheme, as the Scottish Transport Group schemes are. The current rate at which the tax is charged is 35 per cent. in accordance with Section 74 of the Finance Act 2001. The tax payable on payments to pensioners will depend on the personal tax circumstances of the individual. Payments have yet to be finalised.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal advice his Department has obtained in relation to the distribution of the Scottish Bus Group employee pension funds; under what statutory provisions these funds are liable to public general taxation; to what extent ex-gratia payments made to former members of the fund are liable to tax; to what extent this applies in respect of payments in excess of £30,000; and at what rate. [48282]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Scottish Executive is taking forward the wind up of the STG pension schemes. The tax position is set out in the answer I am today giving to another question of the hon. Lady's ref. 48284.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new initiatives his Department has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its Public Service Agreements targets. [47186]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information about the measures put in place to achieve the Treasury's PSA targets will be published in the Treasury's 2002 Departmental Report.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his overseas visits since 7 June 2001. [46173]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February,Official Report, column 707W.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 7 February 2002, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),Official Report, columns 1142–43W, on tax credits, what the average penalty imposed on each person who has been subjected to a penalty as a result of an investigation into a WFTC or DPTC claim is, broken down into each financial year. [40509]
  578W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The average penalty imposed as a result of an investigation into a WFTC/DPTC claim is as follows:

  October 1999–March 2000

  April 2000–March 2001

  April 2001–December 2001

  Average penalty

  £481

  £521

  £593

  Widows' Pensions
  David Burnside
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the difference in the treatment for tax purposes of the attributable pension awarded to war widows and widows of disabled service personnel. [46410]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: Specific rules mean that pensions paid under the War Pensions Scheme to widows or widowers in respect of the death of their spouses are exempt from tax. Pensions paid to widows or widowers of service personnel under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme are taxable in the normal way.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the cost to the Treasury of collecting capital gains tax. [47635]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of collecting Capital Gains Tax in 2000–01 was £43 million. This equates to 1.33 pence for every pound of Capital Gains Tax collected.

  The figure relates mainly to costs arising from gains to individuals and trustees but some other costs (mainly of land valuations for companies) that cannot be separately identified are included in the collection costs of capital gains tax.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the income from capital gains tax was in each of the last five years. [47655]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Receipt of capital gains tax in each of the last five years are given on the Inland Revenue website at: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax-receipts/g-t02-1.htm.

  Research and Development
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial measures the Government have implemented since 1997 to stimulate research and development, and production, in the sectors of medical technology and of pollution control. [44493]

  Mr. Boateng
  In Budget 2000 the Government introduced the R&D tax credit for small and medium sized companies. In Budget 2001 consultation was announced on two further measures supporting R&D:extending R&D tax credits to all companies; and
  a tax credit for research into drug and vaccines for killer diseases——TB, malaria and some strains of HIV/AIDS——primarily affecting people living in developing nations.
  579W
  The Chancellor confirmed on 25 March that a wider volume based R&D tax credit, applying to spending on or after 1 April 2002, would be introduced.

  Budget 2001 introduced enhanced capital allowances for investment in energy efficient technologies, allowing companies to immediately write off the full cost of qualifying investments against taxable profit. In Pre-Budget Report 2001 the Government announced proposals under the Green Technology Challenge to introduce further enhanced capital allowances to tackle climate change and improve air quality, and to reduce water use and improve water quality.

  Small Landlords
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the tax system to assist small landlords. [44494]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes will be announced in the Budget Report.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 578W, on vocational training, if he will provide a breakdown of the courses being followed by the claimants of vocational training relief in 1998–99. [48639]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Family Incomes
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the take-home pay of families of those in low paid work. [44504]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the last Parliament this Government introduced the following measures to make work pay:

  National Minimum Wage

  Working Families Tax Credit and Childcare Tax Credit

  The 10 pence and 22 pence rates of income tax; and

  Reforms to National Insurance Contributions.

  As a result of these measures families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are on average £1,700 a year better off in real terms.

  In April 2003 the Government is planning to replace Working Families Tax Credit with the Working Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. The Child Tax Credit will provide a seamless stream of support for families, paid direct to the main carer, building on the foundations of universal Child Benefit.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the advisory cost limit of £550 for answering written parliamentary questions; and if he will make a statement. [49257]

  Ruth Kelly
  The advisory cost limit was last increased in 2000,Official Record, 15 May 2000, column 47W and is to be further increased to £600 from today.
  580W
  The purpose and application of the advisory cost limit remains unchanged. It is intended to act as a threshold for disproportionate cost parliamentary questions (PQs). Any written PQ where the marginal cost of preparing the answer is considered likely to exceed the threshold may be refused in whole or in part on the grounds of disproportionate cost. Alternatively the Minister may decide that the PQ is to be answered irrespective of cost. There is no advisory limit for oral PQs.

  The advisory limit continues to be based on eight times the average marginal cost for written PQs, which is now £75, rounded down to the nearest £50 for convenience of application.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of answering(a) a written parliamentary question and (b) an oral parliamentary question. [49258]

  Mr. Boateng
  As at April 2001, the average cost of answering a written parliamentary question and an oral parliamentary question was £129 and £299 respectively.

  Monterey Conference
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions took place at the Financing for Development Conference in Mexico on the reform of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers to take into account (he financial resources required to reach the 2015 development targets. [46657]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK delegation to the Conference was not aware of any specific discussions at Monterrey about the need to reform the PRSP process to take into account the financial resources required to reach the 2015 development targets. UK policy is to support improvements to poor countries' public expenditure management systems so that poverty reduction policies and programmes can be clearly costed and prioritised in PRSPs. We also support the work of the World Bank and UNDP which looks at the costs for individual countries to reach the Millennium Development Goals.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  BSE
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make available the latest progress report prepared by her Department on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [49671]

  Mr. Morley
  A further Progress Report on BSE in Great Britain was placed in the Library of the House today.

  The report outlines the measures which have been taken to protect public health since June 2001 and includes the latest EU requirements for testing and surveillance.

  There is also a section on the protection of animal health which covers controls on animal feed.
  581W
  The epidemiology section shows that the epidemic of BSE in Great Britain continues to decline.

  The report is also published on the DEFRA website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/index.html.

  Livestock Movements
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when th.; Government will end the 20-day standstill rule for livestock. [48193]

  Mr. Morley
  The interim rules for livestock movements, which we announced on 5 February, allow greater flexibility for farmers to move their animals. The 20 day standstill rule has been waived for some types of movement, subject to conditions and we will continue to keep these arrangements under review. However, veterinary advice is that the 20 day standstill needs to remain in place for the time being as a disease control measure. A copy of a document explaining the Veterinary basis for the Interim movement rules has been placed in the Library of the House and is available on the DEFRA website.

  Oil Seed Rape Contamination
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the report being prepared by the Canadian seed authorities on the possible causes of the GM contamination or hybrid oil seed rape exported to the UK in the spring or 2000 has been received. [49672]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report to which my hon. Friend refers has recently been issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have arranged for copies to lx placed in the House Libraries.

  Risk Transfer
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department intends transferring forms of risks associated with farm businesses to farmers. [46748]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials are currently discussing with the livestock and insurance industries a number of options on the transfer, to farmers, of some of the costs of animal diseases.

  Regulations
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department plans to help farmers rationalise regulations. [46746]

  Mr. Morley
  My plans were set out at paragraph 4.61 of "Sustainable Food and Farming: Working Together", published on 26 March, which reads:

  "The Government accepts that there is a need to find better ways for farmers, DEFRA and the regulatory bodies to work together to achieve improvements in standards without imposing unnecessary burdens. This need arises on a wide range of issues——including animal health and welfare, food safety, employee health and safety and nature conservation as well as environmental regulation. On 26 March my right hon. Friends, the
  582W
  Prime Minister and the Secretary of State announced that DEFRA would give high priority to work on new approaches to regulation, including the need for DEFRA and the regulators to consider the cumulative effects of regulatory requirements on the farm business as a whole. These commitments reflected a new approach to regulation in which DEFRA promised to:
  be open with industry——consulting early and often;
  minimise the bureaucracy of regulation, using Regulatory Impact Assessments in a joined up way to assess impacts in the round (across regulatory regimes), and to cut duplication of effort;
  provide advice and information easily and up front——to help farmers comply, not just punish them for failure;
  join up government and join up the regulators——provide business advice and regulatory advice as a package;
  ensure regulations are risk-based and proportionate.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, also said that shy will press hard for better integration between the agricultural and environmental agendas at the European level, and called on the farming industry to play a bigger role in helping to devise environmental legislation within the EU."

  LGC
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 240W, on genotype test errors, if she will list the contracts that her Department and its predecessor Department has had in the last five years with LGC. [33776]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: The following are the contracts undertaken by LGC in the last five years:
  Specia Lion, bioavailability, biopotency and functional markers for D vitamers;
  Development of methods to detect protein standardisation of cows' drinking milk;
  Methods for the detection of rectified grape and apple juice in fruit juices;
  The immunological determination of meat content;
  Evaluation of a DNA Method for Meat Species Identification;
  A novel method for the detection of neuronal tissue from beef by the identification of tissue specific DNA modification;
  Differentiation of species of meat in particular cooked products by DNA methods;
  Evaluation of a suite of methods to distinguish cheese analogues from genuine cheese;
  Optimisation and validation of DNA assay for detection of select non-muscle tissues in meat products using tissue specific DNA modification;
  Vitamin B6 improvements in extraction and determination——Resolving inaccuracy and bias from its measurement;
  Development and validation of two analytical procedures for the quantitative determination of fatty acids;
  Further studies on the determination of heme and non-heme iron;
  Develop and validate a routine HPLC method for the determination of folates and folic acid in foods;
  development and validation of rapid viable pathogen testing and enumeration by a simple and low cost new method;
  An improved analytical method for gellan gum;
  Development and validation of procedures to detect and quantify the use of dimethyl dicarbonate in non-alcoholic drinks;

  583W
  Biomarker assessment of benzoate consumption;
  A regiospecific immunoassay screening test for contaminants from food contact plastics;
  Develop a novel molecular typing method for comparison of foodbourne pathogens using VTEC as a model organism;
  Efficacy testing of disinfectants used in the food industry against a range of pathogens including E-coli 0157;
  Processing LINK Offers of Grant;
  Organochlorine residue in poultry resulting from the use of hyperchlorinated water in poultry washes;
  Chain of custody audit at Institute of Animal Health;
  Development of a Sensitive and Specific Molecular Typing Method for the Epidemiological Study of Salmonella;
  Investigation of glufosinate residue analysis in potatoes, soya products, legume and maize;
  Development of methods for the determination of thyreostats in poultry and bovine livers;
  BSE Testing in Cattle: Analytical Work on Veterinary Residues in Foodstuffs of Animal Origin;
  National Scrapie Plan "Blood Sampling";
  Feasibility Study of the Determination of Oestrone, etc. in Drinking Waters;
  Analysis of Oestrone, Oestradiol and Ethynyl Oestradiol——Supervision of Performance Tests;
  Investigation of Solvent Contamination Incidents and Provision of Scientific Advice on Drinking Water Quality and Health Issues;
  Leaching of Lead from Approved u-PVC Water Supply Pipes;
  Consolidate two GCMS methods for the determination of three oestrogen steroids in water and review of the potential for determining the same steroids using LCMSMS;
  Exposure to chloropropanol isomers via polyamines.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of St ate for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria she uses to decide which letters from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public will receive an answer signed by herself. [7562]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: A range of criteria——including the position held by the individual concerned, the subject matter and the background to the correspondence——is used to determine whether my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State responds to letters from hon. Members or asks one of her Ministerial team to reply on her behalf. By convention, Privy Councillors only receive replies from fellow Privy Councillors, unless they have expressly written to another Minister.

  Similarly, whether or not my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State replies in person to letters from members of the public depends on whether the letter-writer holds a particular position in public life, or if he or she is known personally to the Secretary of State and on the nature and content of the letter.

  The hon. Member may be interested to know that since the beginning of January 2002, DEFRA Ministers have received over 4,200 letters from hon. and right hon. Members, and in excess of 45,000 letters from members of the public. The majority of these were addressed to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.
  584W
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the correspondence from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 20 June 2001 relating to the future prospects of livestock auctions. [33877]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent on 8 April to the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 6 August from the hon. Member for North Shropshire concerning his constituent Ms J. Vernon. [12632]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]: I am sorry for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter. A reply was sent on 26 March.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Prime Minister regarding(a) the future of farming and (b) the future prospects of small family farms; and if she will publish he record of those discussions. [16394]

  Margaret Beckett
  On 9 August the Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Independent Policy Commission on farming and food. Government asked it to advise on how we create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy which advances environmental, health and animal welfare goals and is consistent with the Government's aim for CAP reform, enlargement of the EU and increased trade liberalisation.

  Following the publication of the Policy Commission's Report on 29 January, my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and I met leaders of farming, food, rural, environmental and consumer bodies to discuss how to take the recommendations forward. The outcome of that meeting was published in a News Release (No 117/02), issued by my Department on 26 March.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) her Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34413]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government are introducing to curb the importation of illegal meats. [35710]
  585W
  Mr. Morley
  On 28 March the Government published an action plan which commits it to a range of measures to reduce disease risks presented by illicit imports of animal products. A copy of the plan is being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what progress has been made with investigations into the feasibility of using x-ray machines to detect illegal meat imports; and if she will make a statement; [47912]

  (2) What progress has been made with the pilot scheme for dogs to sniff out meat which is being brought into the country illegally; and if she will make a statement; [47913]

  (3) What plans she has to make the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 more effective; and if she will make a statement; [47914]

  (4) What material is issued to inform people travelling to the UK of the regulations regarding personal imports of meat and the penalties for importing meat illegally. [48390]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has published an action plan, the aim of which is to reduce the risk of exotic animal and plant diseases entering the country. The plan takes account of recent discussions the Government has had with stakeholder interests on the priorities and actions for the coming year to tackle the issue of illegal imports. A copy of the plan has been placed in the library of the House. It contains a range of measures, including those listed in these questions.

  We are gathering information to help examine the potential benefits of using x-ray equipment to scan containers and personal baggage to detect illegal imports, leading if successful to a trial. On the use of dogs, we are working towards commencing a pilot this summer.

  Enforcement officers will be given new powers (already available to customs officers) in April to search baggage, etc for illegal imports of animal products. The central and local government agencies involved in importation of food and other goods are working closely together to achieve effective inter-agency co-ordination of checks, and which will include discussions about how these search powers will be used.

  Information about our import rules has been provided to Embassies to publicise locally through travel agents and when visas are issued. Posters have been put on display in the arrival baggage halls at UK airports advising of the penalties for smuggling animal and plant products. Information on restricted produce is also contained in HM Customs' Guide for travellers entering the UK, and which can be viewed on-line at http://www.hmce.gov.uk/forms/notices. Further publicity measures will be developed.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what outbreaks of disease in animals in Britain have been linked to the import of illegal meat products in the past five years. [46789]
  586W
  Mr. Morley
  We cannot be certain as to the precise origin of the Classical Swine Fever and Foot and Mouth Disease outbreaks in 2000 and 2001. However, absence of any evidence that these diseases were introduced through the import of live animals suggests infected meat or meat products are the source. The precise route for introducing infection is likely to remain unknown, though the controls in place for legal imports point to an illegal or inadvertent introduction.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the role of her Department has been in checks on illegal meat imports at airports in the last two years; and if she will make a statement. [46383]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has lead responsibility for animal health controls on imports of meat, working with the Food Standards Agency which has responsibility for public health aspects, and HM Customs, the devolved administrations, and Local and Port Health Authorities. The last two years has seen greater co-operation between these authorities.

  The Department held a meeting on 21 March with all the public enforcement authorities, the ports, airports, airlines, agriculture and food industry to intensify efforts to reduce illegal meat imports.

  Refrigerators (Disposal)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Ministers and officials attached to her Department were directly involved in discussions with the European Commission concerning the implementation of EU regulation 2037/2000 in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [40365]

  Mr. Meacher
  I negotiated the draft Regulation at the EC Environment Council meeting in December 1998, and the Council adopted a common position at the meeting in February 1999. Negotiations at official level took place in the Environment Working Group of the Council and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. At official level, further discussions with the European Commission and other Member States on introduction and implementation took place at regular Management Committee meetings on both the previous legislation, EC Regulation 3093/94, and EC Regulation 2037/2000.

  Animal Medicines
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps the Government are taking to ensure that animal owners are not limited to buying animal medicines from veterinary surgeons under EU directive 2001/82/EC; [39300]

  (2) what assessment she has made of likely employment effects of the implementation of EU directive 2001/82/EC. [39299]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Directive 2001/82/EC consolidated a number of Directives concerning veterinary medicinal products into a single text. Its purpose was not to introduce any substantive changes to the controls on veterinary medicines that

  587W
  previously existed. Therefore there are no likely effects on employment as a consequence of its implementation. Nor is there anything in Directive 2001/82/EC that would limit animal owners to buying veterinary medicines from veterinary surgeons.

  However, the European commission has proposed amendments to Directive 2001/82/EC, one of which would require medicines for food-producing animals to be supplied only in accordance with a veterinary prescription. Under UK legislation veterinary medicines for which a prescription is required may be supplied by veterinary surgeons or registered pharmacists. In its present form this particular proposal could result in UK farmers having to pay more by incurring veterinary surgeons' fees when obtaining those medicines that are currently available without veterinary intervention. Furthermore, it could restrict the number and types of veterinary medicines that may be supplied by registered agricultural merchants and saddlers, to a limited range of products for dogs and cats. This could have significant adverse effects on those businesses.

  In considering this proposal the Government has taken account of its likely impact on the supply of veterinary medicines and has agreed that, during negotiations, UK officials should seek to modify the proposal to enable a flexible approach to the distribution of veterinary medicinal products that takes advantage of existing national practices, so long as consumer protection and animal welfare can be demonstrably assured.

  The proposed amendments to Directive 2001/82 do not change the current arrangements for selling medicines for companion animals.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the running costs were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) her Department for each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [41036]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has only been in existence since June 2001. Forecast running cost expenditure on Ministers' private offices for 2001–02 is £2.2 million. This includes £1.5 million for staff costs. The 2001–02 Administrative Cost budget for the whole Department is £653.6 million.

  Manpower
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff have been employed by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42455]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. M ember to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie) on 19 March,Official Report, column 295W.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what 588W
  arrangements her Department has made to celebrate (a) St. Patrick's Day, (b) St. George's Day, (c) St. Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how her Department celebrated St. David's Day. [42197]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: In Connection with celebrations to mark Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media And Sport to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Tim Yeo) on 11 February, Official Report, column 58W/59W.

  On flag flying, the Department and its Executive Agencies routinely follow central guidance from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on flying the Union flag from its buildings on "named days". They will similarly observe any agreed Union flag flying protocol for the Golden Jubilee but the flag will fly routinely on Coronation Day (2 June) as this is a "named day".

  Staff in the Department and its Agencies will benefit from the additional public holiday granted on 3 June to celebrate the Golden Jubilee.

  Pig Farms
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice the Department has issued to farmers regarding the legality of continued use of the stall and tether pig housing system in the UK. [45155]

  Magaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Legislation originally introduced in 1991 to ban close-confinement stalls for breeding sows came into full effect from January 1999. During the eight year phase-out period advisory material was issued and a video showing alternative systems produced.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports the Chief Veterinary Officer has received from(a) animal welfare organisations, (b) members of the public, (c) Farm Assurance scheme inspectors, (d) other Government officials and (e) other persons that animal welfare had been compromised in pig units at (i) Oldlands Farm, Wiltshire and (ii) Shoddesden, Hampshire. [45149]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: No complaints were received about either unit before allegations made by Sky News in June 2001.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigations have been made by the Government into use of sow stall and tether housing systems on the pig units of(a) Oldlands Pig Unit, Wiltshire and (b) Shoddesden Pig Unit, Hampshire since 1999. [45154]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: There have been veterinary inspections of both of these units. Allegations that illegal stall and tether systems were in use on these units after the ban was not substantiated.
  589W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to investigate the treatment of pigs at(a) Oldlands Pig Unit, Wiltshire and (b) Shoddesden Pig Unit, Hampshire. [45156]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: There are no plans to investigate the treatment of pigs at these units as there are currently no pigs on either unit. Previous complaints were investigated and no breach of welfare regulations were found.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when(a) Government ministers and (b) Government officials were first informed of the possibility that animal welfare had been compromised on pig units in (i) Oldlands Farm, Wiltshire and (ii) Shoddesden, Hampshire since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [45148]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Sky News first made allegations of poor welfare conditions on both units in June 2001. Allegations made in the media were fully investigated at the time and various claims made could not be substantiated by veterinary inspection.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) unannounced and (b) pre-arranged welfare inspections have taken place at the pig units of (i) Oldlands Farm, Wiltshire and (ii) Shoddesden, Hampshire since 1996. [45151]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: There have been six welfare inspections of these units since April 1996. Whether the visits were pre-arranged or unannounced was not recorded in all cases, but the most recent visits in June 2001 and January 2002 were pre-arranged in order to have a responsible person on site to facilitate inspection and respond to enquiries.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance she will give to pig farmers following the ban on feeding swill. [45386]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Government does not consider that financial assistance is appropriate for producers who have been required to change the feeding regimes of their animals. However, assistance was provided at the time of the introduction of the swill ban in the form of advice on alternative methods of feeding and alternative feeds that would be acceptable.

  Pollution (Irish Sea)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on co-operation between the UK Government and the Irish Government on monitoring pollution in the Irish Sea. [44005]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: There has been extensive co-operation in recent years, including shared research programmes, between the UK and the Irish Government on the pollution of the Irish Sea, particularly in the production of the Quality Status Report (QSR) for the Celtic Seas in 2000.
  590W
  This report, which is available in the Library, forms part of a wider assessment made within OSPAR, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. It concluded that ecosystem effects due to pollution are generally confined to urbanised estuaries and that environmental effects of most contaminants routinely monitored appear to be either stable, or decreasing, with the main problem being caused by tributyl tin.

  Co-operation continues through the joint work undertaken in the OSPAR Monitoring and Assessment Committee.

  Although there is no specific co-operation on monitoring of radioactivity in the Irish Sea, officials from the UK and the Irish Government meet on a bi-annual basis in the form of the UK/Irish Contact Group on Radioactivity where information on monitoring of the Irish Sea is passed to the Irish side.

  Brucellosis
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks are made by the State Veterinary Service on imports of cattle from France as part of re-stocking schemes following foot and mouth disease; how many cattle have been found to be carrying the disease brucellosis; when the last case of brucellosis was reported in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [46384]

  Mr. Morley
  Post import checks for the following diseases are carried out by the State Veterinary Service on cattle imported from France:

  Enzootic bovine leucosis

  Brucellosis

  Warble fly

  Since imports were allowed to restart following foot and mouth disease, no imported cattle have been confirmed as carrying brucellosis. Although initial blood tests on a consignment of cattle imported in February gave a single positive and four inconclusive results, subsequent tests have proved negative and brucellosis was not confirmed.

  The last case of brucellosis reported in Great Britain was in Anglesey in 1993.

  Nitrates
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the regulations governing the spreading of farms'(a) own manure and (b) brought-in manure on set aside land under the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Directive. [46389]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Nitrates Directive 1991, Action Programme measures operate in existing Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) which were designated in 1996 and currently cover around 8 per cent. of England's land area.

  The Action Programme measures for spreading organic manure currently apply to all land within an NVZ, irrespective of whether the manure is a farm's own or imported from another farm. Spreading organic manure is prohibited when:

  591W
  Soil is waterlogged, flooded, frozen hard or snow-covered.
  Fields are steeply sloping.
  Applying slurry, poultry manures or liquid digested sewage sludge on sandy or shallow soils between:
  1 August–1 November (arable land)
  1 September to 1 November (grassland or arable land with an Autumn-sown crop).

  Certain other detailed requirements also apply, described in the DEFRA booklet PB5505 "Guidelines for Farmers in NVZs", available through DEFRA publications (08459 556000) or the internet (via a web link at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate).

  Under the Arable Area Payments Scheme Regulations, the storage and application of manure on set-aside land is restricted to manure produced on the farmer's own holding between 15 January and 31 August each year. DEFRA is currently considering whether any change to this set-aside rule could be justified.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on ground phase hydrological cycle water quality of the four specific months during which manure is not to be spread as defined in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Directive in those areas to which the Directive is applied. [46387]

  Mr. Meacher
  Scientific studies such as "Strategies to Encourage Better Use of Nitrogen in Animal Manures" contained in MAFF Booklet PB4401 "Tackling Nitrate from Agriculture——Strategy from Science", available from DEFRA publications (08459 556000), demonstrate that autumn months are the most crucial ones for reducing the risk of nitrate pollution.

  Under the Nitrates Directive 1991, farmers inside Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) follow Action Programme measures detailing closed periods which prohibit the spreading of slurry, poultry manures or liquid digested sewage sludge on sandy or shallow soils between 1 August to 1 November (arable land) or 1 September to 1 November (grassland or arable land with an autumn-sown crop).

  These closed application periods are carefully targeted at those manures containing a higher proportion of available nitrogen when applied to soils which are prone to nitrate leaching.

  On uncropped land there is no crop uptake of nitrate in the autumn so the closed period during August, September and October aims to prevent applications of slurry, poultry manures or liquid digested sewage sludge on sandy or shallow soils between harvest and 1 November. August application of these manures on grassland and land sown with autumn sown crops allows time for uptake of nitrate by growing crops; the closed period is limited to September and October where the risk of nitrate leaching remains high. Applications after 1 November entail a lower risk of nitrate leaching because conversion of manure nitrogen to nitrate in the soil is limited by lower soil temperatures in most winters.

  Details of Action Programme measures are described in DEFRA booklet PB5505 "Guidelines for Farmers in NVZs".

  River Aire
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she will take to address pollution in the River Aire at Skipton. [45793]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency received a report of pollution entering the River Aire from a closed landfill site in March 2000. The incident was investigated and was categorised as a minor incident which has a limited effect on water quality. Their enquiries showed the cause of the incident to be a malfunctioning pump carrying leachate from a decommissioned landfill site to the public foul water sower. North Yorkshire County Council is responsible for maintaining the pump and is taking steps to gain access to the land, which is controlled by a tenant farmer, in order to carry out the necessary work.

  The River Aire at Skipton is routinely monitored for chemistry and biology at two sampling points——Carleton and Cononley. The most recent results recorded for Carleton are class B (good) for both chemistry and biology.

  At Cononley the chemistry has improved from D (poor) to B (good) over the last 10 years. Biology has improved from E (poor) to C (fairly good) in the same period.

  Overall, there has been a continuing trend of improving quality to this stretch of the Aire in response to improvements at Snaygill (Skipton) sewage treatment works. Results for 2001 are not yet available.

  Traffic Noise
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on the(a) health consequences and (b) public nuisance arising from traffic noise pollution; and if she will make a statement. [45943]

  Mr. Meacher
  The government has supported a number of studies into the health effects of various sources of noise. A number of these consider road traffic noise including: "Health Effects based Noise Assessment Methods: A Review and Feasibility Study", which is available on the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk), and "The effects of relieving traffic congestion on noise exposure, noise annoyance, wellbeing and psychiatric morbitdity: annex to the by-pass study" which is available from the Department of Health. The government is also contributing to the European study: "Road traffic and Aircraft Noise exposure and Children's cognition and Health" (RANCH).

  Road traffic noise does not generally fall within the legal definition of a public nuisance and, as such, there are no figures available relating to this. The government does, however, take the issue of noise seriously and periodically records people's attitudes to noise. This exercise established that in 1991 29 per cent. of respondents who reported hearing road traffic noise stated that they were adversely affected by it. This survey has recently been repeated and the results are expected to be published in May.
  593W
  The repeated survey and the development of the Ambient Noise Strategy, which includes establishing the number of people exposed to road traffic noise, will build on the work already carried out to address noise from this source.

  Energy Efficiency
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage improvement of energy efficiency is of each Governmental department from 1990 levels; and whether these improvements are in line with the objectives laid out in the Model Policy Statement for Greening Government Operations. [45790]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the improvements in departmental energy efficiency for Government Departments for the years between 1990–91 and 1999–2000 can be found in Tables 1 to 4 of Part 2 of the Greening Government Third Annual Report 2001. Copies are available via: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/gm2001/part2/search.asp?choose Section = 5.1 or in the Library of the House. For convenience the relevant data, without the footnotes, are reproduced in Tables 1 to 3. Positive figures represent an improvement in performance.

  Data for 2000–01 will be published in the next Green Ministers Report in Autumn 2002.

  The Government's targets to achieve a 20 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency over 1990 levels by 31 March 2000 was included within Objective 7(a) of the Model Policy Statement for Greening Government Operations. Until 1998–99, steady progress had been made towards meeting the targets with an overall improvement of around 19 per cent. compared with 1990. In 1999–2000, however, performance slipped back to an overall improvement of around 17 per cent. compared with 1990. Paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 of the Greening Government Third Annual Report 2001 give a fuller explanation of this situation. Copies are available via http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/gm2001/part1/05a.htm or in the Library of the House.

  Government Estate Energy Efficiency Performance 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Table 1: Civil Departments recent performance in improvements in Energy Efficiency relative to 1990–01

  Department or Agency

  Adjusted for estate size changes and weather correction 1999–2000 Percentage

  MAFF (Main Estate)

  24

  MAFF (Laboratories)

  21

  Cabinet Office

  15

  Culture, Media and Sport

  28

  Customs and Excise

  -8

  DfEE

  -11

  DfEE (Employment Service)

  -10

  DETR

  11

  Health and Safety Executive

  22

  QEII Conference Centre

  -10

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  -26

  Health

  -77

  Home Office

  0

  HO (Prisons)

  2

  Inland Revenue

  17

  DfID

  18

  LCD

  15

  594W

  Table 1: Civil Departments recent performance in improvements in Energy Efficiency relative to 1990–01

  Department or Agency

  Adjusted for estate size changes and weather correction 1999–2000 Percentage

  National Savings

  n/a

  Northern Ireland

  4

  Scottish Office

  n/a

  Scottish Court Service

  30

  Scottish Prison Service

  2

  Social Security

  10

  Trade and Industry

  47

  Treasury

  -23

  National Assembly for Wales

  -24

  Total

  8.3

  Table 2: MoD recent performance in improvements in Energy Efficiency relative to 1990–01

  MoD Department or Agency

  Adjusted for estate size changes and weather correction 1999–2000 Percentage

  Civil

  0

  Navy

  33

  Army

  20

  RAF

  22

  Procurement Executive

  -7

  DERA

  -4

  MOD Total

  21.1

  Table 3: Total Government Estate, recent performance in improvements in Energy Efficiency relative to 1990–01

  Adjusted for estate size changes and weather correction 1999–2000 Percentage

  Civil Departments Total

  8.3

  MoD Total

  21.1

  Civil and MoD Total

  17.1

  Environmentally and Socially Responsible Investment
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps(a) her Department and (b) the Government have taken to encourage environmentally and socially responsible investments in least developed countries. [46561]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is an increasing understanding by institutional investors and financial service providers of the benefits of environmentally and socially responsible investment. The demand for more disclosure by investors on social and environmental policy has been stimulated by the disclosure requirements of the 2000 amendment to the Pension Act, and the debate about replicating these requirements in other areas.

  The Department has taken the lead in working with the UK financial services sector on the "London Principles——finance and insurance for sustainable development". The Principles encompass three key areas: pricing asset and exercising ownership; providing new finance; and risk management. The Principles will be launched later this year as part of the UK's contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We hope that they will serve as a model for resolutions on financial sustainability at the World Summit.
  595W
  We and the Department for International Development are also working with the FORGE consortium of banks and insurance companies to develop management and reporting guidelines on corporate social responsibility for the sector, to follow up on their environmental management guidelines published last year.

  The Department for International Development has also undertaken several studies and consultations to identify those tools which most effectively encourage equitable and sustainable investment in developing countries, and the best ways to mainstream them in the investment community. An example is the Just Pensions project which is concerned with encouraging trustees to use their influence to persuade fund managers to invest in socially responsible investment.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the diseases and infections for which imported livestock is checked; and how many(a) positive results, (b) negative results and (c) dangerous contacts were identified through livestock tests in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [45841]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Livestock are inspected by an official veterinarian of the exporting country immediately prior to export in order to certify that the animals are free of the diseases mentioned in the export health certificate.

  Post import checks on livestock are carried out for the following diseases and exposure to infections:

  Cattle

  Foot and Mouth Disease;

  Enzootic bovine leucosis;

  Brucellosis;

  Warble fly; and

  Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia.

  Sheep and goats

  Contagious agalactia;

  Brucella ovis;

  Brucella melitensis;

  Bluetongue.

  Pigs

  Aujeszky's disease;

  Swine vesicular disease;

  Classical swine fever.

  Other ungulates

  Trypanosoma;

  Caprine arthritis-encephalitis syndrome;

  Internal and external parasites;

  Leptospirosis;

  Johnes's disease;

  Malignant catarrhal fever;

  Piroplasmosis;

  Yersiniosis.

  Tests for other diseases may additionally be made if the veterinarian carrying out the post-import check suspects the presence of other diseases.
  596W
  The total number of positive test results on livestock imported into Great Britain for the period 22 March 2001 to 21 March 2002 was 14.

  The total number of negative test results on livestock imported into Great Britain for the period 22 March 2001 to 21 March 2002 was 11,207.

  No figures are available for dangerous contacts but all suspicious animals are isolated and placed under movement restriction.

  All figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by her and her predecessors since June 1997, stating in each case(a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged. [43385]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: For details of unpaid appointments made by this Department to task forces, review groups and other ad hoc advisory groups, I refer the right hon. Member to the Answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie) on 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 958W.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the interested parties with whom she discussed the measures necessary to allow for practical co-existence of GM and non-GM crops. [46623]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA officials have had preliminary discussions on this issue with the National Farmers Union, the Soil Association, the National Consumers Council, the British Retail Consortium, national bee-keeping groups, Organic Farmers and Growers Limited, the Food and Drink Federation and the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the change in the external costs of agriculture which would be achieved if 30 per cent. of all agricultural land in the UK was converted to organic. [46625]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the reduction in the external costs of agriculture arising from organic farming, however, the Department has commissioned the University of Cambridge to carry out an evaluation of the "Organic Farming Scheme" which will provide information on the environmental impacts of the scheme. We expect this to be completed in April 2002 and it will be published on tile Department's website.
  597W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what powers the proposed new advisory body on organic standards will have; [48056]

  (2) What plans she has to disband the UK register of organic standards; what it will be replaced by; with whom she has held discussions on her proposals; and what representations she has received from the Food Standards Agency on the UK register of organic standards; [48054]

  (3) What powers the proposed new UK accreditation service will have in respect of organic standards; [48057]

  (4) What representations she has received front organic producers on her proposals to disband the UK register of organic standards. [48055]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The consultation period on the Quinquennial Review of the UK Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) ended on 31 March. A summary of responses will be available shortly and will be placed on the Department's website www.defra.gov.uk. The Government has made no proposals on whether the Review's conclusions should be accepted, and no decisions have been taken.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average dairy farm income was for each of the last 10 years in(a) the parliamentary constituency of the Ribble Valley, (b) Lancashire, (c) the North West of England and (d) England. [48606]

  Mr. Morley
  The average net farm income for full-time dairy farms in England is given in the table.

  Average net farm income (£ per farm)

  1992–93

  29,300

  1993–94

  34,900

  1994–95

  30,300

  1995–96

  36,200

  1996–97

  30,400

  1997–98

  19,800

  1998–99

  11,700

  1999–2000

  9,400

  2000–01

  14,000

  2000–02 (prov.)

  32,000

  Source: Farm Business Survey

  1This information is not available for the North West of England, for Lancashire nor for the parliamentary constituency of the Ribble Valley.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what average payments per hectare from the Common Agricultural Policy's production subsidies are received by(a) non-organic farmers and (b) organic farmers. [46627]

  Mr. Morley
  Subsidies to production are available, either as direct payments per hectare or per head of livestock, or as support to prices through market support mechanisms. No distinction is made between organic and non-organic production for determining the eligibility of these subsidies.
  598W
  Data is not available to calculate the average payment per hectare for organic and non-organic farmers.

  Environmental Protection
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role her Department has played in discussions relating to(a) the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Environment Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context and (b) the Kiev Ministerial Conference in 2003; and if she will make a statement. [46571]

  Mr. Meacher
  Responsibility for matters relating to the UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (The "Espoo" Convention) rests with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Department has participated in two preparatory meetings for the Kiev Environment for Europe conference where discussion has focussed on the identification of possible themes and the likely agenda. This includes the possibility of reaching agreement on several protocols under discussion by their respective Conventions, one of which is the proposed protocol on strategic environmental assessment currently being negotiated under Espoo.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role her Department has played in developing and implementing(a) the United Nations Secretary-General's Global Compact Initiative, (b) the UNEP Global reporting Initiative and (c) the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. [46562]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) The Global Compact was a special initiative by the Secretary-General which is implemented directly with companies. However, officials from my Department remain in touch with the Compact Secretariat in New York.

  (b) The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was launched by the Coalition of Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES). It is now affiliated to the Global Compact. The GRI is a welcome initiative but is most suited to larger companies already experienced in environmental reporting. My Department has, therefore, developed and published jointly with the Department for Trade and Industry simpler guidance which is very similar to the environmental elements of the GRI. These guidelines should help any business to report on their environmental impacts, and have been endorsed by the CBI, which has sent copies to all of its members including all of the FTSE 350 leading companies.

  (c) The Department played a full role in formulating the UK position during negotiations on the revised OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which were concluded in June 2000. Since then officials from my Department have worked with the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines, based in the Department of Trade and Industry, to help ensure that the Guidelines are taken into account in relevant parts of my Department's work, for example the promotion

  599W
  of the Guidelines to the UK water industry and in preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken in response to the UNEP Governing Council Decision 21/21; and if she will make a statement. [46566]

  Mr. Meacher
  Decision 21/21 of the UNEP Governing Council in February 2001 established a Working Group to review international environmental governance. The UK funded a meeting of international experts in Cambridge in May 2001 to contribute to the debate. I represented the UK at two meetings of the working Group, and the other three were attended by DEFRA senior officials, I chaired the contact group which agreed the final report of the working group at the Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Cartagena in February.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps have been taken to strengthen UK commitments to multilateral environmental agreements; and if she will make a statement. [46557]

  Mr. Meacher
  Along with other EU Member States the UK is committed to early ratification of international instruments on climate change, biosafety, persistent organic pollutants and prior informed consent. The UK is fully committed to meeting its global environmental responsibilities.

  Forests
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps have been taken to(a) promote sustainable management and (b) strengthen conservation of use of forests. [46558]

  Mr. Morley
  The sustainable management of forests, including conservation, is a cornerstone of our forestry policy, and it was then the main issue discussed at the United Nations Forum on Forests which I attended in New York last month. This event provided an international stage to promote sustainable forest management, and in my speech to the Forum I highlighted the lead being taken by the UK, including our joint work with industry and NGOs, the development of a forest business sectoral sustain ability strategy, and the introduction of a UK Standard for independent certification of forests.

  It was, of course, this work on certification which led to the Forestry Commission recently being awarded the World Wide Fund for Nature's Gift to the Earth Award. The UK is, in fact, the only country where the entire state forest area has achieved creditable certification to an independent Standard recognised by the Forestry Stewardship Council. Many private owners are now following suit.

  Sustainable forest management will feature prominently at the World Summit for Sustainable Development later this year in Johannesburg. We are currently working in partnership between government, business and NGOs in the forestry sector to ensure that
  600W
  we demonstrate the progress being made in this country and also press for more action to be taken globally. As part of our preparations for the Summit, we will be publishing a new Statement on Sustainable Forestry. This will be one part of our National Forest Programme, drawing together the actions we have taken since Rio and addressing the challenges for Johannesburg and the future.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to forestry issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44382]

  Mr. Meacher
  The management, conservation and sustainable development of forests was one of the key issues at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. The main outcome for forests was the adoption of a Statement of Forest Principles which included a commitment by countries to publish national forest programmes. In 1994 the UK set out its aims for forestry in Sustainable Forestry——the UK Programme. In 1999, we published our strategy for sustainable development for the UK, A Better Quality of Life. This includes a section on forests and woodlands setting out the contribution that forestry can make to meeting sustainable management of forests in the UK. We also facilitated the development of the UK Woodland Assurance Standard for forest certification and environmental labelling of wood products. About 40 per cent. of the UK's woodlands have now been certified, including the entire public forest estate.

  The UK has made considerable progress on forestry issues by increasing timber production and the environmental and social outputs from forests. These outputs are reported in British Timber Statistics and Forestry Commission Facts and Figures, which are in the Library of the House. Following consultation with stakeholder groups and the public, the Forestry Commission will be publishing a new set of indicators of sustainable forestry in the UK. These will make an important contribution to the monitoring processes set out in A Better Quality of Life and the UK Forestry Standard.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by her Department. [48340]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department does not hold centrally a record of its television licences. Records are, though, held centrally for televisions in the Department's London buildings. For these my Department holds three television licences each of which are priced at £104.00 per annum, totalling £312.00.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by

  601W
  her Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48341]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: DEFRA Ministers and their private offices operate solely from Nobel House, Smith Square, London. There are currently no subscriptions to any digital services into the building. All cable services are currently provided as analogue.

  Warden Bay, Kent
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has taken to protect the cliffs at Warden Bay, Kent, from disintegration; and what plans she has to use concrete structures to protect the cliffs at Warden Bay. [48551]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides funding for capital flood and coastal defence works which meet set criteria but operational responsibility rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. I understand that Swale Borough Council is currently undertaking a scoping study at Warden Bay but at present has no plans for works to protect the cliffs there.

  Departmental Policy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department will ensure that the interests of the food and farming industries are taken into account across the range of Government policy. [46739]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA's Ministerial team and officials already take full account of the interests of the food and farming industries in developing and delivering Government policy, in liaison and co-operation with others in Government. The creation of DEFRA signalled our intention to deal with and balance the needs of these industries, the wider rural economy and communities, and the urban and rural environment in the round. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State's seminar on 26 March with leaders of farming, food, rural, environmental and consumer bodies exemplified this approach. The seminar served to initiate a comprehensive process of engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. This process will help inform the construction of a new strategy for sustainable food and farming to be launched this autumn.

  Consultants
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many management consultants have been used by her Department since its creation; and how much they have cost. [34354]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2002]: The information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  602W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to her Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35024]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the value of all payments made under each project heading to(a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche and (d) PricewaterhouseCoopers in each financial year since 1996–97. [44032]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contracts were let by her Department and agencies for which she is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i)1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33845]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie) on 14 February,Official Report, column 564W.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contracts agreed by her Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42104]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA came into being on 8 June 2001. The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Stakeholders
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list her Department's stakeholders, as referred to in "Waiting for the Essentials of Life". [46731]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has many stakeholders, indeed our work embraces issues that have a direct affect on the lives c f everyone in Britain and many overseas too. In producing"Working for the Essentials of Life" we wanted to produce a statement of our work that was accessible to many people. The document was circulated to over 4,800 businesses, public interest, community, representational and other groups who constitute DEFRA's organisational stakeholders. I have deposited a list of these in the Library of the House.

  Beef Exports
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  603W
  representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the French Government to remove its illegal ban on beef produced in the United Kingdom. [48302]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has repeatedly raised this issue with her French counterparts at Agriculture Councils. The Prime Minister also raised the issue at the highest level at the recent EU summit in Barcelona.

  Action to enforce the Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) lies with the Commission which wrote to the French Government on 20 March seeking observations on France's failure to comply with the ruling. This is the first stage in a process which may lead to a further ECJ case against France.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the PSA target for the level of UK beef exports in 2001 will be met in 2002. [47907]

  Mr. Morley
  The target will not be met for several reasons including that progress towards re-establishing beef export markets has been severely hindered by the Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic and the continuing illegal French import ban. The conditions of the Date-based Export Scheme have also discouraged potential exporters which is why we are pressing for a relaxation of the Scheme requirements to permit establishments to be dedicated to export on certain days rather than full time.

  Climate Change
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the parties involved in the Kyoto agreement on climate change have ratified the protocol; and when the remaining parties will complete the ratification process. [47048]

  Mr. Meacher
  As at 19 March 2002, 50 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change had ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

  The UK and other EU Member States intend to complete ratification of the Protocol by early June in time for entry into force by the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  It is not possible at this stage to say for certain which other Parties will ratify the Protocol and when they will complete the necessary procedures. However, for the Protocol to enter into force, 55 countries accounting for at least 55 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions by industrialised countries in 1990, must ratify. To secure this, both Japan and Russia need to ratify as well as the EU.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. [47046]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK intends to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in time for it to enter into force by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September. A European Community decision to ratify Kyoto was adopted on 4 March. This paved the way for the UK and the other EU Member States to complete their own 604W
  ratification procedures. On 7 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a statement to the House setting in motion the process of UK ratification. Once the Parliamentary process is complete, the Foreign Secretary will be in a position to sign the ratification instrument. For legal and presentational reasons, the European Community and each of its Member States have agreed to deposit their instruments of ratification with the UN Depository simultaneously. Since entry into force of the Protocol will occur only 90 days after the prescribed number of ratification instruments have been deposited, the aim is to do this by early June at the latest.

  Horticultural Labour
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the availability of labour to pick and pack horticultural crops. [47594]

  Mr. Morley
  Growers and packers of horticultural crops have access to labour within the domestic and EU labour markets. In addition growers and on farm packers have access to labour through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) which is operated by the Home Office. Under SAWS students from outside the EU are allowed to come to the UK to undertake seasonal agricultural work between March and November.

  The number of students allowed to enter the UK is governed by a work card quota. The quota for 2001 was 15,200 work cards. However on 29 January my right hon. Friend Lord Rooker announced that the quota would increase to 18,700 in 2002 and to 20,200 in 2003.

  In addition the Government's nationality, asylum and immigration White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain, published on 7 February, acknowledges that there is a need for short term labour in the UK and in respect to agriculture and horticulture it makes a commitment to review the operation of SAWS to see how the scheme might better meet the needs of those sectors. This review is being taken forward by officials at the Home Office and it will involve consultation with the principal stakeholders in the agricultural and horticultural industries.

  Rural Payment Claims
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to accelerate payment of IACS claims. [48018]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I am very mindful of the effects that delays in IACS payments have on the farming community and can assure you that R PA is doing all that it reasonably can to make payments as quickly as possible.

  By the payment deadline of 31 January, 94 per cent. of claims had been paid and by 18 March all processible claims had been paid.

  Agri-environment and livestock payments have also been affected but, although RPA has had to upgrade computer software to reflect regulatory changes on the bovine schemes and to carry out cross-checks on claims

  605W
  where holdings were affected by FMD, we expect to make all the payments within the regulatory timescales. Some advance payments have however been made rather slower than normal.

  Looking ahead the Rural Payments Agency is in the process of modernising the way in which CAP schemes are administered by taking full advantage of more modern information systems and the benefits of electronic service delivery.

  However, this is a major Change Programme and it will be 2004 before most of the new systems and structures are in place, and the benefits can be fully realised.

  Animal Health
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the number of trading standards officers for monitoring the washing of lorries used for the transport of farm animals. [46792]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not made any such assessment of the numbers of local authority inspectors. The level of resourcing to meet Local Authorities' duty in enforcing animal health legislation is a matter for the individual authorities.

  Nevertheless, my department has in place procedures for the monitoring of cleansing and disinfection of vehicles at markets and slaughterhouses using the services of the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Meat Hygiene Service who will inform local authorities of any breaches of vehicle hiosecurity discovered.

  As we are aware of the need to monitor cleansing and disinfection of vehicles, the department is about to undertake a survey of cleansing and disinfection at markets and slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department will make at the Convention on Biodiversity in the Hague on 7 to 19 April about trade in bushmeat. [48143]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the previous Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biodiversity in May 2000, the United Kingdom secured agreement for the inclusion of bushmeat in a COP Decision on forest biological diversity (Decision V/4). This requested a subsidiary body of the Convention to consider the impact of, and propose sustainable practices for, the harvesting of non-timber forest resources, including bushmeat.

  The forthcoming COP in The Hague will consider the adoption of the forest biological diversity work programme. This takes forward the issue of bushmeat under the objective of "Preventing losses caused by unsustainable harvesting of timber and non-timber forest products." The United Kingdom will be pressing for action on this objective and for continuing collaboration on the issue between the Biodiversity Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and other relevant members of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests
  606W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of trials to establish the links between badgers and bovine tuberculosis in(a) Worcestershire, (b) Herefordshire, (c) Gloucestershire and (d) Shropshire. [47592]

  Mr. Morley
  Three "triplets", namely A, D and I, of the badger field trial are located in parts of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. Trial operations which included surveying for badger activity and, in some trial areas, badger culling were suspended during the foot and mouth disease emergency. Surveying for badger activity recommenced in January this year. Further details of progress in all "triplets" are available on DEFRA's website on http://defraweb/animalh/tb/. No badger field trial operations are being undertaken in Shropshire.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on badger culling. [48588]

  Mr. Morley
  All badger culling which once formed part of the strategy for controlling TB in cattle has been suspended. The only culling presently undertaken is that conducted in connection with the "Krebs" field trial.

  TB in cattle is one of the most difficult animal health problems that we face and the Government is determined to look at the full range of factors, including the role of badgers, that might be involved. The Government has put in place a wide-ranging research programme of which the field trial is part. It is designed to determine once and for all the role of badgers in cattle TB and whether culling them is an effective way of reducing the disease. The trial will provide much other data including the spatial relationship between TB in cattle and badgers.

  By ensuring that future policies to control cattle TB are underpinned by sound science the Government is seeking to ensure that healthy cattle and badgers can live side by side in the countryside.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the members of the UK's delegation to the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Hague on 7 April and indicate who will be leading the delegation. [48159]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom delegation to the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on 7–19 April at The Hague will be led by myself. Officials from my Department will stand in to lead the delegation when I am absent from the meeting. The United Kingdom delegation is also comprised of officials and advisers from a wide range of government departments and biodiversity organisations, reflecting both our commitment to the Convention and the breadth of issues covered by the Convention and the agenda to this meeting.

  Office Relocation (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to relocate executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of her Department to Scotland. [48046]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: There are no plans to relocate any executive agencies or non-departmental public bodies to Scotland.

  Fish Farming
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will seek a meeting with officials of the European Commission to discuss the future of the Scottish aquaculture industry and measures which the EC might take to promote the sustainable development of the industry. [48045]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The future of the Scottish aquaculture industry is principally a matter for the Scottish Executive. The Executive has not asked Officials from This Department to arrange discussions with officials from the European Commission on Scottish aquaculture, and no such discussions are in prospect.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investment her Department has made in fish farming in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02, broken down into expenditure headings. [48047]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Departmental expenditure on fish and shellfish farming for the three years in question was as follows:

  1999–2000——£1.9 million;

  2000–01——£1.5 million; and

  2001–02——£1.2 million.

  The bulk of this expenditure relates to research and development work but it also includes relatively small sums paid out under the Agriculture Development Scheme and FIFG Structural Funds.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to promote the fish farming industry. [48049]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In March 2000 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hosted a seminar entitled "Future Strategies for the Farmed Trout Industry" involving all sectors of the industry in England. That seminar and a subsequent study considered ideas for improving competitiveness including generic promotion. In the light of this, the industry is considering its strategy for future development and we expect to be involved in discussions on this and on how this Department might help the industry to achieve its developmental goals.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with other European countries which operate national compensation schemes for losses 608W
  incurred by fish farmers as a result of the compulsory slaughter of farmed fish; and what information she collates about such schemes. [48044]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: To date this Department has had no such discussions; no information has been collated about the operation of national compensation schemes by other European countries.

  Agricultural Competition
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will(a) grant and (b) seek aid under article 4 of the EEC (Council Regulation No. 26 of 1962 on rules of competition in agricultural products in respect of potatoes. [48069]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: No. The UK potato industry has not sought assistance under this Regulation and we have no plans to offer financial aid to an industry which has traditionally been self-sufficient.

  Land Management
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what education and information on land management is given to farmers participating in(a) the Farm Biodiversity Action Plan programme and (b) the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. [48543]

  Mr. Morley
  Farm Biodiversity Action Plans are provided commercially by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and are not implemented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Education and information about the land management required under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is provided to farmers through the comprehensive Scheme Handbook and through advice and visits by technical staff from DEFRA's Rural Development Service. Similar advice and guidance is also available from. FWAG and other partner organisations.

  To ensure farmers achieve the environmental objectives of the Scheme, very detailed specifications for the different types of land management required are set out in Stewardship agreements.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent contributions her Department has made to negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [47969]

  Mr. Morley
  Negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Department has not played a part in those negotiations, although we have contributed to the UK Government's general position and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment, was present during WTO trade negotiations in Doha last November.

  Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in her Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47809]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Estimated outturn figures for 2001–02 will be published in the Budget Report on 17 April.

  User Consultation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new steps her Department took in 2001–02 to consult the users of its services about their wishes and expectations; and if she will publish the findings. [47309]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In 2001–02 DEFRA consulted widely on the development of its new aim and objectives. The Department also consulted on a range of issues related to policy development.

  The responses to all these consultations have been published on the DEFRA website at: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/default.asp.

  Service Reviews
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of whether the target to review 60 per cent. of departmental services by March 2003 will be met. [47909]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has reviewed around £200 million of departmental services to date but has reported some slippage, due to the impact of Foot and Mouth Disease and the creation of a new Department. The target will be reviewed as part of the 2002 Spending Review process.

  Poultry Welfare
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of changes in the mortality rates which would be achieved by a move from conventional to enriched cages. [48078]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: We have commissioned research to improve our scientific and practical knowledge of "enriched" cages; mortality rate is being evaluated as part of this research project.

  Property Protection
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what new measures her Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage. [47325]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Further to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 5 February 2002, I can confirm that during 2001–02 the Department continued to ensure that adequate security measures were in place at all its sites. Every effort is made to introduce measures which are proportionate to the degree of risk and the value of assets (ie staff, equipment,
  610W
  information and property) on site. Site security is checked by means of a programme of audits and in the event of an incident, measures would be reviewed and updated as necessary.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people from ethnic minorities are employed in(a) her Department, (b) the Countryside Agency and (c) the Environment Agency. [48204]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In common with all other Government Departments, DEFRA is currently conducting a re-survey of all staff. As at 15 March 4,889 (70 per cent.) of the core Department's workforce had declared their ethnic origin. Of these 384 are from ethnic minorities. This is equivalent to 7.9 per cent. of those who have declared their ethnic origin, or 5 per cent. of all staff in the Department.

  The Countryside Agency do not at present compile this information, although they are planning to introduce a personnel database in the near future that will hold such information.

  As at 28 March 2002, all bar 109 of the Environment Agency's 10,824 employees had declared their ethnic origin. Of these, 178 (1.64 per cent.) are from ethnic minorities. The Agency has in place a Diversity policy, with action plans being developed to improve the attractiveness of the Agency to members of the ethnic minority communities.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the levels of pay within the Rural Payments Agency. [48198]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Pay increases to staff within the Rural Payments Agency are subject to an annual yearly review and negotiations with the representing Trade Union body.

  For the forthcoming pay settlements in 2002 and 2003 the Rural Payments Agency will adopt the pay settlements agreed by its parent department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of her Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project, (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48402]

  Mr. Morley
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than 5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what lessons have been learnt and incorporated into her Department's standard operating procedures based upon the outbreak of foot and mouth. [46750]

  Mr. Morley
  The independent inquiries put in place by the Government will make recommendations on lessons learned for the future. However, the Department has already taken on board some lessons learned in order to be better prepared should there be any recurrence of FMD before the outcome of the inquiry process. Details are set out in the FMD interim Contingency Plan published on 12 March and in part 3 of the Government Memorandum to the Lessons Learned Inquiry.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost is of the claims, broken down by company, which remain to be paid by her Department arising from work in connection with foot and mouth. [44295]

  Mr. Morley
  The information cannot be provided at this time for reasons of legal and commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent talks she has had with(a) farmers and (b) the insurance industry about farmers obtaining insurance against future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [46785]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials lead the animal disease insurance working group which includes representatives from both the insurance and farming industries. The group has met on 6 March and is meeting again on 9 April and 8 May.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the application of the 20 day standstill period introduced following the foot and mouth disease outbreak; and if she will make a statement. [48077]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The interim rules for livestock movements, which we announced on 5 February, allow greater flexibility for farmers to move their animals. The 20 day standstill rule has been waived for some types of movement, subject to conditions and we will continue to keep these arrangements under review. However, veterinary advice is that the 20 day standstill needs to remain in place for the time being as a disease control measure. A copy of a document explaining the Veterinary basis for the Interim movement rules has been placed in the Library of the House and is available on the DEFRA website.

  PFI/PPPs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. [44885]

  Mr. Morley
  The Private Finance Initiative projects which have been delayed are:

  Pevensey Bay Sea Defences;

  Broadland Flood Alleviation Scheme;

  612W

  Brooklands Avenue Cambridge——Redevelopment of office accommodation.

  The Public Private Partnership projects which have been delayed are:

  British Waterways P4;

  British Waterways Water Grid.

  Environmental Impact Assessment
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will conduct an environmental impact assessment across the supply chain to assess whether the aggregates levy meets the Government's sustainable development objectives; and if she will publish the results of this assessment in the library. [46428]

  Mr. Paul Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The aggregates levy will be subject to environmental evaluation in due course, as part of the Budget process. Given that the levy was only introduced on 1 April 2002 it is currently too early to assess its impact.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect the aggregates levy will have on the ability of SME type quarry operators to compete with large vertically integrated companies. [46477]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the aggregates levy was published at the time of Budget 2000. A copy is available in the Library and can be accessed from the Customs and Excise website.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  World Poverty
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards the 2015 targets for reducing world poverty. [44496]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Richmond Park on 4 July 2001.

  In addition at the UN conference on Financing for Development in Mexico, the European Union announced a commitment to increase average Official Development Assistance as a proportion of gross national income to 0.39 per cent. by 2006 an increase of $7 billion.

  Project Sponsorship
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of her Department's projects have received sponsorship since 1997, including(a) details of the sponsor, (b) the nature of the project,

  613W
  (c) the date of the project, (d) the total cost of the project and (e) the amount of money involved in the sponsorship deal. [48401]

  Hilary Berm
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental Annual Reports.

  DFID projects do not receive sponsorship. We do, however, support other organisation's projects, which may in turn have received sponsorship from other sources.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how much aid has been given to the British Overseas Territories in each year since 1997. [46985]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government's assistance to the Overseas Territories has declined gradually from £52.6 million in 1997–98, when the Montserrat volcanic crisis was at its height, to £39.6 million in 2000–01. The British Virgin Islands graduated last year from the need for our support; and programmes in Anguilla and Turks and Caicos Islands are now limited to technical assistance. Financial aid, however, continues to be provided for both St Helena and Montserrat. Our ultimate goal, which is shared by the Overseas Territories, is to increase local self-sufficiency to levels where our assistance is no longer required.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the aid programme in Montserrat; and what potential threats there are from further volcanic eruptions. [46986]

  Hilary Benn
  Substantial progress has been made, since the onset of the volcanic crisis, in returning normality to life in the northern half of the island. Basic infrastructure and essential public services have been restored; housing has been provided for those in need; and a range of expertise has been supplied in support of Montserrat's efforts to recover from the crisis. The focus now is upon sustainable development and eventual return to self-sufficiency for the island. With this in mind, a new airstrip and measures to attract specialist tourism and private sector investment are under consideration. A new volcano monitoring facility, incorporating special viewing areas for visitors, will be commissioned later this year. The volcano, now scientifically classifed as "persistently active", continues to pose a threat to the southern half of the island, including the former capital town of Plymouth. These areas remain uninhabitable. The risk to northern areas of the island is presently judged to be negligible.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 684W, on Israel, if she will list the projects in the area administered
  614W
  by the Palestinian Authority that have been funded by the (a) UK on a bilateral basis and (b) European Union, stating in each case the (i) nature of the project, (ii) funding to date, (iii) funding in each of the last five years, (iv) provisional assessment made against that project of structural and financial damage by Israeli action in the Occupied Territories and (v) amount of financial compensation to be sought; and if she will make a statement. [46679]

  Hilary Benn
  An assessment of UK-funded projects has shown only two projects sustaining direct damage. The vehicle provided through our support to the Primary Health Care management-training course at Bir Zeit. University was damaged during an aerial attack on Ramallah. The project is the second phase of post-graduate training for primary healthcare managers at Bir Zeit University. The project began in 2000 and to date has spent approximately £1.1 million. In 2000 it spent £0.7 million, £0.3 million in 2001 and £0.1 million so far this financial year. An initial estimate of the damage is approximately £28,000.

  Our project with Save the Children Fund (SCF) in Rafah also sustained direct damage when a community centre funded by the project was hit by Israeli Defence Force (IDF) fire. The aim of the project, and its sister initiatives in Jabalia, Anabta and Dura, is to improve access to potable water, sanitation and environmental health. The project in Rafah began in 1999 and to date has spent approximately £2 million. In 1999 it spent £0.4 million, in 2000 £0.7 million, £0.6 million in 2001, and £0.3 million so far in 2002. The final cost of the damage has not yet been confirmed.

  For information on projects funded by the European Commission I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 March 2002 to Parliamentary Question 46308.

  The conflict and closures have had a major impact on all development projects. The matter of financial compensation has not yet been determined. The local Task Force on Project Implementation (EC, USAID, office of the United Nations Special Co-ordinator, and the World Bank) wrote to the Benjamin Ben Eliezer, Israeli Minister of Defense (25 March 2002) conveying the international donor community's concern in relation to the adverse affects of IDF activities upon project implementation. A meeting is to take place in the near future between the Task Force and Minister Eliezer.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects in Israel that have been funded by the(a) UK on a bilateral basis and (b) European Union, stating in each case the (i) nature of the project and (ii) funding to date, in each of the last five years; what assessment she has made of structural and financial damage by Palestinian action to such projects; and if she will make a statement. [46660]

  Hilary Benn
  Israel's level of economic development is relatively high. For this reason Israel is not a recipient of UK or EC development assistance.

  Malawi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support she has provided to agencies working in Malawi to tackle the food shortages there. [47611]

  Hilary Benn
  We have provided £1.9 million since January for direct food relief in Malawi, including grants to non-Governmental organisations which are providing support to 180,000 beneficiaries, mainly children and pregnant and breast-feeding mothers, in the Districts of Balaka, Machinga, Dedza and Mchinji. In addition, in November we provided £3.5 million for nation-wide cash for work programmes and £3.75 million for free distribution of agricultural inputs. Both programmes were targeted at vulnerable households. To help prevent future food shortages, we are working with Government to help prepare a National Food Security Strategy.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the food shortages in Malawi; and if she will make a statement. [48070]

  Hilary Benn
  There are severe localised food shortages in parts of Malawi. At this time of year most households depend on the market for basic foods, but grain prices have risen enormously, reducing access by the poor. The maize crop to be harvested from April onwards will provide some relief, but consumption of green maize may have had a significant impact on overall yields and therefore on household food security. Shortages can be expected throughout the 2002–03 agricultural season.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department employs independent auditors to audit the effectiveness of her aid spending in countries in sub-Saharan Africa; and if she will list the countries. [47329]

  Hilary Benn
  My Department employs an Internal Audit function which is organisationally independent from the rest of DFID and is staffed by professionally qualified internal auditors. Internal Audit Department's remit includes reviews of DFID's operations and funding in sub-Saharan Africa. Reviews of effectiveness of aid funding are also carried out by DFID's Evaluation Department and by the National Audit Office.

  The following is a list of sub-Saharan Africa countries in which development funds were used in 2000–01: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she employs 616W
  independent organisations to measure the level of corruption in Government to Government aid programmes granted to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. [47330]

  Hilary Benn
  No. The Department has strong programme management systems, supported by Internal Audit and National Audit Office scrutiny, to verify that funds are used for the purposes intended and to prevent or detect misuse or corruption in our programmes.

  We fund independent organisations to conduct national corruption perception surveys in African countries which are used to inform governments' anticorruption strategies.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which country in sub-Saharan Africa she estimates her Department's aid policy to have been(a) most and (b) least effective; and for what reasons. [47334]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's aim is the elimination of poverty. The UN Millennium Development Goals are the main yardsticks against which we measure progress towards this aim. At country level progress towards development goals is principally the responsibility of African governments, in partnership with the donor community. The international community is working with developing countries, including in sub-Saharan Africa, to promote country-led and participatory Poverty Reduction Strategy processes. These processes are intended to develop national policy strategies, agree priorities, and help to develop an institutional framework in which governments can be held to account by their own citizens. The role of donors is to provide financial and technical support to enhance governments' capacity to develop and implement these strategies.

  Aid effectiveness has improved in recent years, partly as a result of increasing international agreement on how aid can be most effective in reducing poverty and building capacity in the poorest countries. The evidence shows that aid is effective particularly in those countries with good policy environments and where there are large numbers of poor people, and in such situations has been effective in promoting economic development and poverty reduction. In Uganda aid has supported growth (averaging around 7 per cent. over the past decade) with extreme poverty reduced by over 20 per cent. since 1992, to 35 per cent. of the population. In Tanzania, where GDP growth has more than doubled between 1988 and 2001, HIPC benefits, World Bank and donor aid have helped finance primary education, with net enrolment in primary schools increased from 57 per cent. in 1999 to 65 per cent. in 2001.

  DFID's performance against its global objectives, set out in the DFID Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery Agreement, is published in the Departmental Report. DFID assesses its work in each country through an established system of annual performance reviews. However, given our broad approach to development, and the diverse nature of our partnerships, there are considerable technical difficulties in attempting to

  617W
  quantify the impact of particular levels and types of assistance provided by a particular donor on the overall progress towards development in a particular country.

  DFID will publish a Development Effectiveness Report this summer. It will discuss how DFID"s strategic, long-term poverty-focused approach can be evaluated, recognising the problems of attributing impact to particular interventions in a context of a broad partnership which is working towards our shared goals of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Egypt, Poland and China
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's total spending in(a) Egypt, (b) Poland and (c) China in each of the last five years and her forecast total spending in each for the next three years. [47335]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is set out in the tables below:

  DfID Programme by country

  £ thousands

  China

  Egypt

  Poland

  1996–97

  30,956

  6,299

  12,718

  1997–98

  38,616

  7,246

  13,337

  1998–99

  39,189

  4,947

  7,916

  1999–2000

  26,260

  3,546

  4,442

  2000–01

  29,746

  2,661

  3,814

  £ millions

  China

  Egypt

  Poland

  2001–021

  23

  2.5

  2.5

  2002–031

  38

  4

  0.7

  2003–041

  38

  3.5

  0

  1 Estimated figures.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's total spending on HIV/AIDS for each of the last five years and her forecast total spending on HIV/AIDS in each of the next three years. [47336]

  Hilary Benn
  There is often no clear distinction between assisting with work on HIV/AIDS and other sexual and reproductive health issues. However, the following is my Department's total bilateral expenditure on reproductive health activities, including HIV/AIDS, from financial years 1997–98——2001–02:

  1997–98 to £38.4 million

  1998–99 to £45.0 million

  1999–00 to £75.7 million

  2000–01 to £124.9 million

  2001–02 to £206.6 million.

  We have also in this period provided funding to support the HIV/AIDS programmes of a number of multilateral organisations, including the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United
  618W
  Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), the European Community (EC) and the World Bank. However, with the exception of UNAIDS it is not possible to determine the portion of our contributions used for HIV/AIDS work as opposed to the other work of these agencies.

  We would expect that over the next three years our HIV/AIDS expenditure will increase above the present level.

  Overseas Aid Budget
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her Department's overseas aid budget was provided to charities and other NGOs for each of the last five years(a) as a percentage of her Department's overseas aid budget and (b) in real terms. [47332]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not compile statistics for aid to charities and other NGOs as such. The following table shows estimated figures for the last five financial years, calculated using the nearest equivalents within the bilateral programme. These figures do not include support to in-country civil society organisations or UK groups receiving funds channelled through multilateral organisations.

  £ Million

  Total

  Constant Prices 2000–01

  Proportion of total DfID expenditure

  1996–97

  58

  64

  3%

  1997–98

  63

  67

  3%

  1998–99

  52

  54

  2%

  1999–2000

  63

  64

  2%

  2000–01

  101

  101

  4%

  Source: Statistics on International Development 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her Department's overseas aid budget is provided in the form of Government to Government aid grants for each of the last five years(a) as a percentage of her Department's overseas aid budget and (b) in real terms. [47331]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not compile statistics for government to government aid grants as such. The following table shows estimated figures for the last five financial years, calculated using the nearest equivalents within the bilateral programme. These figures do not include support given through mulilateral organisations.

  £ Million

  Total

  Constant Prices 2000–01

  Proportion of total DfID expenditure

  1996–97

  396

  438

  18%

  1997–98

  354

  380

  17%

  1998–99

  409

  427

  17%

  1999–2000

  453

  462

  18%

  2000–41

  558

  558

  20%

  Source: Statistics on International Development 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Burundi
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is being done to improve the co-ordination of humanitarian relief for internally displaced people in Burundi. [47638]

  Hilary Benn
  We think that current co-ordination arrangements are working reasonably in exceptionally difficult operating circumstances. The UN is seeking to strengthen the staffing of its operations and of the joint UN/Government of Burundi working arrangements for addressing the needs of displaced people. We continue to encourage non-governmental organisations and UN agencies to co-ordinate closely together under the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with countries in Central and West Africa about the sustainability of the trade in bushmeat. [48148]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 837W. DFID has been funding two bilateral projects in Cameroon with significant elements relating to bushmeat. From 1995–2002, the Mount Cameroon Project team worked closely with the Cameroon Ministry of Environment and Forests to establish field level community management of timber and wildlife resources. The Community Forestry Development Project in Cameroon continues to work up these and other field projects into ways for communities to manage their wildlife resources under the Forest Law.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department intends to undertake researach on the relationship between wildlife and poor people's livelihoods. [48145]

  Hilary Benn
  DfID is concerned with reducing poverty. We fund and will continue to fund projects and studies that addresss sustainable forest management and bushmeat production where this is key to tackling poverty. Annex 1 lists the main current DfiD activities that have direct impact on wildlife and their habitats.

  Annex 1: Examples of DfID-supported bilateral projects, and research and studies, that have a strong focus on wildlife/bushmeat species

  Name of Project

  Country

  Period of Support

  Amount (£000s)

  Mbomipa Community Wildlife Project

  Tanzania

  1997–2001

  1,973

  Wildlife Intensification for Livelihood Development (WILD)

  Namibia

  1999–2002

  1,040

  Madikwe Community Wildlife Management

  South Africa

  1997–1999

  622

  Amboro Rural Development

  Bolivia

  1996–2000

  3,200

  Mount Cameroon Project

  Cameroon

  1995–2002

  10,602

  Community Forest Development Project

  Cameroon

  1999–2002

  1,049

  Indonesian Multi-Stakeholder

  Indonesia

  1998–2005

  25,150

  Cross River State Community Forestry Project

  Nigeria

  1996–2001

  2,000

  Forest Sector Development Project Phase II

  Ghana

  2000–2004

  11,963

  620W

  Annex 1: Examples of DfID-supported bilateral projects, and research and studies, that have a strong focus on wildlife/bushmeat species

  Name of Project

  Country

  Period of Support

  Amount (£000s)

  Joint-funding scheme with WWF

  6,289

  ——Gashaka-Gumpti/Kupe

  Nigeria/Cam

  1991–2001

  ——Coastal forest/Bogoria/Udzungwa

  Kenya/Tanz

  1990–2001

  ——Kunene/Caprivi

  Namibia

  1998–2001

  ——Mamiraua/Varzea

  Brazil

  1991–2000

  Studies and research:

  575

  ——Livestock-wildlife interactions

  Africa

  1997–2001

  ——Illegal hunting in Serengeti NP

  Tanzania

  1997–2000

  ——Bushmeat in rural livelihoods of West Africa

  Ghana/Cameroon

  2000–2002

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what analysis her Department has made of the effectiveness of participatory poverty assessments in analysing the importance of bushmeat in people's livelihoods. [48153]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID routinely assesses the effectiveness of the methodologies used in poverty reduction initiatives. Participatory poverty assessments (PPAs) are an important tool used widely in poverty reduction programmes to ensure that decision-makers are aware of poor people's views. DFID is funding research into the linkages between poverty and environmental issues in PPAs. The research to date has focused on the broad management issues relating to livelihoods of the poor, bushmeat included.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to raise the subject of the trade in bushmeat with Governments in Central and West Africa. [48147]

  Hilary Benn
  Neither myself, nor the Secretary of State for International Development have any current plans to discuss this issue with governments in Central and West Africa, but my Department will continue to raise these matters where they are relevant to our poverty objectives.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what account has been taken of the bushmeat trade in her Department's Cameroon Country Strategy Paper. [48144]

  Hilary Benn
  Our Country Strategy Paper is focused on encouraging the sustainable management of forestry resources, of which bushmeat forms a part. The Community Forestry Development Project is working within the Government of Cameroon to establish community wildlife protocols for sustainable bushmeat harvesting. We are supporting the development of a Forestry and Environment Sector programme, one of the conditions for which is enhanced provision for poaching control campaigns. The programme will include a substantial community natural resource management component.

  Wildlife and Poverty Study
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Phase 1 report produced for her Department by Joanna Elliot entitled "Wildlife and Poverty Study". [48146]
  621W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID has undertaken a Wildlife and Poverty Study to identify how best to ensure that poor people's wildlife resources are used for effective poverty reduction. We are pleased with the initial Phase One report and the public interest it has attracted.

  The initial report documents anecdotal evidence of poor people's dependence on bushmeat. It highlights the lack of reliable aggregate data as to the extent of this dependence, the difficulty and expense of collecting that data, given that so much of the bushmeat trade is illegal, and the lack of proven instruments to enable poor people to manage bushmeat resources sustainably.

  Phase Two of the study will focus particularly on the Policy and institutional environment that will improve poor peoples' access to the benefits flowing from the sustainable management of wildlife resources.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the required rate of return on investments is from public-private partnerships with the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and what plans she has to reduce this rate. [46706]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government does not set CDC a required rate of return.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of whether the PSA target that 75 per cent. of bilateral country programme resources should be allocated to low income countries by 2002 will be met. [47905]

  Hilary Benn
  A report on progress against this particular Public Service Agreement (PSA) target, and against all other PSA targets set by my Department between April 1999 and March 2002, will appear in DFID's 2002 Departmental Report to be published later this month.

  Pakistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will make a statement on the flow of refugees from Afghanistan into Pakistan; [46596]

  (2) What assessment she has made of the flow of refugees from Afghanistan into the camps in the Balochistan area of Pakistan fleeing economic hardship and tribal instability; and how these problems are being addressed by (a) her Department and (b) the international community; [46595]

  (3) What support (a) the UK Government and (b) the international community are providing to the Government of Pakistan (i) to address overcrowding in and (ii) to provide adequate resources for refugee camps in the Balochistan area. [46598]

  Hilary Benn
  Pakistan has been shouldering the burden of some two million refugees from Afghanistan for many years. In the light of the stabilising situation in Afghanistan, since 1 March 2002, 150,000 Afghan 622W
  refugees have been able to return home from Pakistan through the joint voluntary repatriation programme established by the Pakistani and Afghan Governments with UNHCR. However, significant numbers continue to cross into Pakistan from Afghanistan, particularly into Balochistan province, with 10,000 Afghans crossing in the past week. UNHCR reports the majority are fleeing drought conditions in Afghanistan; some are now discussing returning to Afghanistan.

  DFID has provided £3 million to UNHCR's operations, in response to the current crisis, to support its operations for refugees in the region, including in Balochistan province. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support. At the request of UNHCR., we have provided three relief flights to Iran and Pakistan transporting tents, shelter material and communications equipment. We have also provided a specialist site planner to UNHCR in Pakistan to assist with the setting up of new refugee camp sites. UNHCR and its partners are working to improve the conditions in all refugee camps, including the water supply, sanitation and health facilities in the waiting area at the border. We have also provided £7 million to the World Food Programme's regional programme, which includes food aid support to refugees in Pakistan——7,000 families waiting to enter Pakistan have been provided food rations. In addition we have provided £6 million to NGOs, much of which has been directed towards Afghans in neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, and £11 million to support communities in Pakistan most affected by the influx of refugees. We have also provided £15 million to support the Government of Pakistan in its economic reforms.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on relations between refugees and the local communities in the Balochistan area of Pakistan. [46597]

  Hilary Benn
  Relations between Afghan refugees and local communities in Balochistan are reported by agencies in the region to be reasonable in areas where refugee communities are established. The current influx of 40,000 new refugees is reported to have increased tensions somewhat in the Chaman border area, particularly over water supplies, but no major incidents have occurred.

  Financing for Development Conference
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the outcome of the UN Financing for Development Conference in Mexico. [46659]

  Hilary Benn
  Donors and developing countries committed themselves to a new partnership in the "Monterrey Consensus". Developing countries recognised that they need to set in place the right policies to create an enabling environment for foreign direct investment and for the mobilisation of domestic resources through promoting good governance and pro-poor economic policies. In return donor countries agreed to provide better support for developing country efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
  623W
  by: giving more official development assistance; enhancing aid effectiveness; ensuring better market access for developing countries; providing support to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to negotiate in international trade fora; ensuring that the HIPC process provides heavily indebted poor countries with a genuine exit from unsustainable debt; and taking steps to strengthen the voice of developing countries in the international financial institutions.

  At the Barcelona Council on 15 March, the European Union agreed a package of measures to support the Monterrey Consensus. This included a commitment to increase EU development assistance. The EU average oda/GNI ratio is currently 0.33 per cent., and the EU has committed itself to raise this average to 0.39 per cent. by 2006. The implication of this is that the EU will provide an additional $20 billion of oda between now and 2006, and an additional $7 billion a year from 2006. The Americans followed the EU lead on aid volume by announcing that they would provide an additional $10 billion between 2004 and 2006 and $5 billion a year thereafter. This represents a 50 per cent. increase in US aid. Financing for Development is the first UN Conference that has delivered a concrete increase in oda, and the additional $12 billion a year from the EU and the USA represents a historic reverse in the decline in global oda levels over the 12 years.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial commitments have been made to the New Economic 624W
  Partnership for African Development by (a) the UK, (b) the EU and (c) other OECD donors in financial year 2001–02. [46882]

  Hilary Benn
  The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is not a financing mechanism or an institution that runs projects. Rather, it is an African-owned and led process which encourages African nations to share best practice, undertake peer review and learn from successful experience in building effective states and reducing poverty. It has not yet sought direct funding. Proposals are currently being developed by NEPAD with the assistance of different African institutions in the areas of economic and corporate governance, infrastructure, agriculture and market access, financial and banking standards, and peace and security.

  Developing Countries
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department intends to spend in developing countries in each of the next three years(a) as a percentage of her aid budget and (b) in real terms, in the form of (i) Government to Government aid and (ii) aid to charities and NGOs. [47333]

  Hilary Benn
  Revised programme allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04 have recently been agreed——details will appear in DFID's Departmental Report for 2002. Allocations for 2004–05 have not been agreed pending the outcome of the current Spending Review. I cannot however provide the information requested, as most programme allocations are not made by type of spending.

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

Europe: Maintenance of Peace
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that the European Union has maintained peace in Europe, and whether it is likely to do so in future.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that the cornerstone of maintaining peace in Europe has been and will continue to be NATO. Her Majesty's Government also believe that the European Union has played a significant part in providing the framework for promoting peace, stability and prosperity among its member states and in its external relations, and that with enlargement the Union will be even better placed to do so in the coming years.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad to note that even this Europhile Government do not pretend that any EU country would have gone to war with another since the Treaty of Rome was signed in the absence of the EU. As to the past, would the noble Baroness not go further and agree that NATO must take all the credit for keeping the peace in Europe since 1945? As to the future, does she not agree that the EU is a top-down creation, a conglomeration of different nations, put together without adequate democratic support? Does not history teach us that such conglomerations nearly always end in disaster?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government since 1997, and, I believe, well before that, has been that NATO does, indeed, take the credit for keeping and maintaining peace in Europe. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has serious problems with what he describes as a conglomeration of states. He told us so in no uncertain terms on 28th January last on Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill when he said that the European Union is dangerous for peace. That is not a view taken by Her Majesty's Government; nor is it a view taken by any of the countries currently negotiating to join the European Union. The noble Lord may cast his eyes heavenward, but there are a great number of countries who want to join us and whose democratically-elected governments wish to do
522
so. I believe that the structure of the Union means that partners have a natural forum in which to raise their disputes without having to resort to aggression. That is what I meant by helping to reinforce the framework for peace.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given the dreadful occurrences over the past 10 years in the west Balkans—countries right in our backyard where the EU spends collectively about 1 billion euros a year on aid and 5 billion euros on security—does my noble friend not agree that it is very much in our interests to treat this matter as part of the EU roadmap and that crocodile tears are being shed by those who say that the EU has no competence to act on security but at the same time oppose it doing so?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree strongly with the comments of my noble friend. The countries of the west Balkans are eligible for a stabilisation and association agreement once they meet certain basic political conditions, which are exactly what one would expect: democracy, respect for human rights and international obligations, including action against war criminals. Those criteria strike me as exactly the kind we would want in order to pursue a peaceful Europe. As my noble friend rightly says, they are also eligible for technical assistance in building institutions and establishing the rule of law. They also have considerable trade liberalisation arrangements with the European Union.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the European Union has succeeded in taming nationalism without suppressing patriotism and in sharing sovereignty without destroying the nation and is, therefore, a uniquely valuable organisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord put it far more eloquently than I could. People of my generation have grown up without war in Europe. I fully acknowledge what has been achieved by NATO. However, I believe that the European Union has played its role in seeing the disappearance of the fascist dictatorships of Spain, Portugal and Greece, and the communist dictatorships of central Europe. The EU is very much to be congratulated on the constructive role it has played.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as a former ambassador to Luxembourg, perhaps I may remind the House that although a loyal member of NATO, Luxembourg nevertheless attached enormous importance to the European Union as a guarantee against any further hostilities between her two neighbours, France and Germany, from which Luxembourg suffered grievously in the past.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, again that is a timely intervention. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that there may be many criticisms that could be levelled at

523
Europe. Indeed, the noble Lord is eloquent in doing so. I refer to criticisms about the common agricultural policy; bureaucracy; the complex language of treaties, on which he is a great expert; and some of the more obvious demonstrable democratic controls, about which he is concerned. However, to say that the European Union is dangerous for peace is a thoroughly implausible argument.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House more about the development in the European Union of foreign and security policy? I was surprised at her robust response to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has ever been to Rannoch Moor; I can assure her that it is a bleak place and may well account for how the noble Lord acquired his views. Surely the Minister accepts that while NATO will be the umbrella, the United States needs a reliable, strong, and effective partner in the whole business of making contributions to peace world-wide, to help her, advise her and sometimes to hold her back.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know anything about Rannoch Moor. I take the noble Lord's word that it is a bleak place, but I would say that in my experience that is quite unlike the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whom I have always found to be rather a jolly companion.
I remind your Lordships that the European security and defence policy does not conduct European territorial defence; only NATO does that. Of course the ESDP is for crisis management where NATO as a whole is not engaged. But the noble Lord is quite right. The United States has indeed welcomed the ESDP. President Bush said in February 2001 that the United States welcomed the EU's European security and defence policy which was of course intended to make Europe stronger. That was a worthy endorsement.

UK Steel Industry
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the £462 million loss recorded by Corus and what action they intend to take to safeguard jobs in the United Kingdom steel industry against subsidised foreign competition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government are fully aware that the UK steel industry continues to experience difficult trading conditions which are reflected in the losses recorded by Corus. The company is seeking to address this situation in part through the sale of its aluminium interests. Market conditions are forecast to improve this year. It is hoped that Corus will return to profitability in the near future.
524
As for subsidies to steel companies, within the EU there are strict rules limiting aid. Agreements with applicant countries also recognise that it is important to move away from high levels of state aid as soon as possible to help ensure a level playing field is created in the enlarged EU.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, as a result of the illegal tariffs put on our steel exports by the United States of America, the losses could be even greater? That is despite the fact that our steel industry is one of the three most efficient and productive ones in the world. Given that situation, can the Minister tell us what discussions his right honourable friend the Prime Minister had with President Bush last weekend about relieving us from this illegal tariff, particularly as we understand that Mr Mittal, whom the Prime Minister aided in his letter, was actually responsible for the lobbying? We should like to know what proposals his right honourable friend brought up and what the results of those proposals were.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are determined to stand by our steel producers in combating this unjustified and deeply regrettable action. Britain has one of the most efficient and productive steel-making industries and workforces in the world because we have been through restructuring. It has not been a pain-free process. Since 1980 some 86,000 jobs have been lost in the UK.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the issue of the tariffs with President Bush during his meeting in Crawford, Texas, last weekend. He reiterated the UK's disappointment with the US action; he confirmed our support for the robust response by the European Commission; and he expressed support for the efforts by UK companies to secure product exclusions from the US measures. So we have made our views very clear to the American President on this issue. We shall have to wait to see what the impact of that statement is. That would not have taken place immediately with the American President giving his response, but obviously he took that on board.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the leading union in the steel industry. I agree with the sentiments expressed that the unions fully endorse the actions of the Government on the tariff question. But is my noble friend aware of the great concern of the trade unions in the steel industry and indeed elsewhere in manufacturing that, whereas in mainland Europe unions meet employers and discuss strategic changes, in this country nothing of a similar nature occurs? Bearing in mind the international context of the steel industry and others, does the Minister agree that our situation is untenable? Furthermore, the chairman of Corus is to receive in excess of £500,000 a year while the workers are experiencing a pay freeze? Does my noble friend agree that that is not helpful?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's position is clear. When important strategic issues are involved they want to see that there have been serious discussions between management and unions. So far as concerns Brian Moffat's salary, we do not comment on individual cases. The setting of executive pay is a matter for the company and its shareholders. But we have been consulting on strengthening the disclosure requirements for directors' remuneration. Legislation will be introduced shortly for a compulsory annual shareholders' vote on the directors' remuneration report.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the obvious illegal actions by the United States, for which undoubtedly it will be penalised in due course, the worse thing that Her Majesty's Government could do at the present time is to attempt to promote a tariff or a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States as that would cause damage to the steel industry and other industries? Does he further accept that the major requirement of the UK steel industry is a strong and healthy UK manufacturing industry which can purchase steel products? What do the Government propose to do to arrest the steady erosion and decline in the manufacturing base of this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that we do not want a tit-for-tat war taking place, but the Government fully support the action taken by the European Commission in invoking the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement and in requesting consultation with the US under the WTO safeguards agreement, including seeking compensation. We have every right to take firm action.
Of course, it is critical to steel producers that there is a buoyant manufacturing sector. The Government are deeply concerned to create the right environment for that, but it is not within the Government's scope to make certain that manufacturing industry grows. That depends on the performance of manufacturing industry. All that we can do is to set the right conditions for that, which we have done with our macro-economic policies.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is now more than 20 years ago that I represented the United Kingdom in the negotiations that concluded a steel deal in Europe to ban permanently, for all, the subsidisation of steel? Yet, as his Answer indicates, European countries are still subsidising their steel industries. In view of that subsidisation, contrary to the agreement of 1981, is it surprising that the American Government feel pretty unhappy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have not followed all the details of the noble Lord's career—especially in its early stages—but I think that he probably did a good job. It is a feature of the steel aid code of the European Coal and Steel Community
526
treaty that steel subsidies have largely been banished. The issue today concerns the position of the accession states and action is also being taken on that front.
Lord Jones: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us how many jobs remain in the British steel industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give an exact figure but I shall write to the noble Lord with it.

Courts Martial
3.23 p.m.
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their proposals are for courts martial in the future.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are considering whether any changes to the courts martial system will be required when the three service discipline Acts are replaced by a single Act covering all the services. We are also assessing whether changes will be needed following the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Morris against the United Kingdom. Any changes will reflect the need for service discipline to underpin operational effectiveness.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interim reply. Does he not feel a little embarrassed that the Government seem prepared yet again to tinker with what is fast becoming the fragile disciplinary system of our Armed Forces? Does he not recall how we pleaded with the Government to obtain a powerful opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights for our Armed Forces, as the French obtained for theirs?
We were told that there would be no significant effect on service discipline. When that turned out not to be the case, does his department not remember introducing a new disciplinary procedure which, although inhibiting and time-consuming, was accepted on the clear understanding that it was copper-bottomed from any further inroads from European legislation? They now appear to want to move again. What are we to believe?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know that the noble and gallant Lord has raised this and related issues on many occasions. He is right to say that this is an interim reply because we do not know precisely what will be required following the Court judgment in the Morris case that I mentioned. However, to gain the exemption that he describes the French as having would require us to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and renegotiate entry terms. That would be not only a long and complicated procedure but, if I can anticipate the future a little, an

527
unnecessary one. The assumption is being made that the Morris judgment will result in major changes. I do not think that it will.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord enjoys—and, if I may say so, deserves—a reputation for good sense. I hope that he will try to use that good sense to stop uninformed interference in sensitive matters and pay due attention to the opinion frequently expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on a matter about which he knows a great deal.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his assessment of my sensitivities and sensibilities. He makes a generous observation.
Obviously, I recognise the tremendous wealth of experience that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, brings to these matters. However, I appeal to the House to acknowledge that the test for the Armed Forces and of their discipline is their operational effectiveness. Does any Member of the House have any reason for doubt, having seen the performance of our Armed Forces in recent years, about their being supremely operationally effective? That is the test and that is how they must be judged in respect of any judgments of the European Court or any Government reaction to those judgments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if the judgment under the Human Rights Act 1998 is upheld, does the Minister agree that a system such as the German system, which divides court cases between civilian and military cases, should be introduced?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am always wary about making comparisons between different systems. However, whenever a judgment of this sort is made there is a tendency to over-dramatise its consequences. We must wait to discover precisely what changes, if any, are needed. I can say that in respect of one aspect of the judgment, which concerned the independence of the courts martial, we have already been able to make the necessary changes through Queen's Regulations.
The House will know that there was a suspension of courts martial. There was no suspension for the Navy; for the Army, they were resumed on 3rd April; and I can tell your Lordships that on 23rd April, Royal Air Force trials will resume. So I repeat: let us not overestimate the drama, if there is one, of the judgment that has been reached.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I moved the opt-out amendment for the Armed Forces? It was withdrawn on the undertakings of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, which are fully recorded in Hansard. Those were acceptable to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, and Lord Inge, and other noble Lords. It was on that basis that the amendment was withdrawn. Will the noble Lord approach the matter
528
with considerable care? It is absolutely essential that those undertakings are honoured, because that was the only basis on which I withdrew my amendment.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am indeed aware— having, as the House would expect, read the papers beforehand—of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, if it is felt that any changes are needed—changes are obviously being considered in respect of the Morris judgment—we intend to introduce a tri-service Bill that will take account of the various different systems in the three services and, sensibly, attempt to make them compatible with each other. If further changes are needed, we should make them at that point.

Channel Tunnel Freight Services
3.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they plan to take to ensure the immediate resumption of full cross-Channel freight services following the disruption caused by asylum seekers.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government continue to press at the highest level for urgent action by the French Government to tackle the disruption to Channel Tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants. We welcome the announcement by SNCF that it plans to restore services from next week.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but unfortunately the same reply was given by SNCF two months ago, one month ago and on 2nd April, not 1st April.
I am sure that the Minister appreciates that this has been going on for five months. Will he suggest to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he invite the new president of France, when elected, to visit Calais as a priority to look at the holes in the fence and the lack of policing and to try to understand how things are there, rather than viewing them from the centre of Paris or even London?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a courteous thought. However, I hope—without being able to guarantee it—that we will see effective action well before the May presidential elections are resolved. If the French Government do what they said that they would do at the end of March, in response to the requests of the European Union, we shall see a substantial improvement to physical security around Fréthun and to the level of staffing, including SNCF guards, gendarmerie and the national paratroop branch of the gendarmerie. That will approximately double the number of security force personnel policing the area.

529
We have argued for a long time that physical security measures had to be put in place and that they had to be supervised by appropriate security staff.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it has recently been reported that unauthorised immigrants have jumped on to trains. Is the vigilance of the British police being increased, so that such refugees can be questioned before they disappear off into our countryside?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Kent police, who carry much of the burden, are particularly aware of their responsibilities. They responded vigorously on Monday, when, as the noble Lord will know, 60 illegal immigrants found their way into Dover. The police managed to arrest, I think, 40 of those 60 within hours. We commend them on their vigilance. Of course, it should not be necessary for the police to act in that way; such people should be stopped before they enter the Tunnel.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It is not only the French Government who should be approached by the British Government; most people at Sangatte get there with the aid of agents in their own country. Those agents are known. Could the Government communicate with the countries of origin, in order to make sure that the penalties for being an agent and trading in people—that is what it is—are enough to prevent such activity?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I shall certainly discuss it with my colleagues in the Home Office and see whether we already have such action in place. I expect that we have. As noble Lords will know, the Home Office published a White Paper on significant measures to improve security and deter illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, I shall take the issue forward. It is big criminal business, and it would be helpful if we could nip it in the bud in countries of origin.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious effects that the breakdown of freight movement through the Channel Tunnel is having on freight businesses? They have built up business valiantly over a long time, and now, in many cases, they face bankruptcy, the loss of jobs and the collapse of business.
Is the situation not inflicting a severely damaging blow on the environmental transport policy to which the Government are, in theory, committed? What proposals do the Government have to pay compensation to firms that go out of business because of the failure to tackle the disruptive behaviour of the asylum seekers and the failure of the French Government to deal with it?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I support the sentiments behind the initial part of the question. The
530
Government are concerned about the effect on the rail freight industry and on British and European targets for a modal shift of traffic off roads and on to rail.
We are aware that some firms are claiming serious difficulty. Our advice—if they need it, which they may not—is that they should initially pursue a civil remedy under the terms of their contracts. They should also pursue remedies, where appropriate, under the European Union's "strawberry" regulation on the free movement of goods. The British Government will give support, in the form of non-legal advice and information; we will not provide financial compensation.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say whether he will encourage the European Commission to take action, as it did against the French on the issue of British beef imports? The situation represents a contravention of the Treaty of Rome in exactly the same way.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have had discussions with the European Commission. The Commissioners for trade and for transport are seriously and actively involved in the issue. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has, through the Rail Freight Group, had vigorous discussions with the trade Commissioner recently. The Commissioner is most interested to hear and see evidence of the action that is being taken by the responsible authorities on the other side of the Channel. We will support those efforts to find a resolution, although we recognise that the French Government have recently shown a commendable increase in commitment.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Proceeds of Crime Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 140,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 141 to 255,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 256 to 271,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 272 to 325,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 326 to 330,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 331 to 442,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 443 to 448,

Schedule 8,

531

Clause 449,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 450 to 454.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 104A:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT: INDEPENDENCE
(1) In section 20 of the 1999 Act (function of the Commission for Health Improvement) subsections (3) and (4) arc omitted.
(2) Schedule 2(1) to the 1999 Act is amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph 2 (general powers) the words "Subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State" are omitted.

(b) in paragraph 4(a) and (c) (membership) for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "NHS Appointments Commission".

(c) in paragraph 6(1) and (2) (remuneration and allowance) for the words "the Secretary of State" there is substituted "it",

(d) in paragraph 6, sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) are omitted,

(e) in paragraph 10(1) (payment and loans to Commission)—

(i) for "may" there is substituted "shall", and

(ii) for "he considers appropriate" there is substituted "are agreed with the Commission",

(f) in paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) are omitted."

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 104A is designed to improve the independence of the Commission for Health Improvement.
Clause 14 contains some useful measures relating to the independence of CHI. They take away the Secretary of State's power to consent to the appointment of CHI's chief executive and to give directions in relation to the terms and conditions of CHI staff. Amendment No. 104A goes further in several important respects by further amending the Health Act 1999.
Subsection (1) of the new clause would delete subsections (3) and (4) of Section 20 of the 1999 Act and, thereby, remove the Secretary of State's power to give directions to CHI and the corresponding
532
obligation on CHI to comply with those directions. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) replaces the Secretary of State's appointment powers over the chairman and members of CHI with the NHS Appointments Commission, thus depoliticising appointments. Paragraphs (c) and (d) remove the Secretary of State's power over what is to be paid to members of CHI and its committees, including powers over pensions and compensation for loss of office. Paragraph (e) takes away the Secretary of State's discretion as to how much he pays CHI for its work, turning it instead into an agreement between the Secretary of State and CHI. Paragraph (f) removes the Secretary of State's powers and those of the National Assembly for Wales to direct CHI as to how it should spend its money.
That may all sound rather complicated, but the bottom line is that, with such amendments, CHI would become more independent of government. Earlier in Committee, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege spoke powerfully about the need to take politics out of the NHS. One place that should be totally devoid of politics is the NHS' independent inspectorate. An inspectorate cannot be independent if its governing body is appointed by the Secretary of State. It cannot be independent if the Secretary of State can tell it what to do and it cannot be independent if its funding is determined by the whim of the Secretary of State. This amendment seeks to give CHI proper independence so that it can be totally free of political interference.
The mere existence of powers such as powers of direction reduces the independence of a body such as CHI. The power of direction does not have to be used as such, but the ability to use a power secures the effect of subservience; that is the history of powers of direction for public bodies. The powers are rarely used but are often relied upon.
I believe, or at least I hope, that the Government are edging towards a properly independent CHI. For that reason I hope that they will embrace these extra and essential components of that independence. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like, first, to make what is becoming my habitual protest about the way in which this Bill—along with others—has been drafted. It would be desirable to provide at least some kind of Keeling schedule to indicate to anyone taking part in discussing a Bill what the law will look like if the Government's proposals are carried. I cannot repeat too often or say too strongly how revolting I find it that successive governments show such total contempt for Parliament that they will not provide even the modest degree of furnishing for which I am asking. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is good about these matters and who does listen, will pay attention to my remarks. He should realise that some of us will simply go on and on and on until Bills are produced which can be readily understood by people who do not have eyes in the back of their heads so that they can read two Bills at the same time. Such improvements will make it possible for sensible discussion to take place.

533
I should like to congratulate my noble friend on her amendment. Personally, I have long believed that the National Health Service suffers from an excess of investigation, monitoring and examination by persons who, although sometimes skilled in examination, have seldom any concept of the disruption, delay and waste of time that their interventions cause.
Recently I took the opportunity to conduct a superficial examination of the body known to its friends as CHI. For myself, because it has a slightly ironic title, I give the name in full: the Commission for Health Improvement. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but there was a time when I suspected that the duty of the Department of Health was, to put it quite simply, to improve health. Either the officials found themselves so incompetent that they could not do that, or they so wished to introduce reinforcement that they set up this body, which has huge powers.
However, while the body's functions are declared under Section 20(1) of the 1999 Act, in subsection (2) it is made quite clear that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision. Thus, in effect, the Secretary of State may tell the commission what it can do, when it can do it and how it should be done. Other points are covered, but I shall not bore your Lordships by relating the detail of the entire contents of the clause. I refer also to the subsection to which my noble friend's amendment refers. The Secretary of State can regulate and direct the commission with regard to what it does and when it does it.
What is the commission for? It does not have even a pretence of independence. It is the lackey of the Secretary of State. I see that the noble Lord is shaking his head. I shall be most interested to hear how any body can possibly enjoy independence when it is subject to ministerial direction of the kind set out here and of the kind against which my noble friend is protesting.
A brief examination of the commission on my part has revealed that, as a paper mill, it is deserving of quite a high place. Within two years it has established itself as a major source of paper. I have just some of it with me, from which I propose briefly to weary noble Lords with one or two paragraphs. The chairman, whom I am told enjoys a good reputation outside the commission, has written a foreword which is an astonishing piece of optimism:
"You are warmly invited to this exciting prospectus"
when was a prospectus ever exciting?—
"that we hope captures the essence of the Commission for Health Improvement's … properly demanding responsibilities for 2001–2004. CHI's"—
at this point the commission's "nickname" is used—
"first year … was rich in challenge and included the requirement"—
here there is a split infinitive—
"to simultaneously design and establish the organisation, construct wide ranging methods, and employ them across the breadth of our responsibilities. As CHI sets its goals for the next three years, the scale of challenge increases as we commit ourselves to deliver substantial elements of our long term work programme. We have increased the volume and complexity of our activities to support the high levels of performance required".
534
I do not doubt that those who suffer from the visits and investigations of this body are enduring increasingly sharp nightmares as a result of that phrase.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he not agree that the very appearance of a split infinitive in the foreword to the report demonstrates the wholly independent nature of CHI? If the department had been as interfering as has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, then the split infinitive would never have appeared.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I say only that in the Act of Parliament passed in 1999, Parliament was induced by the Government to give this body extremely large functions and then to tell it exactly how to perform them. If that is freedom, then I simply do not understand the language. The fact that so far the Government have not seen fit to follow what it has done in every detail is neither here nor there. The Secretary of State has powers which he ought not to have and which make a nonsense of the commission's alleged independence.
I should like to refer to what is called the Executive Summary which states fairly briefly what tie commission did during its first year. It,
"published pilot clinical governance review reports … five investigations … research and field work on NHS progress … recruitment of over 180 permanent staff, and assessment a id training of over 240 reviewers"
All those people are going to run around like scorpions, annoying those trying to do a decent job for and near to patients.
Its last claim is that it has established,
"effective internal management arrangements to ensure standards of performance including corporate governance".
I dare not weary the Committee with the chairman's introduction to its next report.
The commission claims to have looked at itself in the mirror. It must have been a nice, friendly mirror. Amazingly, it saw reflected a very good view of itself and was quite fascinated.
But there is another view. I asked one or two people of eminence whether they endorse and share the view which the commission takes of itself. "Nothing of the kind", they say. Some regarded it as superficial and aggressive, devoting itself to investigating problems which were well known. The effect of its investigations, they say, is not to cure problems but to delay tackling them. What the commission does often enough, although I have not been able to follow its tracks myself, follows disruption and frustration. The efforts to put things right by those in a position to do so are therefore delayed.
I hope that the Minister will not attribute to me a desire to sound off and oppose efforts to put things right, which deserve respect, but people whose duty it is to investigate need to be careful that they do not

535
greatly upset, disturb and frustrate those who are trying to do an important job of work. I support most warmly what my noble friend said.
Baroness Northover: I support—perhaps more straightforwardly—the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Professor Kennedy concluded in his report on the Bristol cases:
"The quality of healthcare should be regulated through bodies such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement. These bodies should be independent of government".
He states that it is essential that CHI,
"should be suitably structured so as to give it the necessary independence and authority",
to carry out its work.
In my view, CHI is already doing a useful and commendable job. The Government should be supported. They set up these bodies in the first place and we welcome the extension of CHI's independence proposed in the Bill. However, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Secretary of State's role should be removed in order that genuine independence is, and is seen to be, the order of the day and to ensure that there are no loopholes through which a Secretary of State might be tempted to squeeze. We are happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I, too, support the amendment, which seeks to increase the independence of CHI and other such organisations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, quoted from the Kennedy report. That report also states:
"The various bodies whose purpose it is to ensure the quality of care in the NHS (for example, CHI and NICE) and the competence of healthcare professionals (for example, the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council) must themselves be independent of and at arm's-length from the DoH.
"All the various bodies and organisations concerned with regulation, besides being independent of government, must involve and reflect the interests of patients, the public and healthcare professionals, as well the NHS and government".
I reinforce the view that the work undertaken by CHI has been very valuable. It has highlighted deficits in care and deficits in the management of services for patients. All the improvements in patient care are long overdue and welcomed by everyone. Everyone in this Chamber—just as everyone in the population as a whole—will, on one day or another, be a patient in a service which is absolutely crucial to the well being of the country.
Lord Chan: I, too, support the work of CHI. Previously in Committee I asked who will review CHI and received the answer that it will be the National Audit Office. There are therefore sufficient safeguards in regard to CHI's position. It is doing an excellent job. The amendment can certainly be supported.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, again draws to our attention the
536
problems involved in following different legislation. I sympathise with him. I am anxious to see a consolidated measure on NHS legislation generally. I shall see whether between the Committee stage and Report stage we can produce some guidance to enable us to follow this legislation more clearly.
The noble Lord has never been very keen on any of the committees for which I have sought parliamentary support. But, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay, said, the appointment and establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement has been a great advance in driving up standards in the National Health Service.
Despite having had a national service for 53 years, it is interesting to note that we have never had any kind of national inspectorate. One of the reasons why, historically, there has been such patchiness and inconsistency between different parts of the NHS is that we have not had a robust inspectorate.
The noble Lord quoted from the annual report of the Commission for Health Improvement. I commend to him some of the reviews it has undertaken of clinical governance in a considerable number of NHS trusts. As has been suggested by other noble Lords, CHI has identified unsafe practices. It has identified certain organisations whose boards have not been getting the information required to make proper judgments and decisions, and it has raised issues of poor leadership within individual organisations.
But the commission has not had a wholly negative impact. It has also identified many examples of good practice. It has a role in helping to spread good practices as much as in identifying problems in particular NHS organisations.
The commission is a crucial part of the Government's strategy to drive up standards in the National Health Service. In that context, there is no reason at all why the Government should seek to undermine the independence of the commission. My own experience, as the Minister responsible for the commission, is that the chair. Dame Deirdre Hine, who used to be the Chief Medical Officer in Wales, and the chief executive, Mr Peter Homa, are extremely vigorous people, well able to embark on rigorous discussions with the Department of Health. In the reviews that they undertake of NHS organisations they are wholly independent in what they seek to do.
The Government have always sought for CHI to be at arm's length from Ministers and the Department of Health. That is why we established the commission as an executive non-departmental public body. CHI is no different from other executive non-departmental public bodies across government. It is a key feature of its establishment that the Secretary of State remains fully accountable to Parliament for the performance and the governance of the body in question. There is no justification for the Secretary of State abdicating that responsibility in the case of the commission. It is a vital part of constitutional arrangements and of ensuring public accountability that the Secretary of State appoints the chairman and other members of the commission. CHI is in no respect different from any of

537
the department's other executive non-departmental public bodies —the General Social Care Council, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the National Radiological Protection Board, the Public Health Laboratory Service Board and the National Care Standards Commission.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for appointments to be undertaken by the NHS Appointments Commission, which was set up essentially to make appointments to local NHS bodies.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister's speech takes little account of Section 20(2)(a) of the 1999 Act:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … as to the times at which, the cases in which, the manner in which, the persons in relation to which or the matters with respect to which any functions of the Commission are to be exercised".
Those are sweeping powers. One might say that the Secretary of State was entitled to give guidance but those are detailed powers. If the Minister says that the Secretary of State would never do such things, why not accept my noble friend's amendment and abandon a position that, from what the Minister is saying, is quite unnecessary?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is quite appropriate for the Secretary of State, in his role of directing the National Health Service and in accounting to Parliament, to set the parameters within which CHI works. Of course we have regular discussions with the commission about its workload, budget and the number of reviews that it undertakes each year.
The substantive point is that there is no suggestion and there will be no suggestion of any ministerial interference in the conduct of reviews undertaken by CHI. The basis for the robustness of the changes that we are making depends on a vigorous, independent inspectorate.
As to the new direction-making powers that the new clause would remove, I stress that those are reserve powers. There has never been any suggestion that they should be used as a matter of routine. It has always been our intention that they should be used only rarely, if at all. There has to be a backstop of reserve power if a situation ever arose where there was a serious problem in relation to activities or governance that the commission, for whatever reason, failed to address.
As the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for how the commission acts, surely it is right that he should be able to take whatever action is necessary at the time. I stress that such a power would be used in extremis. Not only is CHI already independent but—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested—its independence is enhanced by the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Will the Minister confirm that the appointment of chief executives to the commission will be done by CHI itself, not by the Secretary of State or the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: CHI's chief executive had to be appointed with the consent of the Secretary
538
of State. The Bill will leave it to CHI to make the appointment without requiring that consent. The Bill also gives CHI control over the terms and conditions of its employees. The commission will be able to delegate its functions and will for the first time publish its own independent annual report on the quality of services to NHS patients—which will be presented to Parliament.
With those changes, CHI's degree of independence and powers of direction compare favourably with other executive non-departmental bodies. The Public Health Laboratory Service and the National Care Standards Commission must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State for their staff terms and conditions. The Bill abolishes the power to give such directions to CHI.
It is in the Government's interest to have an independent inspectorate which will be tough and robust and will ensure that the NHS pays careful attention to its reviews and inspections. Nothing in any of the Government's plans for the future or the NHS would, in any circumstance, seek to undermine those independent reviews. We have the balance right between the necessary accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament and the considerable independence of the commission. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister and noble Lords who have supported the amendment—particularly my noble friend Lord Peyton for his usual powerful contribution. He pointed that CHI has extensive functions but without freedom because potential use of the powers in the 1999 Act take away the commission's freedom and independence.
The Minister likes to describe CHI and the powers held over it in terms of an ordinary, non-departmental public body but he is making the wrong comparison. He says that it is appropriate for the Secretary of Stale to set the parameters and proper for Ministers to have powers of direction. If one compares CHI with a body such as the National Audit Office or Audit Commission, those are genuinely independent inspectorates. There are no powers of direction over those bodies and the same degree of proposed ministerial control over the money that they receive to undertake their work.
The Department of Health's view of CHI can be characterised as having its own poodle, not a watchdog over the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely the noble Baroness agrees that since CHI's resources come from money voted by Parliament and given the Secretary of State's responsibilities, there must be discussions between him and CHI about the budget—based on CHI's likely workload over a financial year. That seems a perfectly proper and appropriate relationship. I have stressed that in the actual conduct of reviews and the reports that it writes, CHI will be wholly independent.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister. I can see that he has been trying to make a distinction between the

539
powers over the body and the work that it does. But if powers of direction exist, they can infiltrate into the work in a way which may not be seen.
I agree that the Secretary of State should not be able to write CHI a blank cheque—the Secretary of State would be accountable for moneys voted to him. However, if we look at the way in which the Audit Commission is financed and the different way in which the National Audit Office is financed, we see that there are different sources of income, not dependent on the decision of the Secretary of State. My amendment seeks to replace the process of agreement. That could be made transparent; it could be brought into the open if there were disagreement. However, the Bill as drafted merely says that the Secretary of State determines the amount of money. I am attempting to move that into an environment where the debate which may well be taking place behind closed doors will properly take place in public, with CHI stating what it believes it needs to do the work that is implied in its functions. That should be wholly in the open in order to enhance the independence of CHI.
I can see that the Minister has not listened to the reasoned arguments of noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I should like to reflect on his remarks, as I am sure others would. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 105:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause
"COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS: SCHEME FOR REFORM
(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within twelve months of the date of coming into force of this section regulations setting out a scheme for the reform of the Community Health Councils in England.
(2) Before laying regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and such other bodies representing the interests of patients as he considers appropriate.
(3) The scheme set out by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1) shall extend to all parts of the health service (including the provision of Part 2 services under the 1977 Act).
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for access by members of a Community Health Council to premises from which services under Part 2 of the 1977 Act are provided.
(5) The scheme set out by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1) shall provide for the proper representation of the population in the area served by a Community Health Council on that council.
(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: We now come to the issue in the Bill which, more than any other, has provoked controversy and passionate disagreement across the party-political divide. I refer of course to the Government's proposal to abolish community health councils. The proposal is not new to us. It has been regurgitated by the Government from the legislative
540
programme that they were forced to truncate at the end of the previous Parliament, when, following extensive debates on the Health and Social Care Bill in both Houses, community health councils were saved from extinction by a decisive vote in this place.
Following that, there was, very noticeably, no pledge in the Labour Party's election manifesto that they would do away with CHCs if re-elected. That is hardly surprising in view of the outright hostility with which the healthcare professions and patients had greeted the original proposals. Yet, instead of abandoning the idea gracefully, the Government have returned to it with renewed vigour.
It would be one thing if Ministers had begun this exercise with the express aim of wanting to enhance and improve patient and public involvement in healthcare. I have no objection to that idea. Indeed, I am thoroughly in favour of it. Community health councils, as we have said previously in this Chamber, are not perfect creatures. They require modernisation. Although many work very well indeed, many do not.
However, rather than taking as their starting-point the imperative to find a working formula that is best for patients, the Government began with a decision that, whatever happened, CHCs must be swept away. The consultation document sent out by the Government stated at the beginning:
"The immediate focus of this document is the Government's intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity to replace CHCs".
In other words, whether anyone liked it or not, that would be the conclusion of the consultation exercise.
My attachment, and the Opposition's attachment, to CHCs is not borne of sentiment, awkwardness or cussedness. Unlike the Government, we are open-minded about how best to ensure that patients have an independent voice and an independent watchdog within the NHS. We believe strongly that there should be reform. The reason we want to see CHCs retained and strengthened, and not abolished, is simply that no other model for patient representation that we have seen has the potential to do as effective a job. The arrangements that the Government wish to substitute for CHCs are slightly different from those that they presented to us before the general election. It therefore behoves us all not to dismiss them out of hand, but to examine them in a constructive spirit.
There are several key tests for any replacement arrangements for CHCs. Will they be truly independent of government and of the health service? Will they be effective in acting as a watchdog on behalf of patients and the general public? Will they be convenient to users? Will they command public confidence? It is my contention that the Government's proposals fail every single one of those tests.
What do the proposals amount to? They amount to inventing a number of new types of body and parcelling out the functions of CHCs among them. In acute hospital trusts there will be in-house patient advice and liaison services whose job it will be to provide information to patients. For each trust and PCT there will be a patients forum, whose members will inspect and monitor health services for patients

541
and make representations on their behalf. To whom will representations be made? They will be made either directly to the trust on which each forum is based, or to the overview and scrutiny committee of the relevant local authority. The overview and scrutiny committees will perform the scrutiny function currently undertaken by CHCs.
If you want to make a complaint, to whom do you go? Do you go to a patients forum or to an overview and scrutiny committee? No. You go to the independent complaints advocacy service. That service will not be a unified service, but rather it will be provided by a range of separate NHS organisations. So who will draw everything together? Overseeing patient involvement nationally and reporting to the Secretary of State will be the new commission for patient and public involvement. It will be the job of the commission to support and co-ordinate patients forums.
Assuming that you have that structure clearly in your head, what is its most striking feature? Clearly, it is highly fragmented. It is far from being immediately understandable to the ordinary patient. The transparency of the current system has been lost. It is not, like a community health council, a one-stop shop for the patient, a place where he or she can be guided, informed, supported and represented on an independent and impartial basis. The separation of the scrutiny work, the monitoring work and the complaints work of CHCs will automatically reduce the extent to which these areas of activity mutually inform one another.
It is therefore less likely, not more likely, that the new system will sort out problems for patients in a speedy and effective way. That is because many patients have quite complex problems involving a number of different services. Where a patient's journey spans a number of different trusts, it will no longer be possible for one body to monitor or track the whole of a patient's experience. Individual patients forums will have a remit only for considering their own trusts' functions, with no formal way of coming together to provide an informed local overview.
The matter can be summed up very simply. Instead of being centred on the needs of the patient, the new structures are simply being bolted on to the existing machine. I suggest that that fact should make us suspicious. The obvious question is: what is being lost in the wash? The answer is: a great deal. The remit of patients' forums and of the commission for patient and public involvement will be considerably restricted compared with that of CHCs and ACHCEW at present. They will not, for example, be able to campaign against the closure of a hospital. They cannot query major capital projects or call for public consultation. They cannot take legal proceedings to enforce their rights or those of patients. They cannot undertake "casualty watch"-type exercises. They will have no overarching remit to represent the interests of the public or engage in work for the general public benefit in the field of healthcare. Unlike CHCs, the forums will have no power to refer contentious or disputed decisions to the Secretary of State. The
542
Government have said that overview and scrutiny committees will have that function, but those committees will have no statutory duty to scrutinise the reports that they receive; they will have only a power to do so.
What is also being lost is independence. How can we call the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health independent, when its chairman and first chief executive will be appointed by the Secretary of State? How can we call PA LS independent when they will be staffed by trust employees? How will patients forums present themselves as truly independent when they are trust-based organisations with an inbuilt trust-based perspective? How, indeed, can the public have 100 per cent confidence in a forum that is not separate from the National Health Service but based within it?
Every key test that I set out earlier for the Government's proposals has been failed. We need to ask the Government to think again, to take the tried and tested model of community health councils—for which there is widespread support—and work up proposals to strengthen and build on that model, consult on those plans and come back to Parliament again. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I warmly support what my noble friend has said, and the amendment that he has proposed. My complaint about the Government setting up these organisations is that they always behave like gardeners who, having planted a nice rose, or some vegetables or trees, cannot restrain themselves digging them up to see how the roots are doing. Nothing grows in those circumstances, yet all governments persist in doing this. The prose it Government are worse than most in relation to this thoroughly bad habit.
The Government suffer, au fond, from a certain confusion. They are very keen to be seen to be concerned with the welfare of the patient—the ill, the sick—and they are right to be so. They are also concerned, however, to do things in a way that is convenient to them, and that tends to edge forward and be given a priority that is denied to patients. I do not suppose for a moment that the Minister will get up and say that he entirely agrees with me, but I am bold enough to hope that, before he retires to bed tonight, he might just wonder whether there is not a grain of common sense and truth in what I am trying to say.
Lord Clement-Jones: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, and particularly with his powerful critique of the Government's proposals. Under those proposals, at least four organizations—possibly five—will take over from CHCs: patient advocacy and liaison services; patients forums; the independent complaints advocacy service; and the local authorities' overview and scrutiny committees. There will be a patients forum for each trust locally. The functions of CHCs will he fragmented; no single body will have an informed local overview of health services. The benefits of the one-stop shop provided by CHCs will be lost. Many points

543
of uncertainty surround the scrutiny role of local authorities, particularly in relation to the lack of a duty to act.
Forums will not be independent of trusts, and their membership will potentially be too much under the control of Ministers. They will have limited powers, even in comparison to CHCs, and will not even have staff of their own. The role and independence of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, and its provision of staff, is extremely uncertain, ambiguous and unsatisfactory, particularly in terms of its activities at local level. There are many other objections to the proposals, and they will no doubt be the subject of debate today. Even the cost of the system has been estimated to be 10 times that of the current system.
If we were to put the clock back 18 months, we might well go further and support this amendment. Some people might still prefer CHCs to be reformed, rather than being abolished and having something new put in their place. I am tempted to say that we, on these Benches, would not have started from here. However, we have to deal with circumstances as they are. We have been debating these issues for more than 18 months, and matters have moved on. Many of your Lordships will remember the battle we had over the abolition of CHCs during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. A compromise over the powers of new patients councils, which was inserted in the Commons, might have been reached if the general election had not intervened. We believe that patients, the public, and the staff of the CHCs would be better served by agreement on definite proposals in this Bill, rather than by waiting for a scheme to be devised over the next 12 months.
It was interesting to read the letter in the Guardian today from a member of a modernisation agency, who also happened to be the chairman of the Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance. She admonished a number of us for political points-scoring in what I thought was a very political points-scoring way, praying in aid a discussion that she had had with 23 members of the alliance, which comprises some 117 organisations. The one area of agreement that I share with her, however, is that there has been enough uncertainty over the past 18 months, and we need some certainty in the Bill.
One-fifth of the membership of the CHCs has fallen away. Staff morale is getting lower by the day. We need to make decisions soon about the new patient and public consultation and representation structure, otherwise valuable expertise will be lost to us. In Committee, we wish to explore whether the Government can agree with opposition parties on a scheme whereby we can establish patients councils as a one-stop shop for patients and the public, and as a powerful voice in the National Health Service for the local community, but one that works from within the health service, as recommended by the Kennedy report. Failing such a willingness by the Government to agree, an insistence on the status quo for CHCs may be the only option open to us. We do not believe that
544
we have yet reached that point, but a great deal depends on the Minister's reply to this and other amendments.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I rise to oppose the amendment, and that is not because I have any lack of admiration for the work of many community health councils. Indeed, I was the chief officer of one myself for a short time in 1974, when they were set up. We have to recognise, however, that the world is very different now. Many of your Lordships will not be old enough to cast your minds back that far, but in 1974, the very idea that a body representing patients' views should be set up was revolutionary. Now, much more than that is demanded: patients must be at the centre of the running of the National Health Service. I have bored your Lordships before with my experience as a patient over long months last year, and with the fact that I feel that we have come a long way in enabling patients' views to be at the centre of the National Health Service, but there is still some way to go.
The Government's proposals in the Bill show their commitment to putting patients at the centre. We need organisations and structures that reflect that commitment, and it is a credit to consumer and patient organisations that we have reached the stage of being able to propose radical changes. On the simple issue of complaints, for example, the present system is cumbersome and takes a long time. Many patients' concerns are quite simple to deal with and could be resolved by the provision of information by the patient advocacy and liaison services, enabling them to be settled at an early stage. There will be many more PALS available than there have been CHCs. In addition, every primary care trust will have a forum that will monitor and review services, obtain the views of patients and carers—I am particularly pleased about that—provide advice and make information available. They will also provide annual reports to enable monitoring of how they are getting on.
The skills and experience of CHC staff and members will not be lost when the new system is set up. I would be very concerned about that, but I am convinced that they will be able to be integrated into the new system.
I am delighted with the Government's proposals to set up a national commission, which will have far greater powers at national level than ACHCEW ever had. The title of that national body—the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—shows that it will go even wider than involving patients.
We must be careful of overstating how well known and integrated CHCs have been. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the MORI survey that showed that fewer than 3 per cent of those making a complaint had even heard of a community health council. The new structures will provide more accountability and will be much more focused, with a national voice. Make no mistake, these are radical proposals, but that is what we need. We want to make patients and the public an integral part of the running of the National Health Service. Everyone who is committed to that should welcome the proposals.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I find myself in a strange position when speaking to the amendment, because in Wales we shall be maintaining CHCs, but our experience of them and the way in which they are evolving may have been slightly different. Their collective memory has been extremely valuable. I have served as a non-executive member of a health authority in which the CHC members acted a little like sand in a shoe, but were also useful to inform what was going on. For patients and their carers they act as a single point to which they can go when they feel angry, confused, frightened or upset and are not sure which route to take. It is very important that patients and their carers have a single point of contact that can help them filter out the most appropriate route to take in the future.
I have also experienced the advocacy role of CHCs at the sharp end. A member from Cardiff CHC came along with a patient of mine to speak to me and help to resolve issues. The CHC member was extremely helpful in acting as the patient's advocate. We have some examples of good practice there which I hope will be picked up throughout whatever other systems evolve in the rest of the UK.
I would welcome any moves to simplify the complaints procedures. Any delays in complaints for patients and their relatives and carers increase stress and anger and make them feel that there is a conspiracy to withhold information from them. Any way in which that process can be simplified and speeded up must be welcomed.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am the first to admit that the current consumer representation in the health service has its faults, as we have heard over the past few minutes. However, that is no reason for the Government to throw everything up in the air and go nap on something entirely new. Reform is certainly needed, but wholesale destruction is not.
In an article in the Health Service Journal, much favoured by the Minister, CHCs are described as a channel for patients' concerns, with limited powers and very small budgets. Both those faults could and should be remedied in the Bill. However, the article does not point out that the Bill replaces a longstanding system of proven efficiency that is easily understood and—importantly—accessed by the public.
Above all, the article does not say that CHCs are independent of the NHS. That independence gives them authority in the eyes of the public. Nor does it say how, if at all, patients forums are to interact one with another. As my noble friend Lord Howe has said, the Government propose that individual patients forums will be able to consider only the work of trusts in which they are based. Even worse, they are to be situated in NHS buildings and staffed principally by NHS staff. What patient is going to complain in the same place and to the same organisation where the complaint originates?
546
The proposals are very complicated and, as I understand it, are still being worked out in the department, despite the amount of time that his been available for that. I can find nothing in them that could not be achieved through a reform of the existing system. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is well versed in the ways of the NHS, to stand back and for goodness sake think again.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think that I picked up from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Liberal Democrats are not going to support the amendment and that they fancy their own ideas which they will put forward later. I do not know what the rest of the Committee thinks about that, but it seems to m that my noble friend is giving the Government a chance to achieve what they want to achieve— obviously they have thought deeply about what they want to achieve—by reforming the existing community health councils, not by disruption. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not support the amendment, which seems a sensible first shot. If the Government cannot be persuaded or forced to agree to it, we shall have to resort to some later measure, but this is the best possible objective.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments, but I should like the Minister to tell me one thing. When talking about patients forums, the Government always talk about patients, not the public. Do the Government consider that every member of the population of a given area is a patient presumably because we all go to see a GP—or do they mean only those who have been or are patients in a hospital?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I can respond to that point now. For a trust that covers an acute hospital, for example, we mean only those who are or have been patients, but for primary care trusts, all patients who are registered with a GP within that area will be covered. Primary care trusts will have a broad public role in that sense.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In that case, the Bill would be clearer if there were a reference to patients and the public. My noble friend Lord Howe asked the important question of who will campaign against a hospital being closed. Can a patients forum do that? That and many other issues would be of concern to the whole community, not just to people who see themselves as patients at a given moment. With the destruction of community health councils, that role will be left to local authorities. As we all know, local authorities will act in a party political way—that is their nature. We do not want that. We want the job to be done by the community as a community on grounds of health. Any member of a local authority knows that it is difficult to separate such issues from the political scene. In that respect alone, the Bill is inadequate. I hope that references to patients can always include the public when that is what is intended. I also hope

547
that somewhere—presumably in the patients forum, if the current proposals are adopted—the ability to campaign will be included, because it is essential.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about community health councils. The Government's proposals for England have positive attractions. In 1974, I was responsible, as Secretary of State, for the appointment of all members of community health councils. I had high hopes for them and thought that they would be the means of dealing with the matters set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. There is a great need to provide the patient, who is at the heart of our health service, with the machinery to ensure that his or her views are made known and to monitor our health system.
Regrettably, the record has been patchy. I started off with high hopes and was responsible for community health councils for five years. I have not heard reports that they have improved since that time. CHCs' records depended on the quality of their membership and perhaps even more so on their staff. Generally, however, they were a disappointment.
I should like to give the Government's proposals, certainly as they apply to England, a fair wind. The machinery is badly needed, and it needs to be improved. I have found the record of the CHCs to be extremely patchy, and I had hoped for very much better.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I apologise that, earlier in the proceedings, I interrupted the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, but I had forgotten the point we had reached in the exchange between her and the Minister. I simply wanted to raise an issue which has not yet been discussed—the potential for conflict between patients forums, which in a way represent the two contractual parties to the local health service. I was wondering what the Minister can tell us to reassure us about that.
Based on my experience of the health service—I have been a member of a hospital trust board and of a CHC—I realise that the patients forum for a given primary care trust and the forum for a given acute hospital trust will not always agree on who is at fault, what has gone wrong, whether something has gone wrong, or any of the other issues that the patients forums may wish to examine. Unless I have misunderstood the proposals, that situation will be exacerbated by the fact that the officials of the two bodies will be employees of those bodies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I must make it clear that the staff who support patients forums will be employed by the national commission. They will be wholly independent of the individual NHS trusts.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that intervention; it clarifies a point I had not fully taken on board. Nevertheless, there remains the potential for a conflict of interest which could go against what I assume to be the Government's
548
objective—to improve things for patients and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, for members of the public.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: No one could have explained the situation of the fragmentation of the Government's new National Health Service as far as patient support bodies are concerned more clearly than the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I shall speak to the group of amendments on patients councils— Amendments Nos. 111 to 136—because I feel so strongly that there must be an independent body to which patients know they can go. It is interesting, however, that Wales and Scotland are retaining their CHCs. I believe that that will just cause more confusion.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has, once again, been an extremely interesting debate. This is one of the very important parts of the Bill, on public and patient involvement in the NHS. As some noble Lords will know, I have a particular interest in community health councils because, like my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, in 1974, I was one of the first CHC secretaries to be appointed. As my noble friend Lord Morris has suggested, those were heady days. At the time, we all thought that CHCs would be tremendous organisations that would have a real impact on how patients were dealt with within the NHS. Experience, however, has not been as positive as one would have wished.
Of course some CHCs have done very valuable work, and I pay tribute to CHC members and staff who have served in the years in which CHCs have operated. The fact, however, is that CHCs' performance over the years has been patchy. Can any noble Lord, hand on heart, say that the NHS is in such good condition that it can identify that the patient comes first, or that, since CHCs began operating, the NHS has become completely sensitive to the needs of patients? I do not think that any noble Lord can honestly say that. The fact is that the NHS still has a considerable way to go before it treats patients as we all want them to be treated.
I fully accept that the key test will be whether the Government's combined proposals have led to much more powerful patient and public involvement in the NHS than was achieved by the CHCs. However, I am absolutely confident that our proposed arrangements will be very much more powerful and effective than the current arrangements under CHCs.
Life has indeed moved on since 1974. We have very clear views on the need for consent and public involvement and on ensuring that NHS staff can be very positive about talking to patients, involving patients and seeking patients' consent. I believe that our proposals will enable that to happen. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, we have debated the proposals at length, and the Government have been able to develop our thinking in the light of the many debates we had during passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001.

549
Our new system does place different functions in the hands of different bodies, but I make no apologies for that. The intention is that a specifically identified function can be performed in the optimum manner. Rather than expecting a simple single organisation with limited powers to perform a complex range of functions, we are putting in place specific and appropriate mechanisms to deal with various functions that we believe are encompassed within public and patient involvement.
On complaints, for example, rather than having one complaints officer per CHC—totalling about 200 nationally—we shall have many more people within the patient advocacy and liaison services who will be based within each NHS trust and be available whenever a patient or his relative has a complaint, and who will in many instances be able to deal with the problem on the spot. I recently visited the Luton and Dunstable NHS Trust, which has already appointed a patient advocacy and liaison service. That service has a booth in the outpatient A and E department and is already very successful in dealing with complaints and problems as they arise. I recommend that noble Lords make contact with local NHS trusts to see at first hand the effectiveness of a service that is instantly available to the public. It is obviously much better to deal with a problem immediately than to allow people to leave dissatisfied with the health service and to make a complaint subsequently. It is much more effective to try to nip problems in the bud as they arise.
One accepts, however, that PALS will not be able to deal with every problem and that the public will seek to pursue some problems. That is where independent advocacy services will come into play. We shall have very professional people available across the country, where patients or their relatives want the service, to help people to make their complaints. I also certainly accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the complications of the current complaints system. She will know that we are reviewing that. Nevertheless, availability across the country of effective, professional, well-trained and independent advocates—not patchy availability, as with CHCs——is one of the guarantees of the type of independence described by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Patients forums will have extensive powers, including a statutory right to inspect health authority and local health board premises and local authority premises where healthcare is provided on behalf of a trust, as well as the power to make reports and recommendations for the improvement of services to the trust board. Reports will be made available to key decision makers in the community, including the local overview and scrutiny committees, and local strategic partnerships about the views and concerns of patients. If a patient forum wishes to provide and pull together the views of patients on the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of course it will be fully able to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked me about the position if perhaps a primary care trust and a neighbouring patient forum disagreed with each other. Surely it is more healthy for opinions that the public are putting forward to be expressed rather than that a
550
group of 30 people, whom very few in the community know, should purport to represent the views of the entire community. It is not tenable to believe that that would be effective. If there are disagreements between patients, as there often are about how the NHS should proceed, it is much more effective for those views to be in the public domain.
I believe that patient forums will be effective, but we are making other changes as well, such as the establishment of overview and scrutiny committees of local government, for example. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is disappointed that we are essentially giving them a power rather than a duty. On the first day of our debate, he chided me about over-centralisation and suggested that the Government were determines to dictate what local bodies should do. I should have thought that the noble Earl would support the general principle that it is for local government to be given the ability but for individual local authorities to make their own decisions. My experience is that local government generally takes a very close interest in health service issues. I should be very surprised if every principal local authority did not establish effective overview and scrutiny committees.
We are addressing one of the principal criticisms that has always been levied at the health service—the so-called democratic deficit. When we come to crucial discussions and debates about changes in services to which the noble Earl referred, surely it is a much more powerful measure to give local authorities the right to refer such issues to the independent reconfiguration panel at national level, which will then advise the Secretary of State. Surely that is a very powerful indication of democratic local government having a very great influence in the future development of the National Health Service. A democratically elected local authority will be in a much more effective position to give its views on major changes of services than we currently see with community health councils.
The only test for the Committee is to decide whether our proposals will be more powerful and effective than the position under the current community health councils. I have long been interested and passionately concerned about improving patient and public involvement in the NHS. I am absolutely convinces that we are introducing an extremely powerful package of measures, which includes patient forums, independent patient advocacy, patient advisory liaison services, local authority overview and scrutiny committees and, at national level, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which will also have an important role locally, enabling the work of patient forums to be co-ordinated in the way suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I look to the Committee to support those measures.
Earl Howe: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, not least the Minister for his clear and full reply. He knows that this is not an issue on which we shall see eye to eye. He has defended the Bill as best he can. For example, he referred to the merits of

551
patient advocacy and liaison services. I do not disagree with his analysis, but PALS are not part of the Bill, nor of the amendment to which I have been speaking.
The Minister referred to the patchy performance of community health councils. I agree with him on that count, which is why we believe that CHCs should be reformed and strengthened, rather than abolished. He defended the separation of CHC functions on grounds broadly of modernisation and the need to distinguish different roles relating to patient involvement. I cannot accept that analysis. It seems to me that the Government's proposals for patient and public involvement follow the classic formula of divide and rule. That is what the fragmentation and filleting of CHC functions amount to. As my noble friend Lord Peyton pointed out so well, they are designed to suit the Government and not the patient. They will give Ministers an easier life.
I am particularly sorry that the Liberal Democrats do not feel able to resume the support for CHCs that they mounted so effectively and robustly last year. It is curious that in professing to want to listen to patients and the public, the Government are deaf to the cries of the public about the abolition of CHCs. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, reminded us that that has not been so in Wales, or indeed, in Scotland. If CHCs are abolished under this Bill, it will leave England as the only part of the UK without a robust—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way, but I must say that I have not heard the cries of the general population on this issue. I have certainly heard the cries of community health councils, which is perfectly legitimate, but surely the substantive point is made in the article in the Health Service Journal by de Montfort University, which my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley quoted. CHCs have extraordinarily low visibility in the public mind. My noble friend quoted the MORI survey showing that less then 3 per cent of those making complaints had heard of the CHC. That is the problem.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to ask the Minister a question, although I do not know whether it is in order to do so at Committee stage. What will be the budget of the new system compared to the old one? It is sad that the Minister is complaining about the lack of visibility of CHCs when he probably argued for years in particular posts within CHCs that they were highly underfunded and did not have the resources to have higher visibility. Yet, a great many more resources will be put behind the bodies that he and his colleagues are now proposing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The budgets have not yet been fully worked through, but there will be more people. More resources will be spent on patient and
552
public involvement as a result of the changes that we are making than was spent under community health councils.
Lord Clement-Jones: That begs the question whether the self-same resources that were devoted to CHCs could not have done a rather better job.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I doubt that very much. I come back to the point that I raised earlier. Rather than putting all the different functions together into one body, it is better to separate them out so that there is the right expertise to deal with the separate functions more effectively.
Lord Clement-Jones: Better? Perhaps. I doubt it, but it will certainly be more expensive.
Earl Howe: The Minister challenged me to cite organisations that have voiced support for the concept of CHCs. I have a list of them, including the Patients Association, the National Pensioners Convention, Mencap, and others that I shall not bother to read out. Those organisations have expressed concern in writing about the abolition of CHCs and the inadequacies of the replacement structures.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: With respect to the noble Earl, he talked about the general public, not organisations.
Earl Howe: With respect to the Minister, he is splitting hairs. Many of those organisations represent the general public and specific interests of patients. However, I understand his concern that, to many members of the public, CHCs are invisible. I fully concede that. But that does not in any way detract from my general position; that is, that CHCs are worth conserving and worth improving.
I do not wish to prolong this debate. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of something Professor Kennedy said in his report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary. He said,
"Public consultation, whereby the public are presented with a fait accompli or their views are ignored leads to disengagement and cynicism. The net effect is frustration, loss of trust and an increasing lack of interest amongst the public in bodies and structures that are supposed to promote their interest".
Nowhere could there be a better example of what Professor Kennedy meant than the Government's dirigiste approach to these issues. He precisely identified the risk we run with these proposals. My amendments respond to what I know for certain is a wide degree of support not only for the concept of retaining the model of the CHC but also for improving it and bringing it up to date. On an issue of such prime importance for patients I have no hesitation in seeking the opinion of the Committee.
5.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bowness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brightman, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Chadlington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Naseby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northbrook, L.

Cox, B.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dundee, E.

Patten, L.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fellowes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Freeman, L.

Rees, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hambro, L.

Selborne, E.

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Hogg, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Vivian, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jopling, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kimball, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Andrews, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Crawley, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Billingham, B.

Desai, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Blood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Bragg, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brookman, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Filkin, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.[TelIer]

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Chan, L.

Gale, B.

Christopher, L.

Gavron, L.

554

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morgan, L.

Golding, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Goudie, B.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ouseley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Parekh, L.

Greengross, B.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grocott, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harrison, L.

Puttnam, L.

Haskel, L.

Radice, L.

Haskins, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayman, B.

Rea, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rogan, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hylton, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sewel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon, V.

Jones, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jordan, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thornton, B.

Laird, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Uddin, B.

Lipsey, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilkins, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Establishment of Patient's Forums]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 20, line 38, at end insert", and
(c) for each Care Trust"
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 107 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 112. We had some debate after the Health and Social Care Act in respect of the status of care trusts. The purpose of Amendment No. 107 is to obtain what I suspect will be similar ministerial reassurances as regards the status of care trusts.
The purpose of Amendment No. 107 is to ensure that care trusts to be established under the Health and Social Care Act will also include patients forums. Legislative provision for the establishment of care trusts is contained in the Health and Social Care Act and it would be anomalous if patients forums were to be established for NHS acute trusts and primary care trusts, but not for care trusts themselves. The establishment of patients forums for care trusts, if regarded as separate bodies from PCTs or acute trusts, would require primary legislation, which is why they are included in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 112. Clause 16(1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to permit inspection of other premises from which services are provided. The purpose of subsection (1) is to provide a commitment that regulations will include care trusts and other private providers, including nursing homes. Inspection of premises controlled by care trusts need to be brought within the ambit of the clause. At present it is not clear whether the clause includes private providers such as residential homes.
The Department of Health's document Involving Patients and the Public in Healthcare: Response to the Listening Exercise specifies new powers to inspect NHS care provided by the independent sector. Contracts between health service bodies and private providers cannot guarantee rights of inspection and give patients forums no power to enforce their rights. That is why the amendment is needed. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: On speaking to Amendment No. 107, I can give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks. A care trust does not have a distinct legal identity. It is either an NHS trust or a PCT and therefore in either case would have a patients forum established.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is seeking to achieve with Amendment No. 112, but I hope I can explain why it is unnecessary. In discussing Amendment No. 107, I explained that the legal status of care trusts as NHS trusts or primary care trusts is already provided for in Clause 16. The patients forum of an NHS trust or PCT which has become designated as a care trust will already be able to visit the relevant premises.
I turn to the question of whether,
"nursing homes and other privately owned facilities"
should be required to allow patients forums access to inspect. As Members of the Committee will be aware, we have established a National Care Standards Commission to inspect nursing homes and other such places. It has its own chief executive and so on. From April 2002 it took over the regulation of social care services and private and voluntary healthcare from local authorities and health authorities. The commission will register and inspect all care homes, children's homes, domiciliary care services, residential family centres, independent fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies and nurses agencies as well as private and voluntary healthcare establishments.
The commission will authorise inspectors to inspect establishments and agencies and it will interview service users and seek their views on the care they receive. It will have an important role in supporting consumers by investigating complaints about regulated services and giving the public information about services. Being a national body, it will also be able to inform government of the general availability and quality of care services.
556
The commission will cover the need for inspection of nursing homes and other care facilities. To extend inspection arrangements to patients forums would be an unnecessary duplication of that valuable work. Having said that, where, for example, a doctor provided general medical services at a nursing home, that would fall within Clause 16(2) and may be provided for in regulations, giving patients forums a right of entry.
I agree that patients forums should be able to inspect private sector premises where NHS patients are treated. In general, the relationship between the NHS and the independent sector is a contractual one, and so it is anticipated that usually forums will inspect by virtue of the contracting process. In other words, where the private sector provides NHS services in contracts with the NHS, patients forums will have a right of inspection. That will apply to all future contracts.
There will be significant human rights implications in a general right of access to private premises. While patients forums will represent a major element of the inspection regime, they need to liase with other agencies to ensure inspections are maintained at an appropriate level.
I share the concerns to ensure adequate representation and safeguard standards of care. But, as I hope I have demonstrated, the amendments are unnecessary and the Government resist them.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister, particularly for his positive reply on the status of care trusts. I accept that; it is entirely consonant with replies that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has given in the past. However, the Minister's reply on Amendment No. 112 gives two legs to the three-legged stool and is not satisfactory. I welcome patients forums rights of inspection for healthcare in both the public and private sectors where there are contracts. But it seems anomalous that the care trusts' patients forums will have the right of inspection only in the healthcare sector and not the social care sector when they have responsibility for patient representation and consultation in both areas. The whole purpose of a care trust is the integration of health and social care; and yet, the patients forum that is applicable to that care trust will not have those powers of inspection.
I ask the Minister, his colleagues, and, indeed, the department to reconsider the matter. It seems that there is a gap in the process, and that there are just two legs of the stool. I believe that those serving on care trust patients forums will find it fairly anomalous not to have that power of inspection in such circumstances. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to add anything further to his response and, perhaps, give us an assurance that he will further consider the matter. I see from his facial expression at present that he does intend to budge one inch on the issue. I shall, therefore, withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I may well return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert "represent the interests in the health service of patients and in particular must"
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 and 130. One of the principal features of community health councils has been their overarching remit to represent the interest of patients and of the public in the health service. It is that element of their remit that I believe has enabled them to adapt to changing circumstances over the years, such as the need to develop services for those who wish to make a complaint against some aspect of the health service. If patients forums lack such a remit, it seems to me that they could find themselves acting ultra tires if ever they were to engage in activities other than those prescribed in the Bill.
If patients forums are to be seen by the public as representing their interests, they should have a proper public profile; for example, they ought to be able—on occasions—to engage in public campaigns, whether locally or nationally, perhaps in opposing the closure of a hospital. They ought to be able to put resources behind such campaigns; they should have the ability to call for public consultations; they should be able to inspect premises, other than those specifically provided for in the Bill; and they ought to be able to initiate legal proceedings to enforce their rights, or to protect patient rights.
Unfortunately, there have been occasions in the past when CHCs have been warned by officials in the Department of Health that they are not permitted to engage in campaigns or to criticise government policy. CHCs have always been able to see off such attempts to stifle their public voice on behalf of patients. They have done so by virtue of their wide statutory remit, which Amendment No. 108 seeks to reproduce for patients forums. One of the most well-known "public profile" activities of CHCs is casualty watch, which has a tremendous value for both patients and the health service. However, as far as I can see, neither that nor any of the other activities that I have mentioned will be permissible for patients forums or for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Nor are they functions that overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities will be given to undertake. Under this Bill they simply fall away.
It is perfectly obvious to me that this is a deliberate omission. Concerted public criticism of the health service by patients will, effectively, be muffled. That is a matter of very great concern. If we look at the remit of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, we can see that it will have very similar problems. It will not he able to engage in research, or in policy work on issues that are not in the domain of patients forums—in other words, almost any national issue. It will not be able to run or take part in campaigns; it will not be able to voice its view about national changes of policy affecting the health service; and it will not be able to take legal proceedings, as, indeed, ACHCEW did recently in a case that concerned a patient's right to confidentiality.
I turn to Amendment No. 109. I am very troubled by the provision in Clause 15(2)(e), which permits patients forums to perform,
"any prescribed function of the trust",
to which it relates. That seems to me to be a recipe for generating a conflict of interest. Patients forums must be independent of the trusts to which they relate and be seen to be so. In the new paragraphs that I propose for Clause 15(2), I am suggesting that the role of representing local concerns about matters affecting health should be carried out by patients forums and not by the commission. This would mean that information about local concerns, including matters that may form the subject of referrals, are provided as necessary by patients forums to the local authority overview and scrutiny committees. Responsibility for these activities would be removed from the commission, which will instead have responsibility for the provision of support to patients forums in fulfilling these functions. Amendment No. 130 would achieve that aim, but would leave the commission with a responsibility to make representations at national level, if that were ever necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put the case admirably for these amendments. We come now to one of the major problems for critics of the new arrangements in the Bill. When one looks at the way in which the powers of the new bodies are defined, or can be defined, in terms of regulation, one sees that they do not have the same breadth as the powers that the CHCs currently enjoy under the legislation governing such councils. It is extremely important that these new bodies should have the ability to mount campaigns, and that they should have the ability to commission surveys. I have in mind the accident and emergency survey and the casualty watch mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. They must have the ability to take a very broad view about the way in which patients and the public interest are represented; they must not be over prescribed by the Secretary of State as regards their remit. Such amendments are most important. Noble Lords on these Benches certainly support them.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I am a little puzzled by the purpose of these amendments. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will clarify the position in his reply. I thought that the Government's aim under the Bill is to move away from the idea of a body representing patients and the public and to enable patients and the public to be very much more involved in the fabric, as it were, of the NHS. Therefore, from that point of view, it seems to me that the proposed amendments are unnecessary.
Although it may be true that each part of the new system has less power than that currently enjoyed by the CHCs, on the whole it seems to me that they will have more power, much more accountability and, therefore, much more ability to allow the voice of the public and that of patients to come through.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. The noble Baroness has put forward a most

559
interesting concept, if we wish to return to Athenian democracy whereby everyone gets together in the basilica. I am sure that that would be absolutely perfect in an ideal world, and that there would be no need for any representation. Indeed, patients would be directly involved in such processes. However, until that time, I regret to say that I believe that some form of representation will be necessary.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is very tempting for us to travel down the route of a debate on Athenian democracy. However, I shall resist that temptation. I believe that my noble friend is absolutely right. She has taken us back to what Kennedy said; namely, that the public should be on the inside rather than being represented by someone on the outside. That is why we believe that the essential building block to everything that we propose in relation to public and patient involvement must be the patients forums. The great advantage that they have, as opposed to the current arrangement, is that they are related to each individual trust and primary care trust. Therefore, they will be able to get very much closer to being able to put forward the varied experience and views of patients.
On reading Clause 15(2), which relates to the establishment of patients forums, it will be seen that we are talking about very wide-ranging powers. For example, a patients forum must,
"monitor and review the operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust for which it is established … obtain the views of patients and their carers about those services and report on those views to the trust … provide advice, and make reports and recommendations, about matters relating to those services to the trust … make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services",
and so on. I do not believe that patient forums will have any difficulty in embracing and putting forward in the most effective way possible the views that they receive from patients and users of the service. My argument—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I apologise to the Minister for the fact that I keep popping up and down. I am interested in the example given in a recent booklet produced by University College London researchers about PFI and the hospitals in Birmingham. I am sure that the Minister has read the booklet, as it is close to home. Does he really envisage patients forums for the Birmingham acute hospitals performing the same excellent function as did the CHCs in Birmingham in campaigning to find out the real cost of those PFI hospitals in circumstances after the passage of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord tempts me down an interesting route. He knows that I chaired an independent review into the future of the city's health services. He knows, I suspect, that the City of Birmingham suffered from malaise over 20 to 30 years because of a failure of parties in the NHS to agree on the future of a new university teaching hospital.
560
I do not agree, and never have done, with the views of the South Birmingham Community Health Council on those matters. Nor do I think that the great majority of Birmingham people so agree. If the city had followed the strictures of the South Birmingham Community Health Council we would not now have, as we do, the start of a process leading to a magnificent teaching hospital in the City of Birmingham.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister is saying, essentially, that that is not a legitimate role for the new patients forums, and that is why the Bill is drafted as it is. I can well understand the Minister's view. He is reacting against his own experience. That is why the powers of the patients forums are restricted. If the Minister admitted that, we would all be much clearer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord misses the point I seek to make. I have no problem with the South Birmingham Community Health Council—a number of members of which I know rather well—putting forward its views. I said that I do not believe that those views represent the opinion of the great majority of people living in Birmingham.
Lord Clement-Jones: But the issue is whether the patients forums in Birmingham would be able to campaign in the same way as did the South Birmingham CHC?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two points there. We come on to the substantive nature of the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, seeks to give a much broader power to patients forums to represent the interests of patients in the health service. My view, which perhaps experience in Birmingham shows, is that there is and has been a big problem with some CHCs where a small group of members purports to represent the interests of an entire population. I do not believe that that is possible. As a result, many CHCs which tried to do that lost credibility and influence. How can CHCs purport to represent the entire population of a large community when less than 3 per cent of those making complaints had even heard of community health councils?
I envisage patients forums working effectively by enabling the many voices of the public—the patients— to be heard and considered, but they should not purport to represent the entire population and give a collective view on behalf of it. Alongside that we have to take account of the new role of local authorities through their overview and scrutiny committees. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is a fierce democrat, as I am. I welcome the fact that Birmingham City Council will now have a measurably more important role in decisions on the health service in the future. Frankly, I prefer that to be done through the local ballot box than by a group of people who, with the best will in the world, cannot say, "We represent the people of the City of Birmingham".
I turn to Amendment No. 109. I am somewhat concerned with one aspect of it. First, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed concern about the clause,

561
which removes the forums' function of taking over a patient advocacy and liaison service in prescribed circumstances set out in Clause 15(2)(e). While I would anticipate that being a rare occurrence, we regard PALS as being an important service, critical to patients and their families. We believe that where a forum considers that the trust is failing to provide an adequate service, it should be able to do something about it. That is an example of how effective we believe patients forums will be in future.
Perhaps I may explain to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, how we think that would work. If, for instance, a forum were concerned about the quality of the PALS service, it would report that to the board of the trust or the primary care trust. Incidentally, PALS will be provided within primary care trusts as well as within other NHS trusts. If there is no improvement, it will report again, copying its report to the strategic health authority. If again there is no improvement, the forum will report the matter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then need to make a decision about what action he takes. He may choose to direct the trust to take action. He may also decide that the forum should take over responsibility for the PALS. If the latter, the forum will make arrangements for the provision of the PALS, perhaps arranging for another trust PALS to take over the service, but with the host forum retaining responsibility for it, or a voluntary sector organisation taking over PALS but reporting to the forum.
It is not intended that forums will provide the PALS services, as clearly they would not be equipped or resourced to do so. However, it is making abundantly clear to individual NHS trusts and primary care trusts that if they are not providing a satisfactory PALS service, their local patients forums, far from being a poodle, are in a very good position to see that something is done about it.
As regards Amendment No. 130, we do not accept that what is contained in Clause 19(2) should he replaced in the way the noble Earl suggests. I agree that the issue of patients forums collaborating and working together is important. However, we feel that the commission, working at local level, will be best placed to take an overview of the health service across the whole health economy area because individual forums, as the noble Earl suggests, are trust and primary care trust specific. The advantage of going down the route we suggest is that the commission working at local level will have the ability, staff resources and clear duty to ensure that indeed the various patients forums work together on specific issues, as the noble Earl suggested needs to happen.
Amendment No. 130 is consequent to Amendment No. 109. As I said, we remain convinced that the engagement of the wider public and representation of their views should be to the local commission. As regards the arguments raised by the noble Earl about the role of the national commission, the arguments I have deployed concerning the wider public interest are as relevant to the national commission as they are to local forums. At the end of the day, the more focused we are—as we are in the various arrangements we are
562
setting out—the less opportunity there is for confusion or for a situation in which neither the commission nor the patients forums will be effective or credible because they seek to do something which they will not be able to do effectively.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I may intervene with a question that has been in the back of my mind during this whole discussion about patients forums. As chairman of a National Health Service acute trust I would put the other side of the point.
As the discussion continues I am conscious that there is a raft of organisations which will be able to encourage and enable patients to make complaints. I do not think that there is any problem with that. I am a little bothered about the other side of the equation, which is the ability and the resources to deal with the complaints. I say that because I am conscious of the pressure and the difficulties for staff dealing with many of the complaints which come to an NHS trust. Some of them are very difficult; some are very sad situations; and some involve an enormous amount of effort and work for those employed by the trust. This is not a job to which people rush. It is not one for which they may have received extensive training. Before we put in the raft of organisations which will beaver and burrow to ensure that everyone has the ability to make a complaint—however minor, but, perhaps more importantly, a major one requiring some investigation—can the Minister say what he proposes for the trusts which are already dealing with substantial numbers of complaints and which would find it helpful to have additional resources in order to deal with them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, I welcome the intervention of the noble Baroness who brings a wealth of experience from running a busy NHS trust. It is always helpful to have that practical perspective.
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the current complaints system causes a great deal of work to be undertaken within individual trusts. I think that there is a variable quality about the way that trust; deal with them. I would also accept that there are views that the current complaints system is rather bureaucratic and cumbersome. She will know that we are undertaking a review of it.
I also accept that we need to do more to help trusts, not just in relation to the way they handle complaints, but more generally in responding to the inevitable increase in public and patient involvement in the health service and the inevitable increase in the scrutiny they will come under. That is life in the 21st century. It is life for all public organisations. The NHS will not be absolved from that.
I have been in discussion with the Modernisation Agency and the Leadership Centre on this matter to see what further support we can give to trusts in order to rise to the challenge of enhanced public and patient involvement. I should be happy to share some of my thoughts on the matter by writing to the noble Baroness.

563
However, I would also say that I am strongly of the view that the arrangements that we are putting in place will enable the NHS to deal with complaints in a more effective way. The development of the PAL service will ensure that many matters which, at the moment, end up in the complaints system will have been dealt with. I referred earlier to my experience of the PAL service in Luton. There is no doubt about the reduction in the number of formal complaints because it has been able to deal with issues as they arise. As we know, if one can deal with something there and then, many patients may feel that there is no need to go further. However, if the patient remains dissatisfied, we have established a very professional complaints service through independent advocacy. That will benefit the NHS trust because it will enable patients to articulate their complaints in the clearest way possible. It will enable the trust to deal with and focus on the issues being raised. The benefit of a patients forum is that it will be able to have face-to-face meetings with the trust board. If it has concerns about the operation of complaints within an individual trust, it will be able to bring to the trust board chapter and verse about the problems that are arising. I think that the trust board will find that extremely helpful.
I do not underestimate the challenges that trust boards will face. But I think that at the end of the day with the help and support that we can give them and with the undoubted helpful influence of patients forums and the PAL service, we will end up with a win-win situation where complaints are dealt with more promptly and more effectively and where the trust board will have the help of a patient forum in developing ideas about how one deals with these issues in the future.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I accept entirely what the Minister says about dealing with complaints at the outset and getting rid of them. I totally support that. I think that any reasonable trust does that now in the best way that it can. I am not really bothered about the trust board either. I am much more concerned about the people at the front line who deal with what are often extremely difficult issues. If they have a much more professional service coming at them from one side, they will be required to produce a much more professional service from the trust side. It is really a question of whether resources will be available to provide training and access to legal advice in order to be able to deal with the system or whether the trusts will be left on their own to deal with the financial aspects of what could potentially—at least in the initial stages—be resource intensive?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As the noble Baroness will know, I am constantly being urged to let trusts get on with matters. We do expect trusts to be able to rise to challenges. But, as I have said, I am looking at the role of the Leadership Centre and the Modernisation Agency to see what support and advice we can give. I suspect that the work of the Commission for Patient
564
and Public Involvement in Health—although expressly it will be giving support to patients forums—will be an extremely important help to trusts themselves. They will be able to learn from the kind of casework and experience that the commission will identify through the work of patients forums and their commission staff at local levels. I shall be happy to meet with the noble Baroness to discuss this matter and to see what further practical support we might give to NHS trusts. That of course does not mean money. In terms of finances, it is right that that should come from their general allocations.
Baroness Hanham: Resources are not always money, as the Minister knows.
Earl Howe: This has been a useful debate. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part. I particularly thank the Minister for the illumination that he has shed on a number of aspects relating to the functions of patients forums. I think that he has exposed a fundamental difference of approach in the way that the Government look at these matters. The internalisation of patient involvement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, made clear, is central to these proposals.
A danger in the Government's approach is that the public needs to have confidence in a patients forum. If a patients forum is based within a trust, that is one thing, but the patients forums must not be "of" the NHS. That may be a distinction which the public will lose sight of if we are not very careful.
To revert to the substance of Amendment No. 108, the questioning by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, exposed successfully my own conclusion that a great deal is missing in the Bill when compared to the powers enjoyed by community health councils. We shall feel the want of that when these measures are passed into law, as I believe they will be.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Does he accept that we cannot simply compare powers between CHCs, on the one hand, and patients forums, on the other; we must compare CHCs against the whole panoply of our proposed measures in order to draw a broad comparison?
Earl Howe: Yes, of course I accept that, but I still believe that if we take that comparison, a number of gaps remain. We may address those when we discuss a later group of amendments headed by Amendment No. 101, so I do not want to anticipate them now.
I agree with the Minister that patients forums will not purport to represent the entire local population. The overview and scrutiny committees are there to perform that function. The only problem is that there will be no guarantee under the Bill, as there is at present, that the committees will scrutinise what they are given to scrutinise. As far as I can make out, that power is entirely discretionary.

565
Some issues may not be of prime interest to local voters but be vital to users of services. I am thinking especially of mental health service users, for example, who may not even vote. They will have little scope to make their voice heard other than through their patients forums, and they may not get far with them.
I should like to comment briefly on the Minister's reply to Amendment No. 109. I am not sure why the Government are seeking to retain the power for patients forums to take over PALS. Patients forums will have a largely volunteer structure and I should have thought that the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health would be a more natural home for PALS than the patients forums.
I am also unclear to what other functions the power may apply. Would the forum concerned have any say were such a decision in the offing? What guarantee is there that the clause will not be used to pass the buck, if I may put it that way, on the Section 11 duty—the NHS consultation duty—to patients forums, making them effectively the market research departments of the trust? I shall have to consider carefully what the Minister has said between now and Report.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 130, I was prompted to table it by a comment made by a colleague of the Minister's, Hazel Blears. I am advised that her office classified casualty watch as a discretionary activity. If that is the Government's view, that is a great shame. As I pointed out earlier, casualty watch is a service that is valued not only within the NHS but much more widely.
We shall have to return to the matter later, but in the knowledge that we have much more to debate this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 109A,
Page 21, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) A Patients' Forum established under subsection (1)(b) must—

(a) in monitoring and reviewing the operation of services under arrangements made by the trust for which it is established, and provided by a trust for which another Patients' Forum is established, have regard to the views expressed by that Patients' Forum,

(b) obtain the views of the public living in the area for which services are provided or arranged by the trust for which it is established about the provision of health care services and the state of the public health in that area, and

(c) make a report on the views obtained under paragraph (b) above at least once a year to the trust for which it is established and to the relevant overview and scrutiny committee."

The noble Lord said: During consideration of the Bill, I have already expressed my view that the Government have moved an enormous way to answer some of the criticisms of their earlier proposals for representing and involving the public and patients in the NHS. However, a number of gaps remain and the amendment is intended to fill some of them.
The first element of the amendment is to recognise that the patients forums that relate to primary care trusts will be different to those that relate to other trusts. The reason for that is that they will relate to a trust responsible not only for the delivery of certain primary care services but for arranging for other services to be provided—essentially, they will be local purchasers. Those trusts will also be the only ones that relate to a specific catchment area and population. So the nature of the work of their patients forums will be definably different from that of those that relate to other trusts.
That is a positive factor that should be recognised in the Bill. One of the remaining gaps in the Government's proposals is that there is no mechanism to enable the co-ordination at local level of patients' views, nothing to permit the different strands to be put together. Those strands should be brought together in the patients forum that relates to the primary care trust, which in turn relates to a specific population and area. The amendment would require a patients forum relating to a primary care trust, in considering any services arranged by that trust but for which another patients forum existed, to take into account the views of that other patients forum, so that such co-ordination could occur.
The other element of the amendment is that there should be a clearly laid out mechanism for such patients forums to obtain the views of the public living in the area. That is because they will relate to a trust with a defined catchment area and population. After obtaining those views, the patients forums will be obliged to report on them at least once a year— although I would expect that it would report far more frequently than that—to both the trust for which it is established and which arranges many of the services for the population of that area and the relevant overview and scrutiny committee.
I accept that my noble friend will no doubt tell us that there are all sorts of flaws in the drafting of the amendment, but we have plenty of opportunity to deal with that later. The amendment is intended to ensure that it is clear at local level which patients forum is co-ordinating which issues and that there is a patients forum clearly responsible for obtaining the views of the local population, articulating them and putting them forward. I listened with great interest to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend about the adequacy of otherwise of the views expressed by the South Birmingham Community Health Council, of which I have fond memories. The amendment would require patients forums to put forward in a balanced and properly reflective way the views of the local population and community concerned. I commend the amendment to the Committee and I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to my noble friend, especially for his acknowledgement that the Government have moved to meet some of the concerns that he expressed about patient and public involvement when we debated those matters during

567
the last Session. I also understand clearly what he seeks to accomplish, and have a great deal of sympathy with the broad thrust of it. I do not criticise him on the grounds of the technical merits of the amendment. Rather, we have already made provision in the Bill for the substantive issues that he raises.
My noble friend's intention is to make explicit in the Bill the circumstances in which PCT patients forums should work together with other forums, specifically where services are arranged by a PCT that is covered by one forum and provided for by another trust, which is covered by another forum. Secondly, my noble friend's amendment would require patients forums to obtain the views of the public not only on local healthcare services but on public healthcare services. That is an important issue. It would also require forums to make annual reports to local overview and scrutiny committees. All those matters are covered, one way or another, in the Bill.
I agree with my noble friend that it is vital that the forums work together, not least so that they do not duplicate activity. Perhaps more significantly, they should be able to organise themselves—if necessary with the help of the commission—to ensure that their activities reflect the way in which the NHS works and what a typical patient journey looks like.
We will provide in regulations the circumstances in which patients forums should work together. That is provided for in Clause 15(5). The local branches of the commission will assist forums to work together and will be ideally placed to identify areas where there may be a need for joint activity. The reservation that I have about my noble friend's approach is that it would create a hierarchy of patients forum status. The primary care trust patients forum might be seen to have primacy over other patients forums.
I accept, of course, that PCT forums will have an additional degree of insight and awareness of the patient's role, due to their dual role of provider and commissioner. As such, they will have a good deal to offer the collective discussions that the local branch of the commission will encourage. However, it goes without saying that PCT forums will have a different role from NHS trust forums simply because of the different roles of trusts and primary care trusts. We should be wary of creating what might become a hierarchy of different types of patient forum.
The issue of whether primary care trusts should have a specific role in relation to public health is already covered in Clause 15(2), which provides that patients forums,
"will monitor and review the operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust for which it is established".
Given that primary care trusts will be the principal public health authorities in the NHS, the patient forum of a primary care trust is well able to discharge the responsibility relating to public health that my noble friend suggested.
The final point—an important one—relates to the issue of whether forums can make reports to trusts and overview and scrutiny committees. That is covered in
568
several places in the Bill already. Clause 15(2)(c) says that forums shall make annual reports to the trust for which they are established. Clause 17(2) places a duty on forums to submit annual reports to, among others, trusts and overview and scrutiny committees. Clause 18 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers to set out more details about the responsibilities of patients forums, with regard to making reports to overview and scrutiny committees.
I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's further thoughts, but I hope that he will recognise that, in the current terms of the Bill, we seek to meet many of the points that he has raised in this important group of amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I accept that it is possible to interpret other parts of the Bill in the way in which he said and that it would be possible for regulations to deal with the issues. However, it would be helpful to have something in the Bill, simply because of the protection that it would afford to such important functions.
I shall not be too upset if the consequence of the amendment is to demonstrate that there are two classes of patients forum, I suspect that, had those who drafted the Bill not wanted to create two classes of patients forums, they would have drafted it in another way. The forums are set up in different ways under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 15(1). In those circumstances, it should be recognised that a particular set of functions fall on the patients forum that relates to the primary care trust.
I shall read what my noble friend said with interest, and I hope that, before Report, it might be possible for us to have some indication of the content of the various sets of regulations to which he referred. That would give us a way of judging whether the points have been adequately addressed. It remains my preference for such matters to be addressed in the Bill. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 110:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
"PATIENTS' FORUM MEMBERS
(1) No member of a Patients' Forum may be appointed as a director of an NHS trust or a member of a Primary Care Trust to which the Patients' Forum relates unless that person has been recommended for appointment by the NHS Appointments Commission.
(2) Where a member of a Patients' Forum is also a director of an NHS trust or a member of a Primary Care Trust to which the Patients' Forum relates, his responsibilities as a director of the NHS trust or member of the Primary Care Trust shall be the same as those of any other director or member of such trust."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would add a new clause, the first part of which would create a requirement for any patients forum appointment to a primary care trust to be made on the recommendation of the NHS Appointments Commission.
Although there is nothing in the Bill that requires the appointment of patients forum representatives to PCTs or NHS trusts, I understand that the Government have stated their intention to do that. There are grave concerns about that among NHS trusts, and they were expressed forcefully by my noble friend Lady Hanham at Second Reading. There is a worry that patients forum people will not be subject to the selection procedures operated by the NHS Appointments Commission and that—not to put too fine a point on it—they will not be of the quality established by the conventional selection procedures. I imagine that PCTs will have similar concerns.
The second part of the amendment makes it clear that a person appointed from a patients forum has exactly the same responsibilities as other NHS trust directors or PCT members. That is a response to the concerns—also expressed by my noble friend Lady Hanham at Second Reading—that the patients forum members will not regard themselves as full corporate members of the NHS trusts or PCTs. There is a danger that they will see themselves as patients forum representatives and not as part of a whole corporate team, carrying collective responsibility for the affairs of the NHS trust or PCT. There is grave concern in the NHS about that.
The NHS Confederation fully supports the amendment. Nothing short of a statutory declaration that patients forum representatives must behave in exactly the same way as other directors or members will deal with the point. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment. It is interesting that the NHS Confederation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, supports the amendment. There are concerns relating to the role and selection of the patients forum non-executive director on the board of each NHS trust and PCT.
It is important that the patients forum-elected non-executive director becomes an ordinary board member with full corporate responsibility and that he or she fully understands the implications of the need for corporate responsibility. Failure to ensure that could inhibit the good operation of the board. That is an important factor. It is also important that the patients forum-elected non-executive meets Nolan criteria and that individuals go through a selection process similar to that for the other non-executives.
It is right that all non-executive board members should bring the requisite competencies to the board. For that reason, we support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for having taken on the burden of working out these amendments and putting them forward Noble Lords will recall that I have been banging a rather lone drum on the question of a patients forum non-executive director on the board of a trust through our debate on Second Reading and in previous discussions. The amendments very much encompass my concerns. I am also grateful for the
570
support at last of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones— as I have said, I have been on my own with regard to this point until now—as well as that of the NHS Confederation.
It is extremely important that we get this right. If someone is to be imposed on a board, there must be a process by which the board can accept the appointment. On Second Reading, the Minister was kind enough to suggest that I should talk to him not only about my general concerns, but also about the detail here. What has been lacking all along has been a general acceptance that a great many details have to be worked out. I should like to acknowledge the fact that the Minister was kind enough to spend some time with me over this. I hope that that time was fruitful for him and that now I shall find that it will have been fruitful for me.
Briefly, my concerns remain the same and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them. At present, non-executive directors are appointed to a board by the new NHS Appointments Commission. Formerly they came via a different route, but they have always been appointed either by the Secretary of State, or now by the NHS Appointments Commission. It s absolutely inconceivable to me that the non-executive directors of patients forums should in some way bypass that process or, indeed, that the chairman of the board should have no role in seeing or otherwise, and accepting or otherwise, who is to be appointed. The NHS Appointments Commission could play an important role here by ensuring that there was some effective choice before the chairman of the board. I hope very much that now that will be part and parcel of any new proposals.
I am also concerned about several other elements. I understand that the patients forum representative will not be supernumerary to other non-executives. At present, there are five non-executive directors on a board, or six if, as I have, there is a university representative as well. When we have discussed this on previous occasions, I have always been led to understand that one patients forum representative would replace one of the non-executives. The question lies in how and when that is done.
Non-executive directors are usually appointed for a minimum of two, four or eight years. The two-year appointments almost always carry on for six years, while the four-year appointments, by definition, often carry on for eight years. That extended experience is absolutely invaluable to the stability of a board and helps it to continue and develop. What would be unacceptable and very difficult to understand would be a situation where someone is parachuted in and replaces, in the short term, a person already in place, who has already been through the "Nolanisation" process referred to earlier, who has been approved by the NHS Appointments Commission and who has been appointed for a set term with the possible expectation of being reappointed. If that were allowed to happen, it would set a poor example and establish a bad precedent. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.

571
As our discussions on patients forums have developed today, I have become increasingly concerned about exactly to whom this representative believes that he or she will be accountable. This matter forms the second part of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Noakes. If there is to be a non-executive director, it would be quite wrong for the accountability of that non-executive director not to rest with the board: that is, that they might have a completely different line of accountability out to someone else. It would make the corporate role of non-executive directors very difficult to manage. The last thing one would want from such a representative or, indeed, for such a representative, would be for them ever to be treated with suspicion by the rest of the board. We must ensure that the incorporation is carried out in a way which leaves no rancour or worry for other members of the board. They must be assured that the person forms a full part of the corporate body.
That point becomes even more important when one considers the inspectoral role of the patients forum. Again, it is quite possible that a patients forum with such a non-executive director could find itself at odds with a trust board because either the forum or the non-executive director would be the bearer of an adverse report. I would not expect that to happen in my case, but I see that it could happen in some trusts, either fairly or unfairly.
I hope that we shall see a little more roundedness introduced into this appointment. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. However, although I do not know whether I have a right, I shall reserve my right to respond once more before he sits down if I am not totally content with his remarks.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Will the patients forum representative be paid if he or she replaces a non-executive director, and will the appointee have time to do both jobs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for giving us a further opportunity to debate this matter. I recognise that, in particular for the chairs of NHS trusts, the appointment of a patients forum non-executive director to the board of a trust represents a challenge. However, my contention would be that the NHS is not unused to appointments such as these. For example, one of my first introductions to the NHS was in the mid 1970s as an appointee of Oxford City Council to the hoard of the Oxfordshire Area Health Authority. We know that, in general, NHS authorities are composed of people who come from different backgrounds and have different interests, but once they arrive at the boardroom they should be expected to take part in collective responsibility. Ultimately, I do not see any difference between the patients forum
572
person and other members of the board of a trust— that is, those coming from a variety of backgrounds and interests.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The person appointed to the patients forum will receive the honorarium that non-executives generally receive for serving on NHS trust boards. With regard to timing, I fully recognise the major time commitment to be made by non-executive directors. We are very grateful for their contribution and obviously time is a factor that must he considered by the members of the patients forum when they come to discuss who should go forward for nomination. It is one of the criteria for successful appointment. A candidate must be able to devote the time required to meet the responsibilities of the job.
Having said that by way of introduction, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we have in place the mechanisms to make this work effectively. First, let me make it clear that the NHS Appointments Commission is the appointing body for all non-executive appointments to NHS trusts and PCT boards. We have made our intention clear, through the listening exercise and so far during the passage of the Bill, that patients forums will each elect one of their members to go forward to the NHS Appointments Commission for appointment through the standard process. That will mirror the way in which university representatives are currently appointed.
The forum nominee will be assessed by the NHS Appointments Commission against the same criteria of probity and expertise used in the selection of other board members. We can expect patients forums to take this into account when electing their nominees. I am confident that we will see very high quality candidates put forward.
In the exceptional circumstance that, for some reason, the nominee elected by the patients forum is found wanting in some important respect, the appointments commission will be expected to reject that nomination. The patients forum then will be required to carry out another election. I do not expect that to happen very often, but it is an important safeguard.
Once appointed, the new board member will be expected to accept corporate responsibility for board decisions in the same way as any other non-executive member. That is very important and I am happy to reaffirm that principle. They will undergo the same induction process that is given to other board members to explain exactly what corporate responsibility means and to help them to be effective across the range of board member responsibilities.
I do not depart from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. For the chairs of trusts there will be challenges ahead to ensure that corporate responsibility is discharged and that the patients forum non-executive is able to play a full part in the discussions of the board. Surely the value of having a patients forum representative on the board is that it will be a powerful route through which patients' views and issues of direct relevance and interest to patients

573
are brought to the decision-making table. Surely that is another example of the inclusive approach recommended by Professor Kennedy in the Bristol inquiry report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about the position of current non-executives on trust boards who may be affected by the appointment of a new patients forum non-executive. I can go some way, but not the whole way, that she would like me to go. Clearly someone who is already on a board will complete his or her current terms of office. In the future, we will have a fluid situation. While it may be expected that most trust boards will continue to have five non-executive directors in the fullness of time—including the patients forum non-executive director—I should remind the noble Baroness that the trust regulations 1990, as amended, allow NHS trust boards to have up to seven non-executive directors. I accept that, like her own trust board, the majority of NHS trust boards have five members, but there is some flexibility in this issue. No doubt we shall need to reflect on the matter in the future.
I hope that I have gone at least some way towards convincing the Committee that we accept that there are challenges. We believe that the role of the appointments commission ought to reassure the noble Baronesses on the substantive points that have been raised, but, ultimately, the advantage of having a patients for am non-executive on the board will, in the round, bring distinct advantages to the NHS and to the individual trust boards.
Baroness Hanham: I believe and hope that the Minister will acknowledge that I have never at any stage said that I did not think there should be a patients forum representative. I have been seeking all the way through to ensure that there is not only a proper process but a complete understanding of the accountability of this person.
I believe that we are beginning to dig ourselves out of a hole. Certainly what the Minister is saying is getting better as we progress. When we first started there was no question of the appointments commission having any role in this, so I am glad that that has now been accepted.
I was equally interested to hear about the seven voting members on a board because that has the potential—even with a trust that has a university representative—of easing-in a patients forum representative non-executive director without causing too many subsequent ripples. Indeed, at some stage it may be decided that there can be an additional member if seven are allowed. The Minister may wish to continue this discussion in the light of experience as we see how matters progress.
I am glad that the appointments commission will be able to reject a candidate. However, I am conscious that the appointments commission will also be responsible for the appointment of the patients forum candidates. Can the Minister reassure me that once the decision is made as to who the patients forum wants to be elected, there will then be a separate consideration
574
by the National Health Service Appointments Commission of that person? There may or may not be quite a difference between being a member of a patients forum and a member of a board, but we need two processes in this regard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There will be different processes. The appointment of patients forum members will be the responsibility of the national commission and the bulk of the work will he carried out by its local staff. But it will be done under the auspices of the appointments commission, which will set the standards under which such appointments take place.
I accept that the noble Baroness was not seeking to criticise the appointment of patients forum non-executives. I fully accept that from her experience as a trust board chair she wants to make sure that the process works as effectively as possible. I will be happy to continue the dialogue over the next few weeks as we debate the Bill to ensure that we make as clear as we can how we expect the system to work.
Perhaps it would help if I gave some examples of where a patients forum representative might be rejected by the appointments commission. This might happen where a candidate lives outside a PCT area; where the candidate has been convicted of a criminal offence; where the candidate is not legally entitled to work in the UK; where the candidate would not he able to be available for approximately five days every month. That is a very important backstop.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall read what he said—and I may take up his offer to come back on this issue yet again— but certainly, for me, his reply was helpful.
This is a completely different appointment to a board than any there has ever been. Like the Minister, I was an elected member on an area health authority, but I did not have inspectorial rights. This patients forum director will come from an organisation which has the right of inspection and criticism, and now a right to report to the overview and scrutiny committee. Such an appointment is potentially more contentious—it need not be—both for the board and the individual. That is my last word on the subject. It is a role that we may need to finesse a little—and, sadly, we may have to do so in the light of experience — but I hope not to have to come back to this issue. If I do, I hope that the Minister will allow me the latitude to do so at a later stage.
Baroness Noakes: I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Hanham—and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her interesting question. I thank the Minister for his response, in particular for his affirmation of the involvement of the NHS Appointments Commission.
I was almost convinced until the Minister gave examples of the grounds on which a candidate would be rejected. Having told us firmly that candidates could be rejected— which sounded excellent—the

575
grounds for rejection seem technical—for example, not living in the area rather than not meeting the criteria for being a good contributor to an NHS trust. I should like to press the Minister to say whether or not a patients forum representative could be rejected if that person did not bring anything to the corporate team in terms of directing an NHS trust. However, that point apart, the Minister's response in that area was very helpful.
It was also helpful that he reaffirmed that each director of a trust or member of a PCT would have full corporate responsibility. However, there must remain concerns about this because these people will be representatives of organisations with inspectorial rights. Going back to the position of the council-nominated members of health authorities, one of the reasons that they disappeared from the scene was because it was not felt that they contributed in a corporate way. On a universal basis there are honourable exceptions—including noble Lords here present.
I wish to consider the Minister's reply and possibly return to the point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 111:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
"ESTABLISHMENT OF PATIENTS' COUNCILS
(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (3), establish a body to be known as a Patients' Council ("Council") in England in each area for which an overview and scrutiny committee has been established under section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (functions of overview and scrutiny committees).
(2) Each Council shall be appointed from among members of the relevant Primary Care Trust Patients' Forums and NHS Trust Patients' Forums operating in that area and representatives from the relevant community interest groups.
(3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there is a need to establish a Council for an area other than that represented by a local authority with overview and scrutiny functions, he shall, after local consultation, establish a Council for such other area as appears to him will meet the needs of the local community.
(4) The functions of a Council are to represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district and in particular to—

(a) facilitate the co-ordination of the activities of member Patients' Forums including by the provision of staff and services to Patients' Forums,

(b) provide or make arrangements for the provision of services under section 19A of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (independent advocacy services) at the direction of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health,

(c) represent to persons and bodies which exercise functions in its area (including in particular the overview and scrutiny committees and the joint overview and scrutiny committees referred to in sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001) the views of members of the public in its area about matters affecting their health, and

(d) advise the bodies listed in subsection (5) on involvement of the public in its area in consultations or processes leading (or potentially leading) to decisions by those
576
bodies or the formulation of policies by them, which would or might affect (whether directly or not) the health of those members of the public, monitor the effectiveness of this involvement and co-operate with the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in carrying out this function.

(5) The bodies referred to in subsection (4)(d) are—

(a) health service bodies,

(b) other public bodies, and

(c) others providing services to the public or a section of the public.

(6) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, Community Health Councils, patients' and carers' organisations and the wider community, by regulation make provision in relation to Councils as to—

(a) the Patients' Forums and other community interest groups from which members of the Council are to be appointed,

(b) any qualification or disqualification from membership,

(c) terms of appointment,

(d) the proceedings of a Council,

(e) the discharge of any functions of a Council by a committee of the Council or by a joint committee appointed with another Council,

(f) the circumstances in which Councils will co-operate with each other in the exercise of their functions and exercise functions jointly with one or more other Councils,

(g) funding of Councils and the provision of staff, premises and other facilities,

(h) the preparation and publication by a Council of annual accounts,

(i) the provision of information (including descriptions of information which are or are not to be provided) to a Council by an NHS trust, a Primary Care Trust, a Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the relevant local authorities or a person providing independent advocacy services (within the meaning given by section 19A of the National Health Service Act 1977),

(j) the provision of information by a Council to another person,

(k) the preparation and publication of reports by Councils,

(l) the furnishing and publication by NHS trusts, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities and overview and scrutiny committees of comments on reports or recommendations of Councils, and

(m) the referral of matters of a prescribed description to any overview and scrutiny committee, the relevant Strategic Health Authority, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health or the Secretary of State for Health.

(7) The regulations shall also include provision applying or corresponding to any provision of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1970 (c. 70) (access to meetings and documents).
(8) In section 21(10) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (overview and scrutiny committees) after "members of the authority" there shall be inserted "and shall include a person appointed by the relevant Patients' Council".
(9) In paragraph I Schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49), as amended by the Health Authorities Act 1995 (c. 17) after sub-paragraph (c) there is inserted—
"(d) persons appointed by the relevant Patients' Councils."."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was polite enough to talk about gaps in respect of the provisions relating to patient and public involvement. The situation is rather more serious. The word "chasm" would perhaps be more appropriate.
The amendment would establish patients' councils to integrate the work of the patients forums operating in their areas—which in the view of my noble friends and many of your Lordships is a major matter to be put right in the Bill. Amendment No. 111 is similar to that tabled by David Hinchliffe, chairman of the Select Committee on Health in another place, during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill prior to the last general election—which enjoyed cross-party support in both Houses.
The Department of Health response to the listening exercise stated that patients' councils provided a sensible option for facilitating the co-ordination of patients and public involvement mechanisms—but the proposals do not build on that concept, which is surprising in view of those words.
The amendment provides for the creation of patients' councils as a statutory means of integrating the work of patients forums in a local area. I listened with some incredulity to the Minister talking about how the various forums would, by regulation, track the patient's journey and make sure that it was covered. The Minister seemed to be making a good case for patients' councils but I shall scrutinise Hansard to see whether I can pray his words in aid even further at the next stages.
The local areas covered by patients' councils could be coterminous with a local authority overview and scrutiny committee and provide support to its scrutiny function, although, following discussion, some other area may be preferred. For example, there may be more than one patients' council in a large county. Regulations would provide for membership of relevant forums in other community groups, which may include local strategic partnerships. As membership bodies, patients' councils would be accountable to patients forums. With lay membership and statutory duties, they would also be more accountable to local patients and communities than the Government's proposed commission local networks. As independent statutory bodies, they would help to reinforce the independence of patients forums at local level.
The Government's model is extremely top down, particularly in the workings of the commission. In theory, there is no reason for national or local emanations of the commission to take any notice of the views of the local community on any issue. It is not the commission's job to represent local communities. It is unlikely that local communities would be able to develop the same positive relationship with their local commission as they have in many cases with community health councils. Communities will not own the commission or direct its work—and certainly will not be represented on it.
Patients' councils would operate as a local base for staff provided by the commission for patient and public involvement. Support would be provided for patients forums as needed. Patients' councils would also be able to provide commission advocacy for people wishing to make a complaint about the NHS, in line with the provisions for the independent
578
complaints advocacy service enshrined in the Health and Social Care Act 2001. Placing the advocacy function with patients' councils would inform the rest of their work. Wider problems in the local health service could be recognised more quickly.
As well as providing an identifiable locus where the public could raise concerns about the local health service, patients' councils could act as one-stop shops where the public could get independent information and advice. Community health councils currently provide easily accessible one-stop shops. If they ate abolished, the public will face a confusing array of' fragmented bodies from which to seek help.
The role of representing local concerns about matters affecting health would he taken by patients' councils rather than the commission. Information about local concerns, including matters that may form the subject of referrals, would be provided as necessary to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee. A local independent statutory body would take responsibility for ensuring that the local community's concerns are raised. Oversight and scrutiny committees and health service bodies could be required to comment on reports.
The national Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health would no longer have responsibility, as proposed in the Bill, for making such representations. It would support patients' councils that function and make representations nationally.
Patients' councils would share with the commission the task of ensuring that consultations were undertaken by health service bodies and assist where appropriate. That would ensure that a local independent body took on the vital role of ensuring that patients and the public were consulted locally. That would be more likely to result in local action than relying on outposts of a national, staff-only body.
The national commission would of course he included in the list of bodies to which patients' councils should send their reports. Local authorities have also been included as bodies that must provide patients' councils with information because their work will impact on the health of the local population.
Amendment No. 111 also permits the making of regulations to allow patients' councils to refer matters to oversight and scrutiny committees and, in specified circumstances, for patients' councils to make referrals to the relevant strategic health authority—the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health or the Secretary of State. That is not intended to usurp the referral power of oversight and scrutiny committees but to allow patients' councils to make referrals where OSCs do not carry out their scrutiny functions or where referrals would be more appropriately directed at strategic health authorities.
Currently, OSCs have the power to scrutinise but they do not have the duty, unlike CHCs—which have both the duty and the power. Patients' councils would appoint members to sit on overview and scrutiny committees and strategic health authorities. That would ensure coherent representation of patient forum

579
members' interests at a strategic level. Patients' council members would also be able to bring their overview of the work of patients forums to a wider forum.
The role envisaged for the commission of pioneering new ways of working with local communities and hard-to-reach groups is welcome and would not be compromised by the amendment.
There remains a strong case for a local, lay-led organisation that could pull together all the various fragmented functions of the system; provide and arrange complaint support; represent the local community; and provide a visible, accessible and approachable point of contact to the local community.
In summary, patients' councils would offer integration and simplification; a one-stop shop, less bureaucracy; local credibility and accountability; a powerful independent voice for local people; an overview of health issues and services; flexibility; support and back-up for local authorities; and a genuine local watchdog. All that would be compatible with the Government's overall plans—as they accepted in the 2001 Act. It would be a new way of working, not the recreation of community health councils. Patients' councils would embrace the Government's stated vision of a new approach to patient and public involvement while building on the most valued aspects of CHCs.
I shall not catalogue all the bodies that support patients' councils but they are legion. They include the Patients Association, Age Concern, Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, Help the Aged, Mencap, doctor-patient partnerships, the Royal College of Nursing, the Local Government Association and the Democratic Health Network.
I want to deal with one set of criticisms that appeared in the Guardian today because I know that the Minister, in his entirely dispassionate way, will wish to refer to it. It was interesting that the letter in the Guardian was received directly by noble Lords today. The chairman of the Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance states in her letter:
"It is time for the arguing to stop so that action can begin".
If anyone is guilty of having made sure that the arguing continues and that action cannot begin, it is the Government. The Government are the ones who unscrambled the proposals that were just about there before the last general election. They have wholly failed to come up with a scheme which the majority of people at local level can get behind.
Of course, there are a number of national charities which are frustrated by this situation. I am a trustee of two of them. But that does not mean that opting for some second-rate, inadequate system of public and patient involvement is the way forward. What we need is a proper scheme that will fill the chasm that I mentioned earlier and make sure that we have the proper involvement and that the new bodies do fulfil a
580
proper duty and are able to carry on the job as worthy successors to the community health councils. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has described very clearly the functions of the patients' councils proposed in the amendment. I put my name to it because I feel that the matter merits particular consideration by my noble friend. It is not that I feel that he does not give full consideration to every amendment; but, as he knows well, the amendment had considerable support in another place from government Members as well as opposition Members. My purpose is to give it support from this side of the Chamber.
Throughout our deliberations today, I have had a strong sense of déjà vu. However, matters have moved on since this time last year. The Bill as it stands is certainly an improvement on last year's version in terms of representing patients' interests. Nevertheless, the underlying disquiet about the abolition of the CHCs remains. That is not because CHCs are averse to reform or to change—quite the contrary. But by proposing simply to scrap them and start afresh, the Government have lost a wide tranche of support right across the political spectrum. I am afraid that that includes some of their most loyal supporters.
The uncertainty about the future of CHCs has already led to a haemorrhage of some of their most able staff and members. However, many of those who remain want to see an effective system of representation and independent scrutiny of the NHS up and running, whatever the name of the organisation, as soon as possible. They accept that many of the Government's proposals are attractive, but the system proposed in the Bill is complex. Patients and the public in general will need the equivalent of an A-Z guide to find their way through it.
The CHCs provide an entry point which people have learnt to use. Even if 97 per cent of people apparently did not know about their CHCs—and I find that difficult to believe—their social worker, if they had one, their local citizens advice bureau, and certainly their legal advisers or general practitioners, did know how to get in touch with the local CHC. The CHCs have provided a single entry point which people have learnt to use—the term "one-stop shop" should now perhaps be put on one side; it has become a cliché. It is useful for people to be able to go to one place—not only patients but, importantly, other people who are concerned about the working of the National Health Service in their area. These points were raised by my noble friend Lord Harris. The concerns of the population, as well as those of patients, must be looked into properly.
The proposal for patients' councils brings back such a single-entry facility. But more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the councils would act as independent, locally based co-ordinating bodies which would oil the wheels of the system of patients' forums, independent advocacy services and scrutiny which will come into being with the passage of the Bill.

581
The amendment received a great deal of support when David Hinchliffe's Bill was debated in another place. Its principles have wide support from national organisations. I have counted at least 24 which have voiced concern about the abolition of the CHCs and the inadequacies and complexity of the replacement structures. The noble Lord has mentioned a few. I mention the BMA, the GMC, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Consumers' Association.
I have also been reliably informed that, only yesterday, a meeting of the Transition Advisory Board (TAB), set up by the Department of Health to smooth the changeover from CHCs to the new system, reached the conclusion that a co-ordinating body very similar to the patients' councils proposed in the amendment should come into being in each local area. CHC representation in TAB is only one-third of its membership; and I am told that it did not advocate patients' councils as such. The other two-thirds include government representatives, local government representatives and the voluntary sector.
For all the reasons put forward by the noble Lord and those that I have mentioned, I hope that my noble friend will give serious consideration to the amendment and, if necessary, come back on Report with another one which embodies its principles but which may differ in detail to suit the Government's legislative rules.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My interest in the amendment, to which I have added my name, stems from my experience as Member of Parliament for Croydon North East for many years and the high esteem in which the Croydon CHC was held, not only by volunteer groups in my borough but also by individuals and by Croydon council. Indeed, when the abolition of the CHCs was first mooted, the council passed a resolution which was supported by all the political parties—which rarely happens in Croydon.
Perhaps I may place on record what the resolution said:
"This Council is proud of the way that Croydon CHC provides a strong and independent voice for the people of Croydon on NHS matters and of the way it carries out its functions as the local watchdog … This Council judges that the involvement of an independent watchdog role is essential in helping the Council undertake its proposed new responsibility for scrutiny of the NHS and in adding cohesion to, and commanding public confidence in, other initiatives in the NHS Plan".
Against that background, I am sure that many in Croydon and many others elsewhere—judging from my post-bag—will share my disappointment that the CHCs are to be abolished. That is why I have added my name to the amendment. It is a compromise. As a Whip for many years in the other place, as Chairman of Ways and Means, and as Speaker, I have had considerable experience of the art of compromise. Patients' councils would provide a means of progressing the most important role of the CHCs and
582
would work perfectly well within the context of the Government's own framework for patient and public involvement.
Unless we seize this opportunity to achieve consensus on this issue, it is hard to see how or why the public should have confidence in the Government's proposals. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this compromise solution to a matter that is causing concern to so many in the health service in my former constituency and elsewhere, and among many other organisations across the nation. I repeat that this proposal has strong support in the other place, and I hope that this amendment will find favour with Her Majesty's Government and with the Minister at the Dispatch Box this evening.
Baroness Pitkeathley: Many of us who have worked for a long time with patients and user organisations are aware of the frustration expressed in the letter from the Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and of the anxieties that the alliance expressed about the promotion of bureaucracy at the expense of the voice of individual users of the National Health Service. We are also aware of the excitement and anticipation felt by many groups about the possibilities offered by the new structures, and of their wish to get on with making them work for the benefit of patients, carers and tie general public. It is certainly true that we do not yet know how these structures will work, but I believe that there are adequate safeguards as to accountability and review built into the process.
Prolonging the debate and making new proposals is not helpful at this stage. The Government have shown great commitment to public and patient involvement, and the Minister has also shown his personal commitment to that, time and again. It is now time to get on with it, and to take advantage of the great good will that exists in the field towards the proposals. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems to me that we are at last having a realistic discussion on the subject of patient involvement, because patients are being treated as what they are, which is customers of the National Health Service. When the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, contributed before—and my noble friend on the Front Bench commented on this—she let the cat out of the bag by saying that the Government see members of the public as, in a sense, members of the National Health Service. She implied that the National Health Service was a big tent that included the patients. It is not like that. The National Health Service is a service provided for the public. The public are the customers, and they must be able—at some point in this huge, byzantine structure that is being set up—to have an independent view.
When my noble friend Lady Hanham was describing, from the point of view of the board, the problem of having the chairman of a forum as a member of the board, I wondered what would happen if a patient happened to disagree in a way that could not be reconciled with the view of the board. What

583
would happen to the wretched chairman? By creating this big tent, the Government have created big problems for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has suggested a mechanism by which there could be straightforward representation of public and patient interests from outside the National Health Service, which is, after all, their service, provided for them and paid for by them. That proposal does, indeed, clarify the issue.
As I listen to this discussion, I see the Government getting themselves into the most amazing muddle, and, in the long run, their proposals will not work. They cannot work because there is a conflict of interest in the system. The public must be able to say, "We think you are wrong, and we want something different". They must be able to do that through a body that is independent of the service. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is making a very important suggestion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: In the last few months there has been a mushrooming of health organisations, both voluntary and statutory. The Minister has launched many of them, and nobody could do it better than he could. I recently attended a reception for the National Patient Safety Agency, a much-needed National Health Service body. Last night, the Minister also spoke at the Parkinson's Disease Awareness Week reception. Nobody could be more aware of the importance of these valuable bodies, which do excellent work.
Many voluntary organisations give much-needed information to people who are devastated when they have been diagnosed with a long-term medical condition. Those people need information and support. With the complexity of the National Health Service and the need to pass on information about patient groups, there needs to be a powerful, independent voice for local people. I have spoken to many people who have stressed that independence is the most important aspect of a people-led, not staff-led, body. There must be a central point, with easy, friendly access, to co-ordinate and direct the public to the many different bodies. That is why I support the need for patients' councils. If these councils are not independent, many members of the public will not come forward for help and advice, as they will feel that they might be victimised or branded as troublemakers.
During the Easter Recess, I attended a dinner in Harrogate. I talked socially there to a doctor who sang the praises of the Harrogate Community Health Council, and said what a pity it would be if it were disbanded. He also told me that a rumour was circulating the North of England that the Secretary of State for Health had fallen out with a local CHC, and that that was the reason they were being disbanded. I would like to ask the Minister if that is fact or fiction. The Secretary of State should surely be wise enough not to go against the wishes of the public on a matter such as this.
584
This is an opportunity to make patients' councils more effective and to allow them to do more than CHCs. People have become frightened of having an operation in case they develop an infection such as MRSA in hospital. If the councils are not independent, and if people do not feel free to speak out, there will continue to be endless cover-ups by some trusts.
I would like to see the patients' councils help to bring health and social services into a better and closer relationship. Patients are left in hospitals, blocking beds, because of the slowness of social services in providing aids and adaptations to make their houses suitable. Patients' councils could help to stimulate the co-ordination of public health matters. I must declare an interest here, because my husband has to have his INR checked periodically—that is a blood coagulation test—and I use a mattress to prevent pressure sores. I have in my bag a letter from the Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust, which tells me that the district nurses service will continue to be provided by the community nurses based at Bedale, but from 1st April 2002, the mattress—which is currently rented by the Northallerton trust—will be rented by Harrogate, because Masham, where I live, will fall under the Harrogate primary care trust.
I give the Committee this example to illustrate how the new system is already causing fragmentation. The public will need patients' councils to be flexible, to cross trusts, to be able to network across strategic health authorities on issues of wider geographical concern, and to sort out many of the small issues of confusion before they become expensive big problems of discontent.
I hope the Minister will be helpful today. So many people support their local healthcare facilities in so many different ways. Patients' councils could encourage them to do more. The National Health Service needs all the help it can get from everybody.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am pleased to support the amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has so ably introduced. I do so mindful of the fact that politics is the art of the possible. I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that the best model for patient and public representation, for everybody's sake, would be a reform and strengthening of community health councils, as I proposed in my earlier amendment. To my regret, that is not going to happen. Putting our disappointments behind us, it is right that we should examine the proposals that are on the table and suggest ways of improving them.
I shall not repeat all my earlier criticisms of this part of the Bill, but it might be appropriate to focus on a few of its key features. There is a huge gulf between what the Government say they want and what we are being offered in the Bill. The Government say that they want a patient-centred service. How can that be achieved by setting up institution-based representation? As we have said on a number of occasions, a patients forum will monitor only the services of the trust on which it

585
is based. Who will monitor the NHS more generally from the patients' perspective or look at the wider dimensions of health-related issues? The best of the CHCs have achieved that informed overview very well. We shall lose that if patients' councils are not established.
We are told that there will be mechanisms to ensure that patients forums work together on key issues. Such informal arrangements are no substitute for having an overarching, lay-led organisation that the public can clearly identify and hear speaking up for them across the NHS. A patients' council would be founded on the combined authority of patients forums, each of which would contribute inside knowledge of its local NHS.
The next main issue is independence and impartiality. I shall have more to say on that theme on a later amendment, but for now I shall underline one point. If patients' forums are to do their job effectively, the public have to have confidence in them. How will that be possible when the only information fed to the forum will come from the trust? How will the forum be able to check up on what the trust is telling it? How will it know whether it is being given the whole picture on clinical priorities in waiting lists, on real trolley time waits in A&E or on the financial state of the trust? Such reassurance and verification would be achieved through patients' councils, which would also be guarantors of independence, giving the public confidence that their interests were being put forward impartially by its constituent patients forums.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has listed many more advantages that could come with patients' councils. The one-stop shop could be restored. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, that may be a cliché, but it is still very much to the point. Many services that the patient could relate to could be centred in one place—complaints handling, information, advice, access to local consultation and so on. We could bring together the array of groups and bodies that the Government are currently proposing for lay reference panels, for local providers of ICAS services, for local networks of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. A patients' council would embrace the whole lot and in so doing would vastly improve local lines of accountability, which are singularly deficient in the arrangements as now planned. Patients' councils would also act as community-led health watchdogs, which is perhaps the single most significant net loss arising from the abolition of CHCs.
Those are the main reasons why I support the amendments. The letter from the chairwoman of the Long-Term Medical Conditions Alliance opposing the amendments has been referred to. I have no doubt that she is an admirable and public spirited person, but, if I may say so, she puts herself at risk of being classified as a stooge of the Government. The envelope in which her letter reached me today was identical—with an identical label—to an envelope containing a helpful letter from the Minister. I should be delighted to be told that I am wrong in concluding that both letters were dispatched centrally by the Department of Health.
586
I hope that the Minister will not give us a dusty answer to the amendment. If he attempts to do so, he ought to bear in mind that the concept of patients' councils, as embodied here, is supported not just by Members of this House but by numerous patient and voluntary organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. I hope that we can collectively convince the Government that these are sensible ideas which, if implemented properly, could be a major plank in the delivery of a patient-centred health service.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I hesitate to intervene in the debate, as I am more associated with medical services overseas than those in the UK. I do so a result of my experience long ago, as Member of Parliament for Wallasey, when we formed the patients participation association to buttress one element of the then CHCs that did not work terribly well. That concerned the links between general practitioners and the local hospital and social services.
That organisation did some excellent work in the late 1980s and through the 1990s. It has now dwindled, but it did so only when the CHCs took up the challenge set by the association. The issue is very important, particularly for older people, who have less confidence in what is going on than some of us who are lucky enough to be told by the Minister and to hear of all the changes in a different way.
The proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others is fundamental for encouraging confidence in the health service. Being sick—even a little sick, as I was some time ago—is not something that one views with any confidence, however good the doctor may be. Being part of the great wheel of the health service terrifies the over 60s and probably people much younger as well.
Establishing a council for the care and consideration of the needs of the patient would be a very valuable service. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting the amendment—or a parallel one if there is something not quite right in some aspect of it or if it is not quite correctly drafted, as I well know that Ministers so often say. I believe that the amendment is very well drafted, but should the Minister believe that it is not perfectly drafted I beg him to come back with something that will give greater confidence in the National Health Service, which sometimes has a few problems at the moment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I support the amendments. I have listened to the comments that have been made so far and feel that, as a healthcare professional, it is important that I voice my support. The independence of the view of patients is crucial. I cannot over-emphasise how vulnerable patients feel when they are ill. If they feel that they are complaining into an organisation on which they are dependent for their care, they are terrified that there may be some backlash against them.
Only this week I sat with a patient who asked whether he had grounds for complaint. He was frightened of raising the issue with me. I went through

587
the issues and felt that he might possibly have grounds for complaint, but not for litigation, and explained the situation to him. As he looked at me with tears in his eyes, he said that I had put his mind at rest, for which he was grateful. However, he also said that he had been frightened even to raise the issue.
I believe that such independence is crucial, and that the House ignores the issue at its own peril and at the peril of the public. Healthcare professionals ignore the need for an independent patient voice at their peril, because that is the safeguard in ensuring that we improve the standards of practice.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I regret that it was not possible in the dying stages of the previous Parliament to reach a final settlement on the successor arrangements to community health councils. If we had been able to do so, much of the current uncertainty would not exist. That was unfortunately not to be, but life moves on.
I have absolutely no quarrel with the motivation behind the amendment or with the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it. The need for co-ordination at local level between patients forums is inescapable and very important indeed. However, I disagree with the noble Lords on the way in which that coordination should operate. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, described our proposals as "top down", but I very much disagree with that description. We are simply saying that patients forums—which are at the local level where the patient receives services—will be the truly important agency for involving the public.
My worry about patients' councils as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is that rather than helping a decentralised model to work more effectively, they will create a further statutory tier of patient involvement which will get in the way of a fluid approach to co-operation between patients forums at a local level. I stress that all of the functions described in the amendments are already provided for in the Bill. Moreover, we have reached the current position after being informed by a great many views from a wide range of stakeholders and informed observers. That makes me very confident about the integrity of our proposals. Our system has been recognised by many people as stronger, more independent and better placed to deliver the necessary empowering structure.
The concept of patients' councils is not new; indeed, it has been a critical developmental stage for our proposed arrangements. In many respects, our debate on patients' councils in the previous Session was the catalyst for moving us on to think through the key issue of how to ensure both an informed and continuing process of review at the organisational level, through patients forums, and how to meet the need to build up a picture of patients' experience across a wider health economy. We are proposing that the latter need be met through the auspices of the commission at the local level.
588
When we discussed patients' councils in the previous Parliament, the proposal was that they should be matched to about 100 health authorities. As noble Lords know, however, it is now envisaged that there will be 28 strategic health authorities in England. That is another very big change from the circumstances which applied when we last debated patients' councils.
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is also proposing that patients' councils should match the local authorities which are responsible for establishing overview and scrutiny committees. Surely he will accept, however, that the flow of patients does not necessarily match local authority boundaries. Therefore, even if we established patients councils at the local authority level, we would still have to make other arrangements to ensure that we can capture the patient experience of people outside those local authority boundaries. I believe that our proposals much better meet the need for flexibility and recognise that patient flows go very much wider than current local authority boundaries.
I think that we can all agree that the overview of the patient experience must result from the combined activity of the elements of the new system which we are proposing. We believe that patient forums and the independent complaints advocacy service providers have to be empowered to perform their functions effectively and in a manner which develops their capacity to grow. We all believe, I think, that forums must work together to share outcomes, to plan joint work and to identify key themes and trends from across their respective boundaries. We believe that the system must he informed by the real life experience of patients and not just of a few patients by proxy. I think that we also agree that the public must know how to access support if they want to complain, how to get their views heard, how they can make a difference, and who is responsible for decisions to put things right. I think that we all agree that we must have consistent standards across the country.
All of those issues are addressed in the Bill. The fundamental change to our proposals since we debated the previous legislation is our proposal to establish a Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. The commission will have not only core functions at a national level, which we shall debate shortly, but—and this is so important—a range of local functions. Therefore, as we have discussed, the key issue is the relationship between patients forums and the commission at the local level. It is clear that the forums will require effective and skilled staff support, and it is the commission that will provide it. Forums will also require briefing support and assistance with administration and secretariat roles and the management of finances.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, dealt with forums' need to have information so that they can make judgments on the effectiveness of the trusts which they will review. The commission will have a very important role to play in that. Moreover, the CHI reports will be a very valuable addition to the resources available to each patients forum. We are also proposing in the Bill the creation of a new Office for Information on Health

589
Care Performance which will also provide much needed valuable information to individual patients forums. Commission staff working at local level will clearly have a very important role to play in supporting the work of patients forums and enabling those forums to make the most of the responsibility being given to them.
We intend to make regulations requiring patients forums to come together on a regular basis to share their findings. As is argued for the patients' councils amendments, this sharing of information is critical to ensuring that the "patient's journey" is truly understood and captured. We shall also use the regulation-making powers in the patients forums clause—Clause 15(5)—to require forums to work together. Clause 19(2)(d) allows for the commission to provide assistance to patients forums and to facilitate the co-ordination of activities. Clause 19(5) states:
"The Commission is, so far as practicable, to exercise its functions by reference to the areas of Primary Care Trusts".
I would argue that the crucial importance of the work of the national commission at local level, with a staff resource that will be available at local level, will give a much more flexible approach to achieving the kind of co-ordination between patients forums that noble Lords desire and it captures the entire patient journey, as so eloquently suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, without setting up another statutory patient organisation at the patients' council level.
I would he very cautious about detracting from the primacy of the role of the patients forum at that level. Statutory patient councils would do that. Our approach in using the auspices of the national commission at local level will achieve all that noble Lords desire.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his very interesting reply. He tried to pull out all the stops in his arguments, but it is clear from the speeches of other noble Lords that the arguments are against him. He can be in no doubt about the feeling of the Committee, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I wish that I could be excited about the proposals and the new structures. It is far more preferable to reduce our enthusiasm slightly and wait a little longer until we have a set of proposals that we can support.
I very much appreciate and agree with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, as to the importance of the single point of access. I have not used the phrase "one-stop shop"; we must clearly desist from overworking that phrase. That is one of the key arguments, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, made some important points about the trust and confidence that people have in their local CHCs. We must ensure that any scheme of reform has the same degree of public trust.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is not known for supporting my propositions, but she really put her finger on the point. Ministers talk obsessively about the system being one of patient and public involvement, which comes from inside rather than outside the NHS, and so on. The argument advanced
590
by the noble Baroness about there being a conflict of interest tucked in there somewhere is extremely important.
The vital issue of independence was raised not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, but by the noble Earl, Lord Howe and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Masham. The Minister did not give the lie to that argument. I thought when considering the wider element of confidence in the NHS that the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, were extremely important. It is a matter of fundamental confidence and one that will have great significance for the public, whether they are patients, family, carers, or whatever incarnation they may have. It is important to have that broad view of both primary and acute care. The patients' councils would do that.
It is gratifying that the Minister accepts the need for co-ordination, but the way in which that takes place is crucial. He talked about a fluid approach, but others might describe it as an incoherent approach. He talked about not being top down. The commission is the creature of the Secretary of State for Health. How more top down than that can one get? I cannot agree with the Minister on that either.
The Minister is extremely confident about the integrity of his proposals. I am afraid that outside this House, vast numbers of people do not have great confidence in those proposals. It is interesting that the Minister talks about these proposals—patients' councils—being part of the genesis of the new exciting era, as outlined in the Bill as it stands. It is certainly not a building block; it is rather like a stage of a rocket that is dropped off half-way through its ascent to the stars. That is all that it is and it bears no relationship to the Government's current proposals. It is all very well for the Minister to say that patients' councils no longer fit as we now have strategic health authorities, but that is just because the goal posts have been moved. I do not agree with that scheme of devolution, but that is clearly a separate matter.
The proposal for patients' councils does not assume coterminosity with local authorities. It is a matter of discretion. They could be coterminous where appropriate, but they may not be, and they may need to be wider than the boundaries of local authorities.
We have had a good debate. I hope that the Minister is considerably more flexible and sympathetic than appears because we shall be a ferocious dog with this bone throughout the passage of the Bill. I assure him that it is the single most important matter to which we shall return on Report and Third Reading, if necessary. I trust that the Minister will ponder further between now and the next stage. In the meantime, I thank Members of the Committee for their support and contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Entry and inspection of premises]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Annual reports]:
[Amendment No. 114A not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that this is a convenient time to break. I suggest that we return to this business not before 8.30. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002
7.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the regulations make a number of amendments to nine of the sets of regulations that govern child support. This package is largely made up of amendments to regulations governing the new child support scheme and to the transitional regulations which relate to the transfer of cases from the current scheme to the new arrangements. The transfer will take place in due course, when we are satisfied that the new arrangements are working well.
In addition, the package includes a small number of amendments to the current scheme. They are designed to protect the interests of parents who find themselves in certain specific circumstances, as I shall explain. It is important that we provide such protection for those clients who will continue to be subject to the current rules for some time yet.
Your Lordships will recall the Statement made in another place on 20th March about the introduction of the new and simpler child support scheme. I have nothing to add at this stage in the way of extra information except to assure your Lordships of my intention to keep this House updated on progress towards its implementation. Obviously, if I can answer any queries I shall be happy to do so.
Many of the amendments in this set of regulations make minor technical corrections. Others simply serve to reflect the intended detail of the new scheme legislation. In the limited time available this evening your Lordships would not be well served by my explaining the intentions of each amendment one by one, and they were not discussed in any detail in the other place. However, with the permission of the House, I shall draw attention to some of the more significant changes, which I am sure your Lordships will agree are benevolent.
Regulations 3 and 9 relate to departures and variations. These amendments relate to the disregard of vCJD compensation payments. One of the "current
592
scheme" amendments to which I referred a moment ago relates to the departure scheme. Under the current rules it is possible to depart from the standard formula assessment in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances in which a departure direction can be give is where, for example, a party to the maintenance assessment—that is, the non-resident parent—has an asset worth more than £10,000 which is capable of producing income but which is not being used to do so. Regulation 3 amends the current scheme so that certain payments made under the compensation scheme for victims (and families of victims) of variant CJD will not be regarded as assets for the purposes of departure. In other words, they are simply disregarded and therefore not taken into account to affect upwards the liability.
Regulation 9 therefore includes a corresponding amendment in respect of the variations scheme which will, under the new rules, replace the departure scheme. So the same disregard under the current scheme will be carried forward into the new scheme. I am sure your Lordships will welcome that.
Those payments are made in recognition of the pain and suffering endured by the victims of this terrible disease—and by their families—and are intended to help reduce any financial hardship they may face. I am sure your Lordships will agree that such payments should be ignored in the calculation of child maintenance in circumstances where they would be disregarded when considering entitlement to income support.
Regulation 5 reflects the income support enhanced disability premium in exempt income under the current scheme. So a further current scheme amendment under regulation 5 concerns the calculation of the exempt income figure. This represents the income which parents need for their own personal expenses and it also includes allowances for any of their children who are living with them. It is therefore not taken into account when making a maintenance assessment.
Regulation 5 amends the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations which govern the assessment of liability in the current scheme and include the rules for calculating the exempt income of each parent. The exempt income figure is based on income support rates. Last year, as part of the Government's commitment to provide additional help for the most severely disabled, the Government introduced the disability income guarantee, which provides for a new higher rate of premium in the income-related benefits. The amendment provides for an amount equivalent to the enhanced disability premium to be included in a parent's exempt income calculation. It applies where either that child, or its parent, if they were on income support, would satisfy the conditions for payment of the premium. Again, this is another benevolent activity where this income is effectively disregarded.
I turn to Regulation 4, which relates to information, evidence and disclosure, and better information gathering. We are all agreed that children are entitled

593
to the financial and emotional support of their parents. Whether they live together or apart, both parents are responsible for supporting their children. Unfortunately, not all parents share that view and some do all they can to avoid their responsibilities. Regulation 4 therefore amends the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations. It adds to the categories of persons who are required to provide information or evidence for child support purposes and brings Northern Ireland and Scotland into line with England and Wales. It will mean, among other things, that for both current and new scheme cases the Child Support Agency will be able to seek information from driver and vehicle licensing in Northern Ireland and from the Scottish and Northern Ireland prison services. Again, it is a straightforward adjustment as to from whom we can seek information.
Regulation 8 relates to transitional provisions, in this instance the extending of appeal time limits. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is another benevolent change. Regulation 8 of this package makes a number of amendments to the complex rules governing the transfer or conversion of the existing caseload to the new scheme as set out in the Child Support (Transitional Provisions) Regulations.
One of the more notable changes is an amendment to the time limit for appeals against a conversion decision—that is, the decision setting out someone's liability under the new scheme. Parents will be advised of their new scheme liability in good time before the new rules actually apply to them. It may be six months ahead or even longer. Normally the appeal time clock would start ticking from the time they are notified, even though that may be six or nine months ahead of when the conversion actually takes place. They may then find that by the time they are affected, the clock has run out on the time limit for appeals. That seemed to me to be unfair. They were notified well in advance of when it would come into effect and, particularly if self-employed, they may not realise the extent to which the clock is ticking and how they may have lost their ability to appeal. Therefore I sought and succeeded in extracting from the appeal system an amendment which provides that the deadline for appeals against a conversion decision will be extended from one month after the conversion is given—that is, notified—to one month after conversion actually takes place. In other words, parents will be able to retain the right to appeal from the time they first learn about their conversion decision right up until one month after it takes effect. That is simply because, unlike almost every other scheme, there is a long period of notification and people should not lose their right of appeal simply because they can assume they can appeal once it takes effect rather than once they have been notified.
Regulation 2—decisions and appeals—makes a number of amendments to the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations which set out the rules for revising and superseding child support decisions. This is about the information needed when a decision-maker is adjusting the liability. Among other things, the amendment provides for a maintenance calculation to be revised
594
back to the beginning in cases where a person who had been named as the non-resident parent turns out not to be the parent of the child, usually following DNA testing but not invariably so.
When a person with care applies for a maintenance calculation (maintenance assessment in the current scheme) the CSA will make one unless the nonresident parent denies parentage before the calculation is made. If the non-resident parent does so deny, then the agency can only go ahead with a maintenance calculation in certain prescribed circumstances; For example, where he has adopted the child. If the nonresident parent denies parentage after a calculation has been made, he may undertake CSA DNA testing or apply to the court for a declaration of non-parentage. If the outcome of either is that he is not the child's father, any maintenance calculation will be revised back to the beginning. Again, this is a benevolent change.
Those are the main changes. Most of the rest are tiny tidying up drafting changes. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that the disregard of disability payments, the disregard of vCJD payments, the extended period for appealing and the right for a person to have the maintenance calculation revised if he is found not to be the child's father are benevolent changes. As a result, I hope that the House will give the regulations full support.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. As usual, it was a model of lucidity, making everything seem extremely simple. However, those of us new to this area do not find these matters simple. We have nine substantive regulations amending nine sets of orders under the power of two Acts, one of which is amended by the other. They deal with the old scheme of child support and the new scheme of child support and the transitional provisions. If that is not complicated, I do not know what is. However, I am learning that complexity is a hallmark of work and pensions matters. I am hoping to acquire a fraction of the Minister's expertise one day.
Perhaps I may refer to the computer system. The Minister referred to the Statement last month by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in another place. We learned that there had been further delays in implementing the systems, which were due to come onstream first in October 2001, then this month. They have now been delayed sine die. When does the Minister expect the systems to become operational? That is an important issue for those waiting for the new child support system.
In addition to an estimate of timescale—I find it curious that no estimate has yet been given of when the system is expected to be fully operational—will the Minister say something about the reason for the delay? My noble friend Lord Higgins at Second Reading of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act

595
2000 two years ago, warned of the problems of running two different systems and an inevitably complex transitional system. Is the problem in implementing the new system its complexity? If complexity is not the root cause, will the Minister explain what the problems are?
I turn to the regulations. I welcome the amendments in the regulations which implement disregards for payments under the variant CJD compensation scheme. They are highly desirable amendments. We congratulate the Government for proposing them.
I have two detailed questions. First, in Regulation 2 there is a provision—which the Minister explained a moment ago—for maintenance calculations to be revised from the beginning where a man turns out not to be the parent of a child. That seems sensible. Does that provision apply only to the new scheme of child support and not to the previous scheme? If so, will the Minister say why?
My second question relates to Regulation 5, which allows the enhanced disability premium in income support to be included in a parent's exempt income, to which the Minister referred. That is clearly to be welcomed, but does it apply only to the former child support scheme and not the new one? Again, if so, will the Minister say why? With those small technical queries we welcome the regulations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Frederick the Great would ask his new recruits three questions. First, "How long have you been in the service?"; secondly, "How old are you?"; thirdly, "Are you content with your officers and your pay?". One of his recruits, being Silesian, spoke nothing but Polish, so he was taught the answers to the questions by heart.
But Frederick the Great chose to ask the questions in the wrong order. "How old are you?" "Eighteen months." "How long have you been in the service?" "Eighteen years." "One of us is mad!" "Both, your Majesty."
Approaching the regulations, I feel rather like that. I do not know whether I have discovered a hornets' nest or a wasps' nest. I do not know whether I am being extremely stupid or whether a cock-up has happened at the administrative end.
I have no objection to the contents of the regulations. They are benevolent in intention and many will be benevolent in effect. That is not the problem. My problem is what is being amended. We know that on 20th March the right honourable Mr Alistair Darling deferred the introduction of the new scheme because of a computer problem. Computer problems are far too common with government, but I am the last person in the world with any authority for saying how to deal with them, being completely computer-illiterate. I regret that I have no helpful suggestions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, it is clear that the right honourable Mr Darling is not at all certain when he intends to introduce the new scheme. He is clearly not satisfied with the service he is receiving from EDS. On 20th March, he said,
596
"the contract with EDS specified that the Department will not pay for the computer system until it meets the standard required, and that remains the position".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/02; col. 316.]
One may say that the former Department of Social Security and the Department for Work and Pensions' faith in EDS has continued in the face of a remarkable amount of evidence to the contrary.
Be that as it may, we must consider what is being amended. The Explanatory Memorandum, for which I thank the Minister warmly, makes—as I thought—a clear distinction between the existing scheme and the new scheme introduced by the Social Security Act 2000, which, as I understood it, was to come into force next April, but now is not to. According to paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"The draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002 make amendments to a number of the sets of regulations which govern child support. Most of the provisions amend regulations governing the new child support scheme. Some amend the transitional provisions which provide for the conversion of cases from the existing to the new scheme. A small number amend existing scheme regulations".
I should be grateful if the Minister would distinguish the small number which amend existing regulations—with which we have no problem—from those which amend transitional provisions and tell us how they are affected by the decision to postpone the transition, and those which amend rules not yet in force. I have trouble in interpreting the Explanatory Memorandum in that it is not dated. I do not know whether it was written before or after 20th March. That appears to make a considerable difference as to how it should be read.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand the push of the noble Earl's original question about which provisions apply to the current scheme, the transitional scheme and so on, but why does he believe that the events of 20th March make any difference to his question?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I want to know which regulations and laws the provisions are intended to change; whether the intention was to change what is now not coming into effect or whether it was to change what is in effect and therefore can be changed.
I understand that one may make a change with reference to the future only. However, Regulation 1(3) specifies that,
"These Regulations shall come into force as follows—
(a) subject to sub-paragraph(b), these Regulations shall come into force on the day after the day that they are made".
Sub-paragraph (b) excepts Regulations 2 and 4(a), both of which the Minister helpfully explained. If the regulations are to come into force tomorrow, and the laws which they are to amend are not to come into effect until an undetermined time in the future, I do not see what is being attempted. One can provide that a law will be amended when introduced. I understand that; it is daily practice. One can amend a law already in force. I do not understand how one can amend with

597
effect from today a law which will not come into force until tomorrow. That is my problem. That is where I do not know whether I am being extremely stupid or whether there has been an administrative cock-up. I do not know whether I have discovered a hornets' nest or a wasps' nest.
While consideration is being given to that question, there are one or two provisions in the regulations to which I wish to draw attention. I hope that the Minister now understands why the question of the dating before or after 20th March is material in this respect. I am interested in the proposal to allow a correction where it turns out that a person is not the father of the child. That is very clearly equitable, not to say just. What really strikes me is the legislative universe into which we are moving whereby we have to invoke the full panoply of legislation in order to make it possible to cease charging a man for a child of whom he turns out not to be the father. This is a piling of Pelion upon Ossa in terms of regulation, which leads to a process that goes on and on.
When the Minister was doing this before, I remember describing the process as "piddling", as the garage man said to my father-in-law when he tried to top up his radiator when it was almost full. I believe that that term is in fact apt. As always, the wording of the regulations leaves a great deal to be desired. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of some of the regulations. However, although the Minister explained Regulation 4(a) perfectly well, she did so in English. I am not sure that I can say the same for what is written in the regulations. For example, it reads:
"(a) after sub-paragraph (a), there shall be inserted—
'(aa) where regulation 8(1) of the Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases Regulations applies (persons treated as nonresident parents), a parent of or a person who provides day to day care for the child in respect of whom a maintenance calculation has been applied for or has been treated as applied for or is or has been in force, with respect to the matter listed in sub-paragraph (1) of regulation 3(1);' and".
After reading that passage five times, it seemed to me that it probably meant what the Minister said it meant. I should like to thank her very much for the translation, but it should not have been necessary.
I wonder whether the Minister is now in a position to tell us what these regulations are amending; for example, whether it is existing law, future law, or transitional provisions. Alternatively, if it is a mixture, can the noble Baroness tell us what proportions apply?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for their questions. I begin with the substantive point made by both speakers; namely, when the computer system will become operational. Perhaps I may remind the House that, at the end of April of this year, we proposed to take on the new cases that would filter through the system. Subsequently, around a year or so later when we were confident that the system was secure, we intended to take on the existing caseload. We are not confident that the proposed new system is secure for new cases, primarily because, in our judgment, it has not yet been sufficiently tested so that the risk of any
598
major problem arising is acceptably low. It is possible that the system will not face significant problems, hut it has not received the sustained testing required.
Crucially, as your Lordships will recall, one of the changes under the new system that has been broadly welcomed is that the parent with care will retain up to £10 of maintenance paid. This means an interface of the new computer with the IS/JSA systems. That interface does not currently exist. The IS/JSA computer is 20 to 25 years old. For the sake of all the parents on benefit—a substantial proportion of the caseload—we must be very sure that that interface is secure if such payments are to be made. We need to know that this type of detailed testing will survive when we throw a heavy caseload at the system. Therefore, the Secretary of State made it very clear that we shall go ahead with taking on the new cases when we are confident that the testing has shown that the risk is as low as we can make it and that the system will work. I am not in a position to tell the noble Baroness how long that process will take. Obviously, I hope that it will be carried out as quickly as possible. We must be sure that the system is robust to handle the proposed workload.
We consulted the voluntary organisations and discussed the matter with those concerned at the same time that the Secretary of State made his announcement to Parliament. They entirely support what we are seeking to achieve. They would prefer a system with the risks minimalised to one where we deliver to our original target time but where the risk might be unacceptably high. Indeed, in that case we might have particular problems with the interface of the IS/JSA system. Having said that, I should point out that that does not automatically mean that the existing caseload will come on stream a year afterwards. We may, or may not, be able to reduce that time. We must ensure that the system is robust. There is no automatic read across in this respect.
I am trying to be frank with the House. I must emphasise the very difficult decision with which the Secretary of State was faced—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may be excused for making what may appear to be an irrelevant intervention at this point. I have just realised that I forgot to make an apology to the Minister for not giving her advance notice of the points that I intended to raise this evening. I should point out that I only worked out my queries in the 20 minutes before the matter came before the House. Nevertheless, I very much owe the noble Baroness that apology, which I beg her to accept; it is sincere.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am most grateful. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented, I recognise that these regulations are extremely technical in their phraseology. He is quite right. When you have regulations to amend regulations under a Bill, it is very hard to decipher what is going on once you have delved back into the past. I wonder whether the House is now content with the explanation that I tried to offer on the substantive issue raised; namely,

599
the timing issue. One is trying all the time to make a judgment on meeting a proposed timetable that increasingly looks risky. Given the number of cases with which we shall deal on a month-by-month and day-by-day basis, I hope that noble Lords will understand that we cannot afford an unacceptably high risk to those clients. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way. We still have no idea of timing. Before going ahead with the system live, I assume that the department has had some detailed discussions with EDS over the nature of its concerns and that there is an agreed programme of testing, remedial work, and so on. Indeed, that is normal in such cases. However, can the noble Baroness tell us what timescale the department is working to with EDS? I fully accept that further problems may emerge; for example, the early results of testing may highlight more problems; and, indeed, there may be further issues to be unravelled. Nevertheless, I find it odd that there is no timetable to be shared with the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords; I cannot give the noble Baroness the information that she requires. We are working very closely with EDS. I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that the contract we have with EDS means that no money is paid until the system is handed over in working order. Therefore, EDS has every incentive to work with us, not only closely—which is the case—but also as speedily as possible. I have no complaints about the resources that EDS is throwing at the system. It could be argued that the system has been sufficiently tested to assure us that the risk is as low as we can make it. However, at the end of the day, we are asking for quite complicated interfaces to be developed. As I said, we are not yet confident that that is the case.
I wish that I could be more helpful to the noble Baroness, but I genuinely have no further information to give her. We are not talking about commercially-sensitive issues. I am simply saying that neither I nor the Secretary of State know at what point we shall be sufficiently confident that the risk is minimal, and when we shall be ready to come to Parliament and give a date for what we call "A day"—namely, the take on of new cases.
The noble Baroness asked about the parentage revision and to what it applied. The revision applies only to the new scheme because the current scheme uses the cancellation provision to dispose of the maintenance assessment where a non-resident parent (an NRP) turns out not to be a parent. It is a new way under the new scheme of doing what we currently have a power to do, but, given the new structure of the scheme, this does not carry over. The noble Baroness also asked about the enhanced disability premium. She will understand that, in future, where the NRP—I use a gendered word, as this could apply also to the noble Baroness, though most NRPs will be male—has an income of £200 a week, he will be paying a percentage
600
slice of his income. Therefore, particular ingredients of this are not affected. Obviously, if the person is on benefit income, or in receipt of an income of less than £100 a week, he will be paying a flat rate £5—every penny of which, incidentally, will be going to the parent with care, not to the Treasury. Therefore, it is, indeed, child support.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked two questions. The first concerned the regulations. He asked whether, as he put it, this was a major hornets' nest or an issue of drafting; no, it is not. Regulations 6, 7 and 8 come into force when the regulations are made, but they amend regulations which will come into force only when the new child support scheme begins. They are amendments with immediate effect to regulations which will come into effect only with the new scheme. The noble Earl is right to pick us up on that, but "it is OK", if I can put it in those words.
The noble Earl asked what Regulation 4(a) means. It concerns shared care. If both parents share equal care of a child, regulations provide that the nonresident parent is the person who is not in receipt of child benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I may be able to save her some trouble. I said that I did not understand that in the original draft but that I did understand perfectly the Minister's previous explanation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would certainly say something different the next time around, which would only add to confusion. I shall seek to conclude here and hope that I have addressed your Lordships' queries.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the Minister's reply. The question I asked was in relation to Regulation 5, the enhanced disability premium and the disregard or the inclusion in exempt income. I asked whether that applied only to the old scheme and not the new scheme, and if so, why?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may explain to the noble Baroness that questions such as sources of income do not come into play under the new scheme because it is a simple slice of the formula. Under the existing scheme we have protected income, exempt income and so forth. As a result it does not matter about the income flows. I was trying, which possibly added to the confusion, to make a difference between levels of income and when those percentage slices kicked in. However, I believe I have addressed the question asked by the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001
8.2 p.m.
Lord Filkinrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th November 2001 be approved [6th Report from the Human Rights Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001 be approved. The purpose of today's debate is to seek approval of the remedial order amending the Mental Health Act 1983 that was made on 18th November 2001 and laid before Parliament on the day following. The purpose is, in essence, to ensure that mental health legislation is consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case that led to the making of this order concerned a patient who was detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 and who had applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for discharge from detention under the Act. It was argued before the courts that under the Act the tribunal was not required to discharge a patient unless satisfied that at least one of the criteria set out in the relevant section did not exist. That double negative formulation had the effect of placing the burden of proof on the patient, and it was argued that that was incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court of Appeal accepted those arguments and declared on 4th April last year that these sections were incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the ECHR. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act sets out procedures for remedial action to be taken to remove such incompatibilities.
Section 4(6) and 6(2) of the Human Rights Act preserve the sovereignty of Parliament. It therefore requires action by Government to remedy an incompatibility. This is the first declaration of incompatibility requiring remedial action under the Human Rights Act. A number of options exist potentially for addressing such an incompatibility. First, even though the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, it was a possibility to petition the House of Lords. It was the Government's view that there was no discernible error of law in the Court of Appeal's judgment and in addition, the judgment was not out of line with the thrust of government policy intentions for new mental health legislation as set out in the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act.
Next, consideration was given to introducing legislation to amend the relevant sections of the Mental Health Act, but that approach was rejected on the grounds that the amendments needed fell outside the scope of any planned Bills. It would not be appropriate to introduce amending legislation on that matter before Parliament had an opportunity to consider a new Mental Health Bill in its entirety.
The Government are committed to introducing a Bill to replace the Mental Health Act as soon as time is available, but to wait for that would lead to an
602
unacceptable delay in remedying the incompatibility. The Secretary of State therefore decided that in the circumstances, making a remedial order would be the best approach.
Under provisions in the Human Rights Act there are two procedures for introducing a remedial order: the "ordinary procedure" and the "urgent procedure". As it would imply, in the case of an urgent procedure an order may be made if it appears that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make an order without the draft having first been approved by Parliament.
At the outset the Secretary of State intended to use the ordinary procedure to give Parliament the opportunity to review and debate the order before it came into effect. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that the remedying of an incompatibility which could affect the liberty of individuals should be regarded as an urgent matter and that the change in the law proposed was relatively simple and uncontroversial. In the light of that view the Secretary of State decided to make an order under the urgent procedure.
The committee also raised a number of other questions. It was in general satisfied with the responses, except that it considered that it would have been appropriate to include a statutory compensation scheme in the remedial order. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, proposed that any claims for compensation should he handled on an ex gratia basis. While expressing its disappointment that its suggestion was not accepted, the committee did not insist on it and agreed that the proposal to deal with any claims for compensation on an ex gratia basis will, if applied fairly and justly, forestall any further legal challenge.
I shall speak briefly on the context for this change. The House will be aware that the Government are committed to reforming the Mental Health Act 1983 because of the significant developments in the way in which patients with mental health problems are treated have come about. New drug treatments and different patterns of care make it generally necessary and important to do so, let alone the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, which also make necessary the need for reform. However, as the House is aware, there is no legislative slot at present for that.
In addition, new legislation on its own will not be sufficient. There need to be effective community-based services that are acceptable to those who need to use them, improving mental health services. Without detaining the House, the Government published in the National Service Framework for Mental Health, the broad thrust of how they intend to move forward making significant improvements in the standard of mental health services. The NHS Plan builds on the work which has been done previously.
The Government have committed themselves to a radical reform of mental health service provision and of the mental health legislation that underpins it. But to achieve such an ambitious programme of change

603
requires time. That is why we are taking action through the remedial order to ensure that the existing legislation is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR. I am satisfied that the order, as it stands, ensures that the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act are now compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore afford better protection of patients' rights. I commend the Order to the House.
Moved, that the order laid before the House on 19th November 2001 be approved [6th Report from the Human Rights Committed].—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the order before us tonight. Perhaps I may say at the outset that we on these Benches support the order. It is clearly necessary for the Government to remedy the incompatibility between the 1983 Mental Health Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have two sets of questions for the Minister. The first concerns the clear preference of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for a compensation scheme to have been contained in the order, to which the Minister referred in his introduction, and to the decision of the Department of Health to operate an ex gratia scheme. He also referred to the words of the Joint Committee, which were that it hoped that
"the proposed ex gratia scheme will be applied justly and appropriately"
in part to forestall the possibility of further legal challenge.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to state the status of the ex gratia scheme. Has a scheme actually been drafted? When will the scheme be made public? What arrangements are there for such a scheme to be drawn to the attention of those who might be eligible?
My second question concerns the Government's proposals for other legislative provisions which contain similar burden of proof issues. Several respondents to the Joint Committee drew attention to Section 72(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 which deals with applications to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in the context of guardianship. Liberty drew attention to a non-health area, which is the Discretionary Lifer Panels of the Parole Board under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Both have burden of proof provisions which will be open to the criticism which led to the incompatibility declaration in the case which resulted in this order. What plans do the Government have to remedy these provisions so as to avoid further challenges under human rights legislation?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the order. I think that Opposition spokesmen probably should benefit from the Human Rights Act in terms of cruel and unusual treatment, being deprived of refreshment post-Committee stage. However, I am delighted that in a
604
sense this is a rather historic occasion as this is the first order of its kind under the Human Rights Act, which we on these Benches strongly supported.
The court having made its decision in March last year in Regina(H) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region, it was right to remove the requirement that the burden of proof should be placed upon the patient. We very much support that, and I am very pleased that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was so positive about the general tenor of the order.
However, a number of matters flow from what the Minister has said. I should like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the briefing note that was sent around before the debate. It was a very clear and useful way to explain what was in the order to those of us who have not been covering that closely the proposal for an order. It is quite interesting that the actual draft order was tabled last July. Whether it was the ordinary or the urgent procedure it seems rather a slow process. The court decided on the case in March. Yet, here we are a year later faced with an order of this kind. In the meantime, we do not know but it may well be that patients have been prejudiced by the failure to amend the order. Some response is required about future earnest as to whether or not in the future this can be achieved rather more quickly, as a year seems to be rather excessive for what was then regarded as a fairly urgent matter.
There are other matters that the Minister mentioned in his introduction. I welcomed the Minister's statement of the intention to bring forward a new mental health Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. From these Benches I would certainly like to place on record that that mental health Bill is long overdue. The review took place some years ago; the debate took place some years ago. It has been extremely unfortunate from the mental patient's point of view that in a sense that debate has been allowed to die down. We will have to freshen the public debate about issues such as capacity and powers of detention and so on and, in a sense, re-enter that whole public debate which was started so effectively by the review that took place a year after the Government came to power.
Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights was clearly disappointed by the Government's views and decision only to institute an ex gratia system. I found the note circulated by the department slightly misleading in that respect. The note states:
"They agreed, however, that the proposal to deal with any claims of compensation on an ex gratia basis will, if applied fairly and justly, forestall any further legal challenge".
Looking at the sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it seemed to me that they were rather more equivocal than that. Paragraph 28 states that,
"we continue to believe that the failure to include in the remedial order a provision allowing a person detained in breach of Article 5 by virtue of the previously incompatible legislation to claim compensation as of right would automatically give rise to a violation of Article 5(5) if it proved that that person had been affected by the incompatibility".

605
I do not know whether those two statements are themselves compatible. But it seems to me that this is a rather blither interpretation of that than it should be. I should like to ask the Minister whether serious consideration has been given to whether there is a risk of challenge if it is purely an ex gratia scheme; and where the Minister places the likelihood of a challenge being successful. Those are my comments.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the helpful way in which they have responded to this order. It is a significant historic occasion. It is the first time that we have seen remedial legislation under the Human Rights Act. That in part explains the Government's caution in the way that they proceeded initially under the non-urgent procedure.
I turn first to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as to why there is not a statutory scheme. In short, there are two reasons: first, there was some legal advice that a statutory scheme could create further legal problems in putting some cases outside, some subsequent tribunal decisions having made them null and void.
The second reason—which is more substantial—is that the ex gratia scheme will give a significantly greater scope for beneficial flexibility on behalf of any potential claimants. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples. A statutory scheme would require a patient to demonstrate that, were it not for the incompatibility, he would have been discharged, which is the proper test legally for damages, whereas an ex gratia scheme, which is based on this notion, is flexible enough to allow the Government to meet claims that do not strictly satisfy the test where it is just to do so.
Further, a statutory scheme would have time limits for claims to which it must adhere, whereas an ex gratia scheme allows more flexibility. Where the patient is not able to demonstrate conclusively that the incompatibility led to his continued detention, the Government could under an ex gratia scheme consider what case he had been able to make out and to take a view on compensation accordingly. We believe that there are likely to be extremely few cases. But in practice we hope that it will give a little more flexibility to make judgments which in the circumstances are benign rather than harsh.
The noble Baroness also asked about the status of the scheme. Essentially the levels of compensation of the scheme in such cases would be set according to the Strasbourg conventions. So there would be principles that would underpin it. The Government do not have a fully worked out scheme at this stage. But we shall he looking on a case by case basis and seeking to apply the Strasbourg principles to any cases that come forward.
The noble Baroness also raised a question about how this will be brought to the attention of any interested bodies. I strongly agree that that is a relevant issue. As soon as the incompatibility was apparent in terms of the Court of Appeal's judgment, the Government wrote to a range of bodies—the most
606
significant of which for these purposes was the Law Society—bringing the matter to their attention. In the circumstances I can see that nothing would be lost by the Government again writing to the Law Society and all other interested bodies on, one trusts, the confirmation of this order, further drawing the attention of lawyers (who represent nearly 100 per cent of all such people) to the potential for making claims in what are relatively tight circumstances, should they believe that they have a case to make. The Government would not want anyone not to be able to make a legitimate claim through ignorance—without wanting to raise hopes of there being a vast army of such people able to do so.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, on a point of clarification. When evidence was given to the Joint Committee, much reference was made to an ex grata scheme. It was referred to several times in a letter from a Department of Health Minister. As I understand it, the Minister is now saying that there is no scheme—that there is a set of principles but it will be applied on an ad hoc basis. Is there a scheme to which a body—perhaps the Law Society, although I encourage Department of Health to consult a little wider among any bodies that may represent patients and ale concerned with their rights to compensation—can look to know what they can expect from the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the principles of compensation will be determined, first, by the Strasbourg principles, which concern for how long a person had been detained against his will without adequate evidence to justify his detention. The level c f compensation will be determined based on case law and principles, of which there is a considerable amount, in all the circumstances. Then an offer will be made by the department to the person's lawyer. I am confident that that will be clone fairly. When we spoke with officials earlier this week, both my fellow Minister, Jacqui Smith, and I stressed the importance of clear principles, clear propriety and fairness.
I should also stress the question of numbers. It is perfectly possible that there will be no such cases whatsoever. Of course, that does not for a second mean that we should not ensure that the process is properly provided for. On the other hand, the circumstances are fairly rare. The Joint Committee recognised that it was perfectly possible that there would be no such cases.
With regard to guardianship, it does not deprive liberty, so there is no incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998.
I turn to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. First, he asked: why is the order before the House in April when it was tabled in July? The first order was tabled under the non-urgent procedure. It was therefore retabled in November under the urgent procedure.
The effect of that was that on the following day, I think, it came into immediate effect. That therefore remedied the incompatibility, but 120 days are allowed

607
from the making of the order until its final ratification by Parliament—that is, 120 parliamentary rather than calendar days. Although that appears to be a long time, in practice it was a product of the movement from the non-urgent to the urgent procedure in the light of the JCHR's advice and no delay was suffered by the public as a consequence of using the urgent procedure, because the order was effective in November.
The final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, concerned the need for legislation to replace the 1983 Act, which is itself largely based on 1950s legislation. The Government—certainly the Department of Health—could not agree more with the noble Lord. Clearly, that issue will find its usual place in discussion on the Government's future legislative priorities, and one can but wish it God speed in that process. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity and Gas (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2002
8.24 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order laid before the House on 28th February be approved.
The effect of the order is to introduce measures to determine turnover for gas and electricity licensees for the purpose of calculating the maximum financial penalty that may be applied by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority in any particular case.
The order will complete the arrangements to provide for financial penalties to be imposed on gas and electricity licensees who breach licence conditions or certain requirements imposed by the Gas Act 1986, or the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by the Utilities Act 2000, or who fail to achieve prescribed standards of performance. The powers for the regulatory authority to impose financial penalties are intended to have a strong deterrent effect on breaches of conditions and requirements and failure to meet standards of performance. That is important to secure fair treatment for customers and fair competition in the market.
Licensees who take care to meet their obligations have nothing to fear. Those who are less careful will need to take note and mend their ways. The main outcome we seek is not lots of fines but good standards of compliance. The House will recognise the importance of achieving better standards for customers through better compliance by gas and electricity companies.
The Utilities Act 2000 made provision for financial penalties to be imposed by the authority, subject to certain safeguards. The Act provides that the
608
maximum penalty is 10 per cent of turnover and that turnover is to be determined by order. The amount of the penalty must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In deciding whether to impose a penalty and on its amount, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority must have regard to its published statement of policy. Those principles are set out in the primary legislation. Together, they provide significant comfort that any penalties imposed will be fair and reasonable.
There are two aspects to defining turnover: the scope and the period. The Act states that the turnover to be taken into account is that of the licensee. That defines the scope. Turnover for the purposes of the Act is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the order from the entire turnover of the licensee derived from provision of goods and services falling within all the ordinary activities of the licensee—not merely those activities taking place in Great Britain.
The order defines the period for which the turnover is to be computed as the business year preceding the issue of a notice by the authority that it intends to impose a penalty. Where there is no preceding business year, the order provides that the turnover should be the turnover of the licensee for the preceding 12 months. Where there is turnover for less than 12 months, the order provides that the turnover should be grossed up accordingly.
Those measures represent a fair implementation of the provisions of the Act, with appropriate safeguards in place. I also draw the attention of the House to the statement of policy on financial penalties by the authority published by Ofgem. Implementation of the order will provide a sound and fair basis for calculating the turnover. I can confirm that, in my view, the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the convention rights and I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [22nd Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual clear explanation of the order, which was received by the committee on delegated legislation in the other place with unanimity, as I am sure that it will be here.
I should like to make only one minor point. Not only do I thank the Minister for his explanation, I congratulate the energy policy directorate of the Department of Trade and Industry on its excellent background briefing note, which saved me a great deal of research time, as I am sure that it did for the Members of the House of Commons committee. That is in marked contrast to the Explanatory Notes printed with the order, which were rightly criticised as "wholly inadequate" by the honourable Member for Thurrock.
In theory, as public documents, such orders and notes may be read by ordinary members of the public, as distinct from specialists in the field. As the Explanatory Note is not part of the order, as it states in its heading, perhaps the Secretary of State would care to consider substituting his department's

609
parliamentary brief for that of the draft order. I also hope that in the case of future orders on any of the complex subjects with which the DTI deals, it will consider writing Explanatory Notes as if they are to read by a layman, as distinct from a specialist.
The Minister in another place was asked by the honourable Member for Hazel Grove what would happen to penalties, which, in the case of the gas and electricity industries, could be substantial sums. The honourable gentleman pointed out that in the case of the penalties payable in respect of the renewables obligations, they were to be recycled to the industry. The Minister did not reply. Can the Minister tell us about that today?
Although, as I said, I do not like the Explanatory Notes, I am pleased to concur with the draft order, on behalf of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on finally convincing me that I had understood the order. I have read it several times today. The Explanatory Notes have already received sufficient—shall we say—damning praise; it was not the clearest document that any of us have ever read.
I read the proceedings in the House of Commons, and most of the interesting stuff consisted of stories and anecdotes about dreadful mis-selling fiascos. However, as was made clear then, the order has nothing to do with those; it is merely concerned with the calculation of penalties. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of one or two of those penalties might feel that 10 per cent was rather a low figure, but I cannot make any criticism of the document in front of us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to the order by both noble Lords. The only substantial point that I must answer relates to what happens to the money raised in financial penalties. It goes into the Consolidated Fund. I am sure that taxpayers will be glad to hear that.
This order is not like the renewables order, which is designed to achieve a particular environmental effect, such as the climate change levy, in a revenue-neutral way. The renewables order is not an attempt to raise money from the industry, and it is not a penalty. Those who lose out under the renewables order have not done anything wrong; they must simply defer to the higher interest of the environment. Anyone who breaches the rules of the gas and electricity markets authority will have done something wrong. It is right that they should be penalised and that the taxpayer should benefit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
8.33 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 18 [Supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 not moved.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 23, line 27, after "Authority," insert "an overview and scrutiny committee or joint committee within the meaning of sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15),"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 119, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 120, 122 and 149.
As the Committee will know, I have criticised the Government's proposals for patient and public involvement on several grounds. Perhaps my most fundamental objection to the new arrangements that are to replace CHCs is their fragmented structure. If we are to minimise the effect of that fragmentation, we must ensure that the bodies tasked with different aspects of the watchdog remit perform the functions that they are supposed to perform and communicate properly with each other As far as possible, in other words, the system should be joined-up.
The scrutiny function currently undertaken by CHCs is being transferred to the overview and scrutiny committees of the local authorities. The inspection function is to be transferred to patients forums. In another place, the Government helpfully accepted an amendment that gave patients forums the right to refer matters of concern to the overview and scrutiny committees. However, it is noticeable that, under the current wording of the Bill, the OSCs have no specific duty to act upon such referrals. There should be no constraints on OSCs in reaching their conclusions on matters referred to them, but they should have a duty to consider them.
Similarly, when an overview and scrutiny committee receives a report or a recommendation from a patients forum—perhaps following an inspection—there should be no loophole in the law that would give it an excuse to sit back and do nothing about it. It should be required to comment on the report or recommendation. My amendment would confer that duty on OSCs.
The flow of information should be in two directions. In setting about its work, an overview and scrutiny committee may have access to all kinds of relevant information at local authority level that could usefully inform the work of the patients forum. For example, there may be relevant information about the costs c r other aspects of private sector contracts or partnership arrangements. My amendment would ensure that the regulations allow for the provision of information by an overview and scrutiny committee to a patients forum. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I shall speak to Amendment No. 149, which deals with the question of the duty of overview and scrutiny committees to carry out the scrutiny function. I shall be brief, for we have discussed this already.

611
We believe that it is a flaw in the original Health and Social Care Act 2001 that there is no duty to carry out scrutiny functions. The Act is simply permissive. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the National Health Service Act 1977 puts each community health council under a duty to,
"represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district; and
(b) to perform such other functions as may be conferred on it".
The CHC regulations of 1996 expanded on that duty. Regulation 17 placed a duty on each CHC to,
"keep under review the operation of the health service in its district, to make recommendations for the improvement of that service and to advise any health authority upon such matters relating to the operation of the health service within its district as the Council thinks fit".
It would seem that, in some senses, we are going backwards, if there is to be no duty. Everyone accepts that the power of scrutiny is important. Without a duty, some local authorities could choose not to exercise the power, leaving the local community without CHCs—or, if the Minister had his way, patient councils—or OSCs scrutinising the National Health Service. That would be a retrograde step.
Lord Filkin: The introduction of overview and scrutiny by local government, under the Local Government Act 2000, gives people a genuine say in their local services. In the case of health, that will, for the first time, make the NHS answerable for its performance to locally elected councillors and to the local community, through the local authority. That will go a considerable way towards ending the democratic deficit that has long been recognised as an issue for the NHS. It is relevant to the discussion of the amendments to say how warmly that has been welcomed by local authorities and by local government collectively, through the LGA. It has long been argued for, and the best local authorities have tried to perform elements of it, without a particularly affirmed role. The Government are confident that there will be a positive response, albeit that such things take time to bed in.
A key principle for the Government is the right of the public to expect its concerns over major changes to health services to be expressed through a form of scrutiny process. Local NHS bodies must consult their local authority overview and scrutiny committees on substantial developments of the health service in the council area, as well as on any proposals to make substantial variations to the provision of such services. This in itself is a very major change in terms of recognising the duty to consult and involve. Overview and scrutiny provides a way of ensuring that needs have been properly identified and that services delivered by local partners do promote the well-being of the local communities they are designed to serve.
However, we do not think it necessary to place a duty on local government to scrutinise the NHS with quite the formality that has been suggested. We think it appropriate for local government, in the context of its responsibilities for the well-being of local
612
populations, to take into account the health services of those people, which of course is why the power was given under the Local Government Act 2000 to promote the overall well-being of local communities. Again, that was very strongly welcomed by local authorities and government when it was introduced.
Locally elected representatives should make their own decisions about what scrutiny activity takes place. One cannot believe in local authorities as the representatives of their communities in the diverse circumstances in which they find themselves and then not give them the freedom to make judgments about what areas of health service performance strike them as being of priority for scrutiny at any particular point in time. For that reason, we have provided the power for them to scrutinise the NHS as they deem appropriate.
We have placed duties on the NHS to provide information and to consult with OSCs. Thus the Government have affirmed the importance of the role of the OSCs by those very measures. We shall also set out in regulations the arrangements by which NHS staff will be required to attend OSC meetings. To add further to these arrangements by compelling OSCs to undertake their scrutiny functions would, we believe, be going too far. These decisions are best made by councillors elected by local people.
Concerns have been expressed that some local authorities might not be very serious about these functions. On the one hand, one recognises that all local authorities will go through a period of development and learning, which is why the Government, the LGA and others are serious to see that support and development is given in the shaping of these new roles. I find it inconceivable that the social services authorities, which are the relevant authorities for overview and scrutiny over health matters, would not have very strong areas of concern and interest. Therefore they will treat their overview and scrutiny functions very seriously indeed. One would expect these functions to be high up the list of issues, commanding considerable interest in a local authority. In the remote circumstances that one authority might be slower off the mark than others, I should have thought that it would be castigated by its public for such a gross failure to act as its voice and advocate on health matters.
Amendment No. 119 seeks to give patients forums powers to require information from local authority overview and scrutiny committees. We think this degree of power is too wide and inappropriate. We certainly wish to encourage good communication links between forums and OSCs; indeed, we have already amended the Bill to give forums the power of referral to OSCs.
I would suggest that Amendment No. 120 flies in the face of giving the power to scrutinise the NHS to an independent body. We have always said that local government must take a view on what action to take in respect of its responsibilities for the well-being of local people. It is in this context that decisions and actions taken by OSCs should be governed. Requiring them to

613
respond to and act upon referrals from patients forums is out of kilter with our whole approach, in that OSCs are not the servants of them. If a local authority OSC believes that a response or action is appropriate, then it is free to do so. Compelling an independent body from the centre is not appropriate.
However, we hope and expect overview and scrutiny committees and patients forums increasingly to recognise their overlapping areas of interest. They will have differing functions, but clearly they could provide strong mutual support for one another. The thrust of government advice and implementation will be very strongly to promote that kind of joint co-operation, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has quite rightly advocated, underpinning the purpose of his proposed amendment.
In the light of the very strong support expressed by local government for powers of overview and scrutiny over the health service, I do not think that there is a need to go so far as to place a specific duty here, because we have considerable confidence that, over a period of years, this will develop into a powerful and important new way of contributing to improvements in the health service and reflecting the interests of local people in health service provision in their area.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am not an expert in local government matters. Before he sits down, can the Minister explain what consideration has been given to providing resources for local authorities to enable them to carry out their overview and scrutiny role?
Lord Filkin: It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord that such matters form part of the Budget considerations and will form part of the considerations for the Comprehensive Spending Review itself. Whenever it imposes a new duty on local government, the DTLR is under an obligation to make an assessment of the resource impact of that duty. Therefore, from April this year it will form a part of the SSA settlement made to local authorities. In the future, these will be matters considered by the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If the Government do not know whether a local authority is going to do this and, if it does, to what extent it will undertake the new role, how will they know what resources to make available?
Lord Filkin: There are traditional negotiations and discussions between the finance specialists at the Local Government Association and the finance specialists in the DTLR. Without going into excessive detail, between them they attempt to estimate what will be the cost burden of such new functions.
We should recognise that, in these matters, local authorities are free to set their own priorities as regards where they putt the burden of their expenditure. Thus
614
there are traditional expenditure negotiation routes between the LGA and the DTLR to make such assessments.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may ask a further question. Is there any intention to gather information about the resources devoted by local authorities to the functions of overview and scrutiny? The argument that is current, with which I agree, is that the full vigour may not be applied by every local authority to the role of overview and scrutiny, which will be reflected in the resources the authority devotes to it. However, I think it is important for information about the resources devoted to the role to be made available in future financial years.
Lord Filkin: Speaking as one who knows and loves local government very well, I can guarantee that authorities will say that they do not have sufficient resources. It would be a strange world if they did not do so. More seriously, however, I am pretty confident that the DTLR has under way two research studies on the operation of overview and scrutiny committees, given that this is such a substantial and important new development for local government. I can do no more than say that we shall draw to their attention the interest there might be in monitoring the resource impact as a part of those studies, if the terms of reference of those studies make that possible.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I was pleased to hear him confirm that the Government are fully in favour of promoting joint cooperation between patients forums and overview and scrutiny committees. I agree that the system being set up in relation to OSCs has the potential to perform a useful function, but the question I ask is why, for the past 20-odd years, it has been appropriate to give local communities a guarantee that their health services would be scrutinised, but now that is no longer appropriate. I do not know what has made that unnecessary.
As I said earlier, I want to see the new system working well, because as the Bill is drafted, at least on the face of it the proposals will give us a less robust system than we have at the moment. There is no guarantee that overview and scrutiny committees will scrutinise health issues and no redress if they do not do so. One can imagine all kinds of things interfering with the best intentions. Priorities always have to be set and agreed at local government level and party politics play a part. One can envisage the system perhaps not working as smoothly as the Minister has made out. On the basis of what he has said, we can only hope that the intentions will be borne out.
Lord Filkin: It may help if I give some illustrations of the range of areas of interest between local government and the health of communities which make it almost inconceivable that overview and scrutiny would not be treated seriously, albeit it in different ways in different areas and treating certain issues more frequently.

615
Overview and scrutiny committees will not duplicate what the patients forums will do. It would be surprising if they spent large amounts of time looking at whether emergency care functions in A&E were working well in a local hospital. Clearly the patient forum is much better placed to do that. On the other hand, one would expect that they would look at issues affecting public health—for instance, smoking cessation campaigns, promotion of positive health, the impact of transport facilities on health and the impact of a range of other issues such as housing conditions, housing and insulation on health. They would look across the piece at how, for example, disabled people may be being treated in the community and how that interconnected with health.
They will help the health service not simply by looking again at a particular function of the NHS—which the patients forums may do—but by looking thematically or from the point of view of a particular interest, a particular group of people or a particular service with which they themselves are concerned, by seeing the interconnection with the health service and by recognising the need to strengthen those interconnections more effectively for the public.
There are myriad connections and interests. The committees will not carry out these functions in the same way but it is most unlikely that they will not see them as important functions.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that additional clarification. It was very helpful in fleshing out our understanding of what the overview and scrutiny committees will do. I shall read carefully what the Minister said between now and Report stage. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 120 to 126 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 127 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 24, line 21, after "Commission" insert "shall represent the interests in the health service of patients and the wider community and"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 128 and the associated amendments seek to ensure that the new proposed Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is not limited in its functions.
There are enough experts and noble Lords with a local government background in the Committee today to know that statutory bodies are able to carry out only activities and functions conferred on them by statute, otherwise they would be acting ultra vires. They are powerless to extend their own remit. Any act they perform which is outside the limits placed on them in legislation will be subject to legal challenge.
At present, community health councils and the Association of Community Health Councils are able to carry out a wide variety of activities because the enabling statute provides that each CHC is to,
"represent the interests in the health service of the public in its district and … to perform such other functions as may be conferred on it by virtue of paragraph 2 below".
The statute also provides that ACHCEW, the Association of Community Health Councils, will,
"advise Councils with respect to the performance of their functions, and to assist councils in the performance of their functions; and … to perform such other functions as may be prescribed".
That is contained in the 1977 Act.
Through being charged with advising and assisting CHCs, ACHCEW is thus able to benefit from the wide remit afforded to CHCs. If Clause 19 remains unamended, the commission, for example, will be unable to carry out many of ACHCEW's current functions. These include research and policy work; conducting casualty watch type exercises; running or engaging in national campaigns or making donations to those campaigns; campaigning about national changes of policy affecting the health service; commenting on guidance issued by bodies such as the GMC beyond those concerns which may fall within the remit of Clause 19(6); and taking legal proceedings. Activities such as these would be ultra vires.
To some extent, this is the converse of the previous amendment relating to the powers of patients forums at local level. It applies in equal measure in terms of the national scene and the commission's powers at national level. If the Government are genuine in their desire to empower patients and the public, they need to expand the commission's remit.
It would be useful at this stage—there will not be many opportunities to do so—if the Minister could indicate the kind of funding that may be available for the commission in carrying out its powers. Whatever view the Minister has about the width of those powers, we believe that there is a danger that the commission will be under-resourced and not have an adequate staffing level. As the efficacy of patients forums will rely heavily on the staffing provided by the commission, that would be extremely dangerous. It would mean that the new system will not work in anything like the way that the Government hope that it will.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 135 are ancillary amendments which follow Amendment No. 128. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: The creation of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health is a critical change in the Government's proposals and is of extreme importance. I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am slightly confused about the way in which it is worded. It seems to me that subsection (2)(g) almost achieves what he seeks to put into the preamble about the commission's functions.

617
The only difference is that subsection 2(g) refers to the views of members of the public whereas his amendment refers to the interests of the public.
That is an important and critical distinction. I should like to see a situation whereby the commission was able to present its own judgment on the interests of the public and, at the same time, have an obligation to present the views of the public. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has worded his amendment deliberately or whether it is an accident of drafting.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This brings us to the very important role of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. As my noble friend Lord Harris suggested, it is an important part of the whole package of measures designed to improve public and patient involvement. They build on the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his original work in relation to a national body.
It was apparent during the passage of the original Bill that a national body with a remit for overseeing the delivery of the Government's proposals was a missing link from the proposals. The commission will have an important role to play in future as an independent body that operates at arm's length from the department. It will have roles nationally and locally across the country.
In earlier debates my noble friend Lord Harris urged a national body to play a role in encouraging a high standard of performance in relation to local patient involvement bodies. Crucially, the commission will set standards for patients forums and providers of independent complaints advocacy. It will also report to the Government on the implementation of the new structures. The commission will have the explicit role of working in communities to ensure that local people have a say in decisions that affect their health and the health services. It will do that by promoting local consultation exercises—advertising them where they might not normally be advertised; helping people to get involved; giving people the necessary skills and confidence to contribute by organising training courses; and suggesting different ways for them to contribute.
The commission will also have a key role in developing and promoting innovative ways of getting people involved—especially segments of the population who traditionally might not become involved, such as people from ethnic minority groups, older people, people with disabilities and homeless people.
Amendment No. 128 would add the new function to the commission of representing the interests of patients and the wider community. We discussed that particular form of wording in relation to patients forums. The arguments that I used then apply equally to the commission. I do not believe that it is appropriate for an appointed body to be given such an all-embracing power, which should lie with Parliament. The noble Lord suggests too wide a
618
function for the commission to undertake. It is being established specifically to empower patients and the public, not to speak on behalf of the entire population. The commission's work of empowering the voices of local people will allow real changes to be made.
Amendment No. 133 would add a function to provide staff, facilities and services to patients forums. The Bill already makes it clear in Clause 19(2)(d) that the commission will support the work of patients forums. By that we specifically mean that the commission's staff will provide information, briefing, administrative support and help to plan activities. More important is the commission's role in developing the capacity of forums to play their role. I re-emphasise the running of training places; developing the skills and competence of forum members; and devising effective work programmes.
The noble Lord asked about resources. He is premature in terms of receiving a direct response but clearly there would be little point in establishing such a commission if it were not effectively resourced to meet the serious responsibilities being laid upon it.
Amendment No. 135 provides for the commission to exercise its functions by reference to overview and scrutiny committee areas instead of primary care trust areas. There is an argument both ways but the Government's preference for PCTs in the Bill makes clear our commitment to the commission working at local community level. The PCT level is the right one, although of course the commission will feed into OSCs, as the reporting arrangements in the Bill make explicit.
The Bill's reference to primary care trusts spells out the intention that the commission will get into local communities and promote patient and public involvement at the level where front-line services are decided and funded. I well understand why the noble Lord wants to make a link at OSC level hut, given the particular responsibilities of PCTs and that they are the principal public health authority, there is a persuasive argument for the commission paying particular attention to the PCT level.
We understand that there are other important connections and that informing the scrutiny process critical. We have taken account of that in the commission's reporting arrangements. The connection to the performance management of local NHS organisations is also critical, so we have ensured that the commission reports to the strategic health authorities.
I do not apologise for saying that shifting the balance to PCTs and the areas that they cover is important in relation to public and patient care involvement—as to many of the other decentralisation measures, which is a theme running through the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones: The Minister seemed to miss out most of the red meat of public debate. Is he saying that it will not be possible for the commission to engage in a national campaign or one about policy changes affecting the health service? Will it not be able to comment on guidance issued by professional bodies

619
that are not acute trusts or PCTs? Is the Minister saying that the campaigning element will be completely absent?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The commission will have a crucial role in bringing to the Government's attention issues relating to the way in which the health service is involving the public in local decision making. Clause 19(2)(b) gives a clear function in advising the Secretary of State in relation to advocacy services. Subsection (2)(c) gives the commission a clear function in representing to the Secretary of State and to other prescribed bodies arrangements in relation to patients forums. It allows the commission to provide assistance to patients forums, to advise and assist providers of independent advocacy services, and to set quality standards. Those seem to me to be wide-ranging functions which will enable the whole public involvement in the NHS to be much more effective than it is at present.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am sure that the Minister is quite genuine in his response. However, the worry in relation to Clause 19 is that we are merely creating a tame poodle—that the commission will not have teeth. I know that this Government are not particularly fond of public debate, but those who want to see the commission prosper want it to be able to engage in public debate, to represent the interests of local patients and the public and to be able to debate and campaign in a robust way. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a democracy in regard to what is probably the most important area of public service that we have.
There is the huge suspicion—which I share—that Clause 19 represents an emasculation of what we already have. I recognise the Minister's sincerity. I am sure that lawyers will pore over his words as they will be used to interpret Clause 19 in due course, and to that extent they may find his words helpful. However, there is the suspicion that the provision does not go nearly far enough. That is a matter of great regret.
I hope that the Minister will consider the matter further. I share the view that at national level the commission is an important body. Where we clearly differ—as in the debate on patients' councils—is on what role the commission should play at local level and whether people should rely on what is effectively a government body to do the campaigning for them at local level.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In my reference to Clause 19 I missed out subsection (2)(g), which states that the commission has the function of,
"representing to persons and bodies which exercise functions in relation to any area … the views of members of the public in that area about matters affecting their health".
That goes very wide.
Lord Clement-Jones: Those are slightly weasel words. I did not respond to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for which I apologise. The positioning of the
620
amendment at the beginning of the clause was designed to elicit a response from the Minister at large, rather than in regard to the individual subsections.
I still do not believe that that gives a great deal of comfort. It is highly targeted forms of representation—not, for instance, a media campaign—which would be legitimised by paragraph (g). I believe that the Minister would have to accept that in terms of the interpretation of the clause.
Everything is carefully parcelled up. I am sure that these clauses have been drafted for a purpose. The thinking has been: "Yes, but we must not give them too much". That is the key worry. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. However, we may wish to return to it. I believe, in common with many others, that the powers of the commission will be crucial. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129 to 131 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 132 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 133 to 136 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 85, line 2, leave out from beginning to second "the"
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may pick up a further strand relating to the commission. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will speak to the remainder of the amendments in this group. I shall not elaborate on the issue at great length.
The point has arisen that the commission should be free of the trammels of the Secretary of State. This is a running theme throughout the Bill. Most of us on the Opposition Benches are agreed that the Bill—despite having the intention of decentralisation—in actuality takes considerable extra power for the Secretary of State. This is just another example. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will be subject to directions given by the Secretary of State. Effectively, therefore, it will be the creature of the Secretary of State.
If the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues really wanted to give the assurance that this body would be a robust public representative that could challenge and scrutinise and do all the things that it needs to do, they would agree to the removal of these words. It should be wholly independent of the Secretary of State and of any possible political interference and, if it were, it would enjoy much greater all-party support and, no doubt, that of patients' organisations as well. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 141. I am sorry to say that, due to an error, Amendment No. 140 was withdrawn without reference to me, but I trust that I may speak to it briefly.

621
The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which is to be established under Clause 19, will, as the Minister said, have a major role to play in ensuring that the new arrangements that will replace CHCs really work. At national level, it will have the task of issuing guidance and providing training, as well as advising the Secretary of State. At local level, its function will be to support the work of patients forums and to provide wider community involvement in local health decisions. Just as patients forums need to be independent of the trusts to which they relate, so too does the commission need to be independent. What is more, it needs to be seen to be so.
It is, therefore, anomalous that Schedule 6 to the Bill should provide for the chairman of the commission to be appointed by the Secretary of State. There should be a bottom-up, rather than a top-down, approach to appointments in the commission. The first chairman of the commission is, perhaps, a separate case, but even he or she should be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission rather than by the Secretary of State. Subsequent chairmen should, in my view, be appointed by members of the commission. That formula would ensure that the commission was independent, and it would remove any possibility of political interference. Unless the commission is independent in that sense, it cannot gain the full confidence of patients' organisations. We would do well to bear in mind that the Secretary of State does not even appoint the chairmen of NHS trusts nowadays. So one has to ask why he should have the power of appointment over the chairmanship of a body such as this, which has a much greater need than any NHS trust to prove an absence of political bias.
Then we come to the membership itself. If the majority of members of the commission are nominated and elected by patients forums, that will ensure its democratic accountability to the main patients' representation bodies. That is what Amendment No. 139 proposes. Similarly, I ask why it should be the Secretary of State who appoints the first chief executive. The chairman and members of the commission should do that themselves; they should also determine the terms and conditions of his or her employment. The chief executive must have credibility as an independently appointed champion of patient representation. That will hardly be the case if people regard him or her as a political appointee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: These amendments concern the level of control and accountability that the Secretary of State has with regard to the commission in two areas: appointments and funding. Schedule 6 is based on standard guidance from the Cabinet Office on the setting up of executive non-departmental public bodies, and replicates what has already been applied in the case of the Commission for Health Improvement.
The commission will be an independent organisation, but, because it is to be publicly funded, there has to be some form of formal accountability to Parliament, in addition to its making annual reports to the Secretary of State. The clauses and the schedule in
622
the Bill before your Lordships tonight are based on that principle. Because the functions of the commission will be set out in statute, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to Parliament and to the public to ensure that it is able to carry them out. One of the ways of making that possible is through the key appointments to the commission.
The chair and the chief executive will need to be able to account for the commission's actions to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, is accountable to Parliament. This process provides Parliament with a tool for holding Ministers to account over the performance of non-departmental public bodies. I do not believe that the commission is different from any of the other important non-departmental bodies that have been established in relation to the National Health Service.
Amendment No. 138 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to appoint the chair. If the Secretary of State did not appoint the first chair, who would? Although the Secretary of State could delegate the appointment to the NHS Appointments Commission—as he does in the case of local organisations—in the end, it is a Secretary of State appointment.
As I said earlier on Amendment No. 104A, it is a necessary part of the constitutional arrangements to ensure public accountability that the Secretary of State appoints the chair of the commission. I do not see why this commission should be seen as any different from any of the other seven executive non-departmental public bodies that the department is concerned with.
Amendment No. 141, which is consequential on Amendment No. 140, would remove the Secretary of State's ability to appoint the first chief executive of the commission. It is our intention that subsequent chief executives would be appointed by the commission, but it is not unusual when establishing new organisations for the Secretary of State to make the first appointment, as happened in the case of the Commission for Health Improvement. This is not to do with issues of independence; it is simply to do with the fact that unless the Secretary of State is able to make such an appointment, there can be a long delay before the chief executive is in place. We all agree that, because of its importance, the commission should be up and running as quickly as possible.
Amendment No. 139 makes the valid and interesting suggestion that appointments to the board should be elected and nominated by patients forums. However, it would turn the commission into a patients forum representative body. The commission has a vital role to play in relation to the work of patients forums, but it is not there simply to act as a mouthpiece for them. It is a national resource for everyone who wants to speak up on matters that affect their health.
We want the board members of the commission to be of the highest possible calibre. Recruitment of the chair, chief executive and board members will be through open competition. We want the net to be cast far and wide. It should certainly not be confined to patients forum nominees or representatives.

623
As I said on Amendment No. 104A with regard to CHI, the commission will be funded from public money. There has to be a mechanism for ensuring that the money allocated to it is spent on enabling it to discharge its functions. The suggestion in Amendments Nos. 137, 142, 143, 144 and 145 seems to be that the Secretary of State should have no power of direction over how the commission should spend the money it is allocated. Instead, that accountability would be provided only through conditions attached to funding. That approach is more limiting. It would restrict what the commission could spend its money on to what was set out in the conditions. Directions could be added throughout the year, thus giving more flexibility.
As I said on Amendment No. 104A, if a serious problem arose in relation to the commission's activity or governance that, for whatever reason, the commission was failing to address, it would surely be right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for how that body acts, should be able to take whatever action is necessary at the time. If a non-departmental public body receives funds from the Secretary of State, as in the case of the commission, it is appropriate and necessary for there to be some control to guard against financial impropriety and to ensure that the funds are applied for proper purposes, as set out in the Bill.
The Government want the commission to be as effective as possible. We want it to have as strong a membership and staff as can be. We shall do everything we can to support that. However, as with any non-departmental public body, there must also be safeguards for the public purse and public accountability. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I could just ask a question on the funding of the commission. So far as I know, there has been no indication from the Government thus far about the amount of funding available for the new structures. However, strong hints have been dropped within the Department of Health that the commission will be expected to subsist on even fewer staff than CHCs have nationally. If that is so, given that the commission is to have even more responsibilities than CHCs and that CHCs are already under-resourced, we may find ourselves looking at a system that is completely unable to function as currently envisaged.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could give the Committee at least some indication of the funding and staffing levels that he expects the commission to have. For example, given that the commission's role involves supporting patients forums as well as much else, will there be at least the equivalent of one full-time member of staff per patients forum? Has the Government's thinking advanced to that sort of level?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not in a position to respond in the detail that the noble Earl would like. These matters are still being discussed within the department, and of course we are subject to the normal processes of future budgeting. As for the resources
624
likely to be spent as a result of all the changes that are being made, as I said, I have absolutely no doubt that we shall be spending more resources and that there will be greater public and patient involvement in bodies such as the commission, the forums, the independent advocacy service, the patient advocacy and liaison services and even in local authority overview and scrutiny committees. There will undoubtedly be more resources and more people.
Although I cannot give more detail than that, I tell the noble Earl that we shall fund the commission as appropriate to perform its important functions. The commission has an important role to play in helping patients forums to be as effective as possible, and we shall have to ensure that it has the funds it needs to play that role effectively.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that coda. However, considering how long these proposals have been on the table and the length of the consultation, it is very disappointing that all he can say is that more resources will be available than there are now. That is not particularly reassuring and it does not provide any specifics on the precise nature of the resources. As resources are a pretty important part of the effectiveness of the arrangements, I should have thought that that subject would be uppermost in Ministers' minds. It is regrettable that we must consider the legislation in such circumstances.
We are getting better at rolling our tongues round the phrase "executive non-departmental public body". I am grateful to the Minister for telling us how many such bodies so far are accountable to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the Minister's speech amounted to saying, "Those are the constitutional arrangements, and the Secretary of State must have that control because he is accountable for these non-departmental public bodies". That is a very circular argument. There is absolutely no earthly reason why the commission should not be accountable to a Select Committee of the House of Commons or of this place, or indeed to a Joint Committee. The commission does not have to be accountable, ipso facto, to the Secretary of State.
If the Minister wishes to have fewer sleepless nights and worry less about the finances of all these executive non-departmental public bodies, it would do him a power of good to think laterally and perhaps about how these bodies can be made accountable to a Select Committee. That would be a healthy development.
I therefore do not buy into the Minister's constitutional argument, although it was quite novel and I congratulate him on his creativity in coming up with that constitutional view. Nevertheless, centralising power is not a constitutional necessity. It is perfectly possible to decentralise and to do so in a genuine way. I believe that the Government are looking down the wrong end of the telescope with this commission. They have got it completely the wrong way round. It should be a commission that relies from the bottom up on the strength of the community, patients and public on the ground, not on the Secretary

625
of State's fears. My amendments and those of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, all go in the same direction, which is trying to achieve a from the bottom up aspect.
I have no doubt that we shall be discussing these matters further, and I am sure that the Minister is in no doubt about the tenor of our remarks and the direction in which we want to go. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 140 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 86, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) Employees appointed under sub-paragraph (4) who provide support to a Patients' Forum or Patients' Forums established under section 15(1) in accordance with regulations made under section 18(2)(h), shall have work programmes agreed by the relevant Patients' Forum or Patients' Forums and by the Commission."
The noble Lord said: This is a specific but important point which relates to the way in which the work programmes of the staff who will be employed by the commission and who will support patients forums will be drawn up. I understand that there will be a diaspora of staff working for the commission. Understandably they will have a presence in each primary care trust area and they will relate to the patients forums and other organisations in those areas.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those staff at least carry out a work programme that has been approved, agreed or developed in consultation with the patients forums with which they will be working directly. Otherwise there is a danger that their work programme will be entirely set by the main commission and centrally driven, which is clearly not the Government's intention, which is about giving the patients forums the sort of freedom and facility to influence the local health services that they desire.
The amendment would ensure that those work programmes are developed in consultation with the line management arrangements, the national commission and the patients forums involving lay representatives at local level.
No doubt my noble friend will tell us that that is the intention, but it would be helpful if it were contained in the Bill, because my experience shows that over time, as the original intention diminishes into the past and new arrangements are spelt out, the commission may well take a much more directive view than was initially the case. That might then lead to a situation in which patients forums were not being provided with the support of staff whose work programmes they had some control over.
The amendment is saying not that all the work programmes of the staff will be directed by patients forums, but that they will be developed by the commission and the relevant patients' forums together
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to my noble friend. He has raised an important issue. While I do not wish to recommend accepting the amendment tonight, I reassure the Committee that we wish to see a strong partnership between the local forums and the national commission, not the dominance of the local forums by the national commission, which is the fear expressed by my noble friend.
There is no doubt that a very important aspect of the commission's work is to support the work of forums. The support that commission staff give will clearly depend on the individual nature of each forum. For that reason, the forum-related work undertaken by the staff of the commission must be determined by a partnership arrangement between both parties.
We have already said that we shall make regulations about the relationship of the forums with the commission on this point in particular. I do not thin that it is appropriate to specify in the Bill the exact nature of the working relationship between the forums and the commission as inevitably it will be a movable feast. We recognise that in the early days of forums there will have to be a different degree of support from the commission as compared with the forums as mature organisations.
I stress two key points. First, we must remember that the commission is the employer of the staff. In that capacity it will have overall responsibility for the work of the staff and be accountable for their performance. Secondly, an important part of the assessment of the staff's performance will be the views of patients forums. The commission's staff will have to show that they performed their role of supporting forums effectively as part of the way in which individual staff will be performance managed. That is one of the ways by which the commission will be accountable to local people; that is, through the work of local forums.
The relationship between forums, staff and the commission is important. But the staff of the commission will also be working with many other bodies and on other issues. While the work of the commission staff will be determined to some extent by the support needs of forums, that will be only one factor that will enable it to set its work programme. It will also take account of other issues that are important to local people that it may get to hear about through OSCs, for example, or through its work with local community groups.
I hope my noble friend will accept therefore that, while I do not go down the route of Amendment No. 141A, I accept that it will be essential to have a close partnership between the commission and local forums where it is quite clear what the role of the staff will be and that there is an appropriate performance management regime in place. A key element of that will be the way in which the commission staff support

627
the local forums. That will be a considerable factor in the way in which the commission judges the performance of its staff.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that he supports the direction of the amendment. I am also grateful for his clear commitment that staff of patients forums will be employed by the commission at national level and be subject to all the employment circumstances that follow from that. That is an important principle in terms of demonstrating the independence of the staff supporting patients forums from local health service bodies and agencies.
However, I am not entirely satisfied that the responses given will in practice address the point. It seems to me that there could well be circumstances in which a local patients forum which, although to many independent bystanders, might appear to be doing an effective job, will be regarded by the commission as being a considerable "pain". Therefore a member of the staff of the commission, who will be performance managed on the basis of how well he or she supported the patients forum, will have the wonderful excuse that, because these people are complete maniacs to deal with, it is an impossible job and he cannot achieve anything. And the performance management regime may well recognise that.
Despite the fact that some patients forums will be difficult, will not fit a national pattern and will not be doing the sorts of things that the commission may wish them to be doing but will be doing other things relevant to their local communities or the interests of the patients they are representing, we would like to see a circumstance in which they will still be able to influence the work programme that the staff are supporting. It is clear that the staff will be doing other things as well. But it would be helpful if some way could be found of reflecting on the face of the Bill or perhaps in the many sets of regulations promised at a later stage, the partnership described by my noble friend.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have already intimated that we shall be bringing in regulations to govern the relationship between forums and the commission. I shall be happy to give further consideration to the specific point my noble friend raised to see whether or not we should put more detail into the regulations to cover it. In general one has to rely on common sense. In most cases, the relationship between patients forums and the commission would be able to deal with the issues raised by my noble friend. I do not see any reason why we should not cope with that satisfactorily.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful for that further assurance from my noble friend. I hope that when considering the shape of regulations explicit reference to the nature of the partnership and the handling of staffing arrangements will be made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Minister replied to Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 without my hearing the noble Lords who tabled them speak to them.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Abolition of Community Health Councils in England]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 26, line 14, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
"(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the abolition of Community Health Councils established for districts in England under section 20 of the 1977 Act and for the abolition of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales ("ACHCEW") established under paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to the 1977 Act.
(2) Before making such an order, the Secretary of State shall consult with those bodies in subsection (3), and must be satisfied that there are in place replacement bodies able to meet the needs of patients and communities nationally and in all localities in England.
(3) The bodies referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) overview and scrutiny committees or joint overview and scrutiny committees provided for in sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15),

(b) Strategic Health Authorities,

(c) Patients' Councils,

(d) Patients' Forums,

(e) Community Health Councils,

(f) The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health,

(g) The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, and

(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State shall deem appropriate."

The noble Earl said: The amendment has a simple purpose: to ensure that the abolition of CHCs and ACHCEW is not effected before the new bodies are fully operational. It is in the interests of patients and the public that there should be so far as possible a seamless transition between CHCs and their successor bodies. CHCs should continue to perform their statutory functions until the new arrangements are fully up and running. In some areas of the country it is more than possible that that will not happen by the target date of 1st April next year. In that event, patients must not be left without a watchdog. The timing of abolition for CHCs should depend on consultation.
Similar considerations apply to ACHCEW. As we all know, it plays a key role in consultation with government and with leading health professional and regulatory bodies such as the GMC, the RCN and the BMA. It runs high-profile monitoring campaigns such as Nationwide Casualty Watch, which highlights long

629
waits for patients in A&E. It also produces a range of publications for lay representatives and patients and it provides training for staff as well as legal services and information. ACHCEW should be allowed to continue in being until the successor bodies have assumed responsibilities for all those functions. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support Amendment No. 146, for the cogent reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The timing of the abolition of CHCs allied to the timing of the setting up of the new bodies is clearly crucial. On our calculation it could be anything up to nine months or a year before the new bodies come into effect. What will fill that gap? It should be the continuance of the old system until the new system is up and running. I should be interested to hear what scheme the Minister has in mind and how he intends to fill that gap.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I agree that we need to ensure a smooth transfer from current arrangements to the new arrangements. It is our intention that CHCs will not be abolished until the commission and patients forums are in place and overview and scrutiny committees are carrying out their health service scrutiny functions. For that reason we have set up and are working closely with a transitional advisory committee, which is giving us great help.
Once the commission is established we shall be taking its view about the readiness of the new system, and particularly that of patients forums to take over from CHCs. Between now and the abolition of CHCs we shall work closely with all those organisations to ensure no gaps are left in the system. CHCs will not be abolished until we are confident all their functions have been picked up in the new system: independent advocacy by independent complaints advocacy providers; scrutiny by OSCs; and monitoring of local services by patients forums. There will be a managed transition to all parts of the system. Until the end of the year the transitional board will work closely with officials in my department, acting as a resource for them and providing insight into the issues that will be important to stakeholders as the system changes.
As regards consultation, I am very reluctant to prescribe with whom we should consult on the face of the Bill. However, I can say that arrangements to involve and consult stakeholders are in place. The department has a great deal of experience in consulting with a wide range of organisations. We shall certainly not let the system down in relation to patient/public involvement.
Earl Howe: Although the Minister has not been able to go quite as far as my amendments would require, I find his reply largely reassuring. I shall, of course, read his response carefully in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 148:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
"REFERRAL OF CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS AND DISPUTED DECISIONS
(1) In section 11(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (public involvement and consultation) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—
"(a) the Secretary of State,
(aa) Care Trusts,".
(2) Before an establishment order for a Strategic Health Authority, an NHS trust, a Primary Care Trust or a Care Trust is made, varied or revoked, the Secretary of State shall consult those bodies in subsection (5) whose districts are wholly or partly within the area of operation of the relevant authority or trust.
(3) Any Strategic Health Authority considering whether to exercise its powers under section 17A of the 1977 Act shall first consult the bodies provided for in subsection (5) whose districts are wholly or partly within the area of operation of the relevant Primary Care Trust.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations mace provision—

(a) concerning the application of section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 such that if in the view of any of the bodies in subsection (5) consultation arrangements are inadequate, the body in question shall refer the matter to him;

(b) for the referral to Strategic Health Authorities of disputed decisions concerning the planning or operation of health services by bodies detailed in subsection (5);

(c) for circumstances in which bodies detailed in subsection (5) shall refer decisions concerning the planning or operation of the health service to him including 1.17e circumstances in which referrals shall be made directly to him by Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils on the failure of overview and scrutiny committees to respond to a referral made to them under section 18(2)(m) of this Act;

(d) placing a duty on the Secretary of State and those bodies receiving referrals to respond to them within a specified time limit and giving reasons for any decision taken in relation to the subject matter of the referral.

(5) Those bodies referred to in subsections (2) to (4) are—

(a) overview and scrutiny committees or joint overview and scrutiny committees provided for in sections 7 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees), 8 (joint overview and scrutiny committees etc) and 10 (application to the City of London) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001,

(b) Patients' Councils,

(c) Patients' Forums."

The noble Earl said: This amendment takes us into an area that is of prime importance if the voice of patients is truly to be heard, and if that voice is to be a constructive instrument for change in the health service. The regulations governing community health councils grant a right to CHCs to be consulted on any proposals that would lead to a major change in the provision of healthcare in an area. They also enable CHCs to notify the Secretary of State when they are not satisfied that sufficient time has been allowed for consultation on proposals of that kind, or where they believe that a consultation has been inadequate.
There are many examples of that sort of consultation. At present, if a health authority or PCT wishes to make a change in the way that services are provided to patients, the CHC is consulted. If, as

631
occasionally happens, the proposals are controversial—for example, those relating to Kidderminster Hospital—local people need to be able to mount an appeal against such decisions, and, if need be, to refer them to the Secretary of State. That is what a CHC can do currently.
Once CHCs have been abolished, I am very worried that there will be no equivalent mechanisms to ensure the same kind of consultation with, and by, the successor bodies on changes to local health services. There are several gaps in the Bill in this respect. We understand that overview and scrutiny committees (OSCs) will be able to make referrals to the Secretary of State on controversial decisions, or if they think that consultation has not been adequate. Well, that is positive; but there are no provisions to that effect in the Bill. We do not even have draft legislation to go on. Can the Minister say what will happen if an OSC chooses not to refer a matter of intense local concern and simply does nothing? In those circumstances, and as a longstop, I believe that there ought to be a way for patients forums to refer directly to the Secretary of State, or to their local strategic health authority.
Again, at present, if there is a consultation exercise that falls short of what is correct—let us say, if insufficient information is given out, if facts and figures are misrepresented, or if key people have been left out of the loop altogether—CHCs have a duty to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. When CHCs disappear, the Health and Social Care Act 2001 does not provide any channel for the referral of failures to consult or of inadequate consultations. This means that those health bodies which decide not to consult, or which contrive to fix the result of consultations, will get off scot-free unless challenged in the courts. Again, OSCs have no rights of referral in this Bill. Patients forums will have neither the resources nor the legal power to engage in legal proceedings. So what remedy will there be? Apparently none.
There is another kind of consultation absent from the Bill. At the moment, the Secretary of State must consult CHCs on reorganisations of health authorities, NHS trusts, and PCTs, as well as on changes to GP and pharmacy services. These are matters that can make a real difference to local communities. It is absolutely right that those communities should have a chance to say what they think. In Clause 1 of the Bill we have a provision that permits consultation on the establishment or variation of a strategic health authority. It seems to me that that does not go far enough. We should have a specific provision on the face of the Bill that requires consultation on all re-organisations, including the establishment of care trusts. But the same applies equally to proposed changes in specialist commission—intensive care, HIV, paediatric care and coronary care. II there are flaws in the plans put forward to re-organise this or that aspect of healthcare provision, and local people realise that, they should have a guaranteed route up the line to the Secretary of State.
Consultation of this nature is not and should not be an optional extra. The whole point of any reform to the National Health Service is to improve services to patients. The best way to ensure that we have that right is to ask patients what they want. I suggest that that dialogue between government and the public is fundamental to good policy-making. It is also one way of balancing out the tendency of a state-run monopoly provider of healthcare to impose solutions from above on a one-size-fits-all basis.
My amendment attempts to carry through to the Bill the current statutory obligations to consult at government and local level on major decisions affecting patients. I believe they are vital for the wellbeing of patients and the NHS. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to support strongly the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Amendment No. 148. The omission of the right of referral for disputed decisions in respect of the new bodies is serious and significant. I hesitate to rub further salt in the Minister's wounds about South Birmingham CHC, but that was a classic example of the importance of the rights of CHCs as currently constituted.
It is important for patients and their representatives to be able to dispute and to refer such disputes when there are arguments about the nature and structure of provision within the NHS. As I read it, there is nothing equivalent to that in the legislation. That would be deeply regrettable. It serves only to increase the mistrust of the provisions; that the aim is to make an easier life for NHS managers, Secretaries of State and Ministers in the Department of Health. However, that is not what we should be here to provide. We should be here to provide the possibility of robust public debate. That is what it is about. There should be the relevant and necessary powers to enable the bodies being set up under the Bill to engage in that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
Lord Filkin: I broadly agree with the objectives of what both noble Lords have argued. However, I suggest that they are already adequately covered, both in the Bill and in the regulations made under the Bill.
Therefore, the new clause is largely unnecessary. It duplicates the consultation provisions which are already in place or that we intend to put in place. For example, there are already specific duties of consultation in respect of primary care trusts. NHS trusts and care trusts, the details of which are set out in regulations. Clause 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations containing requirements as to consultation which must be complied with before he makes an order under Section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 relating to strategic health authorities. Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act, as amended, will require strategic health authorities to consult on services for which they are responsible.
My ministerial colleagues have made clear that there is to be a robust framework for referral by OSCs to the Secretary of State on matters of concern that are being consulted on and on the nature of the consultation to

633
ensure that those democratically-elected representatives of local communities can represent the views of their local communities to the national level. We are considering how best to provide for that within the framework of Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act.
We are sympathetic to the need to carry out proper and effective consultation and to ensure that disputed decisions are properly dealt with by democratically elected representatives of local people. However, this new clause overcomplicates and clutters the Bill with, we suggest, unnecessary detail.
We have made necessary provisions in the Bill and in the Health and Social Care Act—for example in Section 11—to ensure that the views, concerns and interests of patients and the public at large are fed into local decisions about the planning and development of the NHS. The complex set of arrangements set out in the new clause over-complicates what is already provided for in the Bill.
I turn to the specific matters. For example, with regard to patients forums, Clause 17, in relation to annual reports, already gives very clear powers for patients forums to carry their representations to the Secretary of State. In previous discussion we dealt with the right of OSCs to be consulted on any significant changes affecting the health service in the area. The reverse is the case with regard to the view that this is intended to make life easier for the Secretary of State or for health service professions. It is a belief that by articulating patient and public views one provides a more effective challenge to improve the service—one actually ensures that services are more likely to be changed. Therefore, the whole Bill is focused on strengthening public voices as one of the means of reforming the health service as well as being a right in its own respect. I therefore urge the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: I found that reply very interesting. It revealed a number of points that I had not woken up to. I shall go away and study carefully what the Minister said. In essence, he is saying that this amendment is completely unnecessary because all the angles are already covered. I hope that that is right. I shall endeavour to satisfy myself that what the Minister said—I am sure in all good faith—is correct.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister, in so far as there are regulations still to come, when they are likely to be forthcoming. Does he have any idea when we are likely to see those regulations laid? For example, will it be in the next couple of months or a little later?
Lord Filkin: I cannot give a specific answer here and now, but I will give an indication of that matter at the next stage of the Bill.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 150:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"PRISONS
The Secretary of State shall by regulations determine that responsibility for health services in prisons shall be assumed by the National Health Service, and the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) and the Prison Rules 1999 (S.I. 1999/728) shall be amended accordingly."
The noble Lord said: We come on to pastures new with Clause 21. It deals with the joint working of the NHS and the prison health service.
Gross failings in the prison health service have been identified by a number of Members both of the other place and here, but notably by my noble friend Lord Avebury. He has discovered that, despite promises by Ministers to the Health Select Committee in the year 2000, there are still some 500 prisoners unable to access the secure psychiatric units that are needed. Yet these prisoners are currently in-patients on prison hospital wards. That is not something dreamt up by some estimate. It has been confirmed by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons. Indeed, it could actually be a gross underestimate.
The problem does not just reside in the area of mental health. This time last year in its report Prison Medicine: A Crisis Waiting to Break, the BMA had strong words to say about prison governors interfering in the clinical judgment of doctors by prohibiting the use of the most cost-effective medications in order to divert more resources into gaol security.
The then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, said that the BMA was confirming horrendous examples of defective prison healthcare I wonder what has really changed at all since that report. Indeed, I wonder what has changed at my local prison—Brixton prison—since 1999 when the governor threatened to turn away prisoners with health problems. He said that delivery of healthcare fell far short of the most basic acceptable standards. We need the continuity that complete merger between the prison health service and the health service could provide.
All except 24 of about 70,000 prisoners currently inside will come out. At present, we risk releasing them in a worse state of health than when they went in. According to the Office for National Statistics in a report published in 1998, 70 per cent of them are suffering from some form of personality disorder. In his 1996 report, Patient or Prisoner, Sir David Ramsbotham said that it was high time that the NHS assumed responsibility for healthcare. Regrettably, the 1999 Prison Service and NHS Executive joint report on the future organisation of prison health care put its trust, as does the Bill, in partnership arrangements.
Until the needs of prisoners are included in NHS estimates, provision will not be properly resourced. Prisons should be regarded as outstations of nominated NHS providers, which should be contracted to provide both services and staff. All informed commentators now agree that joint arrangements between the prison health service and

635
the NHS are inadequate. Prison managers would welcome the assumption of health responsibility by the NHS.
We on these Benches keep suggesting new avenues that in many cases take two years for the Government to adopt. I remind the Minister that integration between health and social care was firmly resisted during the passage of the Care Standards Act 2000 but finally came in the shape of care trusts under the Health and Social Care Act 2001. In 1999, during the passage of the Health Act 1999, we suggested that CHI should cover both the NHS and independent hospitals. That was finally accepted by the Secretary of State in response to the Kennedy report early this year.
Will our suggestion about complete integration of the prison health service and the NHS suffer a similar fate? Will we have to wait another year before the Government decide that such integration is sensible? I suggest that the Minister brings forward the blinding light and accepts that that may be a sensible way forward that would be of great benefit to those who are currently in prison. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Earl Howe: Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals for prison healthcare. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 151, 153, 155, 157 and 158. Like the noble Lord, I have profound misgivings about the measures contained in the Bill and do not believe that they are anything like adequate to address the serious crisis that has overtaken prison doctors and their patients in the prison system.
Healthcare in prisons has been in a dire state for more than a decade. When he was chief inspector in 1991, Judge Stephen Tumim made strong criticisms of medical care in Wormwood Scrubs. Similar but more sweeping concern was repeatedly expressed by his successor, Sir David Ramsbotham, in connection with the Scrubs and many other prisons.
The prison environment presents perhaps the most extreme combination of adverse circumstances for health outcomes that one can dream up. As a population, prisoners are disproportionately afflicted with a range of serious health problems, the most prevalent and well recognised of which are mental illness, sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, and drug addiction.
In addition, the general physical health of prisoners is often poor. A sizeable proportion of offenders, especially young offenders, have experienced homelessness and have lived on the streets. Many are poorly educated. To add to that, living conditions in prison, which to say the least are not conducive to physical or mental health at the best of times, let alone when overcrowding is as bad as it is now, can often exaggerate a pre-existing condition.
In combination with the health problems of prisoners is a severe lack of healthcare resources in prison. Budgetary restrictions prevent doctors from prescribing the most effective medicines. There is a
636
lack of access to psychiatric nurses, occupational health workers, substance abuse counsellors and clinical psychologists. If a doctor applies to transfer a prisoner to hospital for specialist treatment, the authorities will often be reluctant to pay the costs, even when the lack of specialist care could have serious results. Nowhere is that more true than with prisoners suffering from a serious psychiatric disorder. Even when a transfer to hospital is agreed, there are often delays, during which the prisoner is at increased risk of self-harm or suicide.
The scale of mental health problems in prison is great. In 1996, a study showed that over 60 per cent of unconvicted male prisoners held on remand suffered from mental disorder. Some were in need of immediate treatment but were not receiving it. If ever we find ourselves trying to identify the causes of crime, in order to be tough on them, I shall defy anyone to come up with a better example than untreated mental illness or untreated drug dependency in prisons. The failure to deal properly with such conditions has a direct knock-on effect on the levels of criminal activity and creates little more than a revolving door in and out of prison for many offenders.
Against that background, it is no wonder that morale among prison doctors is generally at a low ebb. There is an acute shortage of prison GPs. Experienced prison doctors are leaving, and new doctors are deterred from entering. It is not just the frustration of working with too few resources that deters doctors, although that is a major part of the problem. The problem is even more deep-rooted than that. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, alluded to that. Doctors in prison find that their clinical judgment is second-guessed or interfered with by administrators, including prison governors. The BMA has reported a large increase in the number of inquiries and complaints from prison doctors who describe such situations.
Doctors in prisons have an ethical duty to provide standards of care in accordance with clinical need and on a par with those available to society at large. It is difficult for them to compromise those standards, even though most doctors recognise that there will inevitably be resource limitations in prisons that restrict their autonomy in one way or another. It is unacceptable for a professional clinical judgment to be overruled by management decisions that discount medical opinion and ignore the best interests of the patient.
Although much good can be done by the injection of further resources, as the Bill envisages, it is idle to suppose that doctors will be able to make headway in the existing crisis unless they are given unfettered clinical discretion to treat patients according to need and in the best possible way. I have grave doubts that a so-called partnership between the NHS and the Prison Service will be anything more than a cosmetic device that will leave prisoners almost as ill served as they are now. Joint working goes on at the moment and makes little impression.

637
In the final analysis, prison administrators are not doctors and do not understand medicine. Dr P J Keavney, chairman of the BMA Civil Service Committee, said:
"The Prison Service itself does not help matters by its insistence on an agenda for its governors which concentrates on process instead of clinical outcomes. The lack of understanding of clinical governance is a bar to the delivery of adequate healthcare within our penal institutions … In the end, a system focusing simply on 'process' to satisfy short-term political … concerns will fail to resolve the clinical needs of patients".
I fear that that is the answer to Ministers who argue—admittedly, with some logic but without a sense of the realities—that prison governors must retain a sense of ownership of the health and well-being of the prisoners in their care and that that can be preserved only if governors retain direct accountability for prison healthcare.
However good governors may be in other ways, there is too much evidence that the sense of ownership that currently exists counts for nothing so far as concerns prison healthcare. The BMA cites one instance of a prison governor expressing indifference to the likelihood of a prisoner dying as a result of failure to transfer him to hospital. I do not say that that is typical but it is symptomatic of the wider problem.
It was again Sir David Ramsbotham who argued in an important paper published some six years ago for the full integration of prison healthcare services with the NHS. I agree with him that nothing short of a complete merger of the NHS with the prison medical service is capable of putting these matters right.
Yes, I admit that that would present difficulties. It would involve drawing up protocols that preserved the authority of governors in non-clinical matters and that hound doctors to observe and take account of the need to preserve security and prison discipline. However, that kind of protocol is not an impossibility; it is attainable. Simultaneously, a comprehensive health needs analysis of the Prison Service should be commissioned. I urge the Government to put such an analysis in train, whether or not this part of the Bill is amended.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond constructively to the very important concerns that I and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have raised.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: At this time, and for several weeks now, I have had down for Written Answer a Question concerning the healthcare unit at Wandsworth Prison. It is in need of a new unit. Noble Lords would have to see it to believe how diabolical it is.
The unit is totally inadequate. Mentally ill and sometimes very dangerous prisoners are mixed with physically ill patients. The situation is quite unsatisfactory. A few weeks ago I visited Wandsworth Prison and met a young man with two broken legs. He had been assaulted by one of the prisoners who is mentally ill. I told the young man that I would tell noble Lords about his case.
638
At the present time there is a 60 per cent shortage of nurses at Wandsworth. That is due partly to the great expense of living in London. However, I was impressed with the work being done to tackle dug abuse, which has been helped by the drugs strategy. But they have no facilities to help those with severe problems with alcohol, and we have been told that the strategy will be out in two years' time. I hope that, in that time, something will be done to alleviate the very severe problems within the Prison Service. At the moment there is a vacuum. Alcohol presents just as much of a problem as drug abuse with regard to violence in the community and wife beating. Many alcoholics land up in prison.
Many prisoners are sent off to other prisons quickly and often their medical notes do not accompany them. A much smoother facility should he provided for this. Out of sight is out of mind, but this is a serious problem and we should do more to help prisoners who have problems.
I was serving on the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority when many of our mental hospitals closed down. One had to ask what would happen. I knew then that many of those patients would turn up in the prison system. That has happened. We must do something about this. Much better links should be established within the community because prisoners are let out into the community without links, without notes and without access to a GP. Many do not have GPs because they live such chaotic lives.
I could discuss this at length. We must look at this matter very seriously. There is a great need and many people currently in our prisons have serious problems of illness.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I support the amendments. The proposals in the Bill are to be welcomed and will address some of the problems in the Prison Service. However, I should like to reiterate the problems of the people working in the service and the lack of a career structure. It is not attracting high calibre doctors because there is not an adequate career structure within the Prison Service. Prison medicine per se is in its infancy and there is no developing research base—which there should be—to look at the best ways of improving the healthcare of prisoners.
I was involved in carrying out a study among young male remand prisoners. It was very difficult to carry out the study in the prison, although we did get some co-operation from the prison governor and from some prison officers. We found an alarming level of unresolved grief among the young lads on remand. They had had horrific losses and bereavements and had never had any help or support to resolve them. As a result, they have ended up, through various routes, inside and on remand. Some of these young prisoners reported that they were frightened of being in the sick bay. They preferred to go back to their cells if they were ill because they were frightened of the other prisoners.

639
The problem for prison doctors is that they do not have the support infrastructure. Care assistants are recruited partly from those with a nursing background, but many are recruited from the ranks of the prison officers themselves, who come through with a slightly different approach and different mentality.
I can understand the fear that doctors might possibly jeopardise security but it is important to remember that doctors, through their duties outlined by the GMC, particularly in its document on confidentiality, have a duty to the individual. But they also have a duty to society, and they must weigh up the balance between the duty to the individual and the duty to society in taking clinically-related decisions.
If the Prison Medical Service were to be properly incorporated into, and viewed as a part of, the NHS structure—with an adequate career structure—it might stand a chance of recruiting higher calibre staff and of attracting people who want to undertake research into the area and look for ways of improving some of the terrible outcomes that we currently see.
Lord Filkin: A number of noble Lords have spoken powerfully about the importance of healthcare in prisons and the severity of the challenge facing the health service, however it is organised, in the Prison Service.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, drew attention to the constellation of drugs, sexually transmitted diseases, basic poor health and mental health problems which forms a very serious and dire cocktail of pathology. It causes considerable problems to many people in prisons and presents a great challenge to the public service in its attempts to improve services.
The argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is, in essence, that there is only one solution—that is, the immediate and forthwith transference of all prison health functions to the NHS. While the Government's mind is not totally closed to that, we believe—certainly at this point in time—that as an immediate action it is too simple and would not be effective.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, recognised, however health services are funded and accountable, in a prison context there has to be a strong partnership arrangement between prison management and health service provision. It would be impossible otherwise to function effectively. That is why the Bill as it stands puts an enormous pressure and focus on making partnership arrangements work better in the health service in prisons in the future.
For example, as part of the partnership arrangements that we have established, all prisons have completed joint health needs assessments with the active involvement of their local NHS partners. Those assessments are forming the basis of joint prison health improvement programmes. They will be completed by the autumn and will set out local plans for joint work to improve services for prisons. This represents a far closer and more systematic approach to partnership working between prisons and their
640
NHS partners than has ever existed before. It is clear also that there is a significant improvement in the resources going into prison healthcare. The Government hope that will go further.
Clause 19 is aimed at opening up new opportunities for further partnership working between the NHS and the Prison Service to improve health services for prisoners. Amendments Nos. 151 to 153, 155 and 157 to 158 would turn that partnership flexibility into something of a one-way street. Amendment No. 150 goes further, by attempting to bring to an end existing partnership arrangements and make the NHS solely responsible for the healthcare of prisoners—a position advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on Second Reading and this evening.
Amendment No. 151 fundamentally alters the scope and purpose of the duty of co-operation. As it stands, that duty promotes joint working between NHS bodies and the Prison Service, with a view to improving the way that both exercise their functions in relation to securing and maintaining the health of prisoners. The amendment removes any reference to improvement and envisages only the transfer of Prison Service functions to the NHS.
Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, 155, 157 and 158 would effectively prohibit delegation of specified NHS functions to the Prison Service but would retain the provision for the Prison Service to delegate its health-related functions to the NHS. I will be open with the Committee about the way we see those new flexibilities working. We envisage that the greatest local demand for use will be for delegation of health-related Prison Service functions to NHS bodies—for example, in the area of mental health. But those are partnership provisions and we felt it right that they should be evenhanded in allowing delegation in both directions where that would improve the way that services are delivered.
The emphasis in the clause is on responding to local proposals developed by the Prison Service and the NHS in partnership. We do not wish to rule out the potential for sound and beneficial proposals that may involve an element of delegation from the NHS to the Prison Service. The amendments would restrict the options available to local services for improving healthcare for prisoners, so we oppose them.
Amendment No. 153 deletes the lines which specify that the new flexibilities for delegation and budget pooling can be used only if they are likely to lead to an improvement in the way that those functions are exercised in relation to securing and maintaining the health of prisoners. I cannot see how removing that qualification could be thought desirable—notwithstanding the other amendments suggested by Opposition Members.
A fundamental principle of the duty of co-operation in Clause 21(1) and the delegation of flexibilities in subsections (2) and (4) is that they are about improving the way that functions are exercised—which, broadly speaking, should have the effect of improving services. That principle is important because it makes clear that the main purpose of the provisions and of the arrangements made under them is to improve services for patients.

641
Amendment No. 150 goes one step further in its intention of passing full responsibility for the healthcare of prisoners to the NHS. I appreciate the reasons for that suggestion. We considered that option carefully at the time of the review that led to the publication of The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care in 1999. That review left open the option of a transfer at some point in the future but concluded that for the time being the best way to improve prison health services was through a close partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS. There are a number of reasons, but principally we believe that neither the NHS nor the Prison Service can provide healthcare for prisoners without the active cooperation of the other.
Healthcare activity in a prison—as the noble Earl recognised—is inextricably linked with other aspects of the establishment's operation. Issues of security, discipline and the wider prison regime all need to be managed alongside the delivery of the effective and improved health services that are the Government's aim. The prison governor and the Prison Service more widely must retain a stake in health services. At present, the formal partnership that we have established between the Prison Service and the NHS to improve health services for prisoners represents the best way forward.
Perhaps I should mention at this point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made specific reference to Wandsworth, that my step-daughter has recently been appointed deputy governor there. Therefore, I have a strong personal interest in these issues.
We have not ruled out such a transfer in the future—although, because health issues and wider aspects of the prison regime are so closely linked, such an arrangement would need to incorporate a strong partnership element to stand any chance of success.
The policy document, The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care recommended that the partnership arrangements that we have put in place should be kept under active review, and we shall do just that. However, we believe that these arrangements should first be given an opportunity to demonstrate what they can achieve. I therefore oppose Amendment No. 150.
In opposing the amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite, I nevertheless share their aims of ensuring that the NHS has a greater stake in the delivery of health services for prisoners, and that we secure significant improvement in the quality of those services, as has been so strongly advocated in the debate. That we are agreed on those aims is in itself valuable. We differ only on the matter of how they are best pursued at this time.
I believe that the arrangements that we adopt for the prison health services, both now and in the future, must include a strong element of partnership. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to provide a further illustration of the way in which the partnership between the NHS and the Prison Service is helping to improve the standard of care that prisoners receive.
642
The NHS and the Prison Service are working together to help to deliver the Government's commitment to supporting doctors and protecting patients. I am pleased to announce that the National Clinical Assessment Authority will, from this month, be providing the full range of its advice and assessment services to the Prison Service for those doctors the service employs.
The NCAA is at the heart of the Government's co-ordinated approach to improving the quality of healthcare and ensuring better protection for patients and better support for doctors. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly remarked, such an approach is necessary if patients are to receive the quality of care that they have a right to expect in prison. It provides a central point of contact where concerns about a doctor's performance arise and will give extra support to doctors where necessary. The NCAA currently provides advice and makes recommendations to NHS hospitals and health authorities so that they can take appropriate action to check poor performance, to ensure that doctors are practising safely and to discipline or suspend doctors whose practice gives rise to serious concerns much more quickly.
As part of the formal partnership that we have forged between the Prison Service and the NHS, the benefits of these important services will be brought to bear on health services in prisons. This is a concrete example of the way in which we believe that partnership working is fundamental to improving healthcare in prisons.
In conclusion, the provisions in the clause will enable closer partnership working and emphasise the shared responsibilities that both the NHS and the Prison Service have in this crucial area. They strengthen the foundations that we are laying for real, sustained improvements in health services for prisoners, and widen rather than curtail the options for longer term development of these services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say how delighted I am to hear that his step-daughter is assistant governor at Wandsworth. I was very impressed with the staff we met there. I recommend that the Minister should go with her to see the healthcare centre for himself. It would make life so much easier for the staff and the prisoners if the prison had a new unit. It is having a new kitchen, but the health facilities should have come first.
Lord Filkin: I am happy to give that commitment in my private capacity.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank all those who have taken part in this important and interesting debate. In particular, I thank the Minister for his carefully considered reply, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his powerful speech and the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Finlay, for their firsthand knowledge in this area, which has strongly informed the debate.

643
I am interested in the Minister's careful consideration of this matter. He mentioned that the option of complete transfer was considered in the document published in 1999. But the interesting point is that both of the previous HM chief inspectors came to the conclusion that transfer to the NHS was the best option. I am most interested in the fact that the Prison Service and the Department of Health have not agreed with that conclusion. Both Sir David Ramsbotham and Sir Stephen Tumim made it quite clear that, until that transfer took place, the health service in prisons would not be adequate.
Clearly, one must welcome the Minister's commitment to more resources, to the health improvement programmes in prisons, and to a number of other developments, such as the involvement of the National Clinical Assessment Authority. Of course, all those are very positive developments. However, this boils down to issues such as recruitment, clinical governance, and control. If we are not careful, and if health service provision in prisons continues to be a Prison Service responsibility, this will be a grave disincentive for the provision of quality medicine in prisons. That is my main worry. If this provision were brought into the mainstream, the quality might more easily be raised.
I suspect—although I do not know—that the reason for not giving the health service rather more responsibility in this area is to do with organisational tact. I thought it was slightly bizarre that this matter was seen as a two-way journey, as opposed to a single journey, under Clause 21. There are few circumstances in which community medicine would be provided in a prison. Although one can always be creative about these matters, I can see few people wishing to have their health services delivered in a prison. Perhaps that is just my misinterpretation of the Minister's comments.
It will become quite inevitable that we shall need a much greater transfer of responsibility to the health service. Of course that must take place within the discipline provided by the prison; that goes without saying. One would not hand over a prisoner to a general practitioner or an acute NHS hospital, lock, stock and barrel, just by transferring responsibility for their medical and health needs. That certainly does not follow from the integration that I am proposing.
The hour is late. This has been an extremely interesting debate. It is rare for us to have this kind of debate, because it crosses departments. None the less, it is extremely important that we keep worrying at this issue, because it is desperately important that we improve the healthcare in our prisons, as we have heard tonight. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Joint working with the prison service]:
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 153 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 27, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 154, and will also speak to Amendment No. 156. Amendment No. 154 deletes paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of Clause 21, and Amendment No. 156 is consequential in respect of paragraph (d). Paragraph (a) allows for arrangements to be prescribed for a fund to be set up. Both the NHS and the Prison Service can make contributions to such a fund, and the fund can pay the expenditure of the NHS and the Prison Service. That might seem straightforward, but I believe that it raises some important issues about accountability.
I turned to the Explanatory Notes to find out what these arrangements were all about. Paragraph 124 states that subsection (3)(a)
"enables the creation of pooled budgets".
That is nonsense. A budget is not a tangible thing that needs to be created by statute. It is a simple construct involving accountants bringing together plans of how money is to be spent, and, in a situation such as this, of how the two parties would share the burden of the expenditure.
Rather more worryingly, the Explanatory Notes go on to say:
"The resources contributed by each body will lose their identity as health or prison service money".
That is the heart of the problem. A fund seems to have the potential to put NHS money beyond public scrutiny. I have a number of questions for the Minister on that. If money is not health or Prison Service money, what is it? Who is accountable for it? Who will physically manage the fund, including operating controls over expenditure? Will accounts be required for the funds? If so, who will draw them up? Who will audit the funds? Will it be the C&AG via the Prison Service or the Audit Commission via the NHS? Do either or both of those have access to money placed in such funds? What will happen if there is money in the fund at the end of the financial year? Does it escape the normal rules of annuality? If not, which of the NHS and the Prison Service accounts for it?
If those questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, the Committee might well conclude that the arrangement funds are dangerously irresponsible in terms of financial accountability. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendments Nos. 154 and 156 would remove the provisions for the establishment of pooled budgets between the Prison Service and NHS bodies. The noble Baroness has said why she thinks that would be appropriate. The amendments would undermine the fundamental aim of the clause, which is to promote improved opportunities for partnership working between the NHS and the Prison Service.
The provision for pooling of budgets allows for simplified and significantly more joined-up commissioning of health services for prisoners. It is an important aspect of the clause and a valuable tool for delivering the objectives about which I have spoken.

645
The point can best be made by illustrating how the partnership is working at the moment and how the pooling of resources can and does help. At present, 18 prisons in England are working with local NHS partners to develop new NHS-funded mental health teams to work in prisons. A further 25 such teams will be established during 2002–03 and a further wave by 2004.
The new NHS mental health teams are beginning to work in those prisons alongside existing staff employed by or contracted to the Prison Service to provide better care to inmates with serious mental health problems. The Bill will allow local services to put in place much closer partnership arrangements to get the best from the health services provided by the prison and its local NHS partners.
For example, in agreement with the prison, the local PCT could take responsibility for commissioning a single package of mental healthcare for prisoners. The Prison Service could delegate to the PCT the task of securing mental health services for inmates in that prison. The PCT could then commission services using a pooled budget comprising Prison Service funding currently spent on providing care for mentally ill prisoners and the resource the PCT is investing to develop the new NHS "in-reach" mental health teams.
Such arrangements could help to deliver a single, locally agreed and jointly owned package of care that was far better integrated and better value for money because of the PCT's healthcare commissioning expertise and leverage. It goes beyond what could be achieved through a system of contracts and payments between the individual agencies concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised some important but—and I do not wish to denigrate them essentially technical points about how accountability chains and audit responsibilities will be handled. Under existing Section 31 provisions, each partnership needs to have a written agreement setting down the key framework issues for the partners to refer to. That includes the aims and outcomes of the partnership, the resources, the way in which the partnership will be managed, the eligibility criteria and assessment processes that are agreed and how disputes will be managed. A key feature will be the way in which the partnership is monitored, and that will be determined locally. We envisage that similar arrangements will apply to the new provisions.
Although this is no more than speculation—and we shall have further opportunity for clarification if necessary—it seems to me that there must be analogies between the outsourcing arrangements which I described made by prisons and PCTs. Although a prison may give its budget to a PCT, the prison will still be ultimately accountable for the effective use of those funds. Similarly, the PCT may be accountable for how it spends both its funds and the budget delegated to it by the Prison Service.
Those are important points and—to put the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at rest—I shall ensure beyond any doubt that there is no uncertainty or ambiguity about them. The fundamental point,
646
however, is that we believe that such pooled budget arrangements have the potential to make significant improvements in the quality of healthcare in prisons. We therefore believe that they are an important part of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, nothing he has said has explained why a pooled fund is necessary to achieve the results he has outlined; those results could be achieved in various ways. I asked some specific questions but I did not receive specific answers. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I ask the Minister to reflect on the questions and to write to me so that we can resume our conversation at a later stage if necessary. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 158 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Clause 23 [The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals]:
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 159A:
Page 29, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) The bodies referred to in subsection (3) shall in each year submit a report to any joint select committee appointed by the House of Commons and House of Lords to perform the functions prescribed in this Part ("health joint select committee')."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 159A, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 159B, 164A, 164B and 165A to F. Although they appear in a later group, I should also like to speak now to Amendments Nos. 167 to 169 because they are consequential on this group.
The amendments seek to replace the proposed council with a health Joint Select Committee. The Committee on Delegated Powers has advised that limits should be placed on the original powers in the Bill and—as the Minister will shortly propose, which we welcome—that new rules should he the subject of an affirmative resolution by both Houses. We feel, however, that that will leave much that is simply not right about the proposal for an overarching council across the healthcare professions.
Let us return to first principles: what are the Government trying to do, and what should they be doing? Let us hope that their intention is to make the various health professions more accountable and more transparent and to ensure that there is greater co-ordination between those professions. If those are their aims, we fully share them.
In the report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry, Professor Kennedy recommended the creation of a,
"Council for the regulation of Healthcare professionals",
as an "overarching organisation" responsible for bringing together the various health regulatory bodies.
The functions which the Kennedy report envisaged such a council performing included ensuring that there is an integrated and co-ordinated approach between

647
the various bodies for setting standards; monitoring performance, inspection and validation; acting as a source of guidance and good practice; and promoting common curricula and shared learning across the professions. The Kennedy report further proposed that such a council should have a statutory basis, should report directly to the Department of Health and to Parliament and should have a broadly based membership including representatives of the health professions, the NHS and the general public.
We welcome the proposal that there should be co-ordination across the health professions in the way Kennedy recommends. But what about accountability and transparency? We have a serious problem with the Government's proposals. We are in danger of setting up another quango to second guess what the regulatory bodies are doing without the depth of knowledge and experience that they have. We are in serious danger of bogging down the council in looking at endless complaints against the professions by jaundiced patients even if the council then rules the complaints not worthy of further consideration.
How can we make things accountable and transparent? The medical profession became professionalised in the 19th century. Self-regulation was part of that. Nursing and the other health professions followed. There are strengths and weaknesses in such independent self-regulation. We have to preserve the strengths and tackle the weaknesses. Accountability and transparency are areas of potential weakness.
We propose that those bodies that regulate the health professions should be accountable directly to Parliament. The health bodies should report each year to a Joint Select Committee, appointed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They should report in public and that is where they should answer and be scrutinised. The Minister may say that the Government have no power to request the establishment of such a committee. Indeed, when Frank Field in another place made a similar suggestion he was not even able to table such an amendment. The Government, or others could introduce proposals for just such a committee, and the issue could be debated in both Houses which could decide to set up a Joint Select Committee.
This proposal deserves careful and considered scrutiny, not dismissal on some empty pretext. There is already a precedent in the Ecclesiastical Committee which has equal Members of both Houses of Parliament and which has existed since 1919. The proposal is commanding attention. I note that Sir Denis Pereira Gray, writing on behalf of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, welcomed the proposal, supporting the notion that both the GMC and the Post-Graduate Medical Education Standards Board should report to Parliament directly and be subject to open parliamentary scrutiny and recommending a new parliamentary committee to achieve this. He argues that doctors want true, open accountability to Parliament, which in itself is quite a change.
The BMA is also broadly supportive of the proposal of a Select Committee of both Houses to whom the regulatory bodies would be accountable. Meanwhile the King's Fund comments that there is a lack of thoughtfulness in the Government's proposed accountability arrangements for the council. The suggestion that professional regulators should be accountable to the new council, and through it to Parliament, raises more questions than it answers. The King's Fund describes this as an "unsatisfactory fudge" and argues that the lack of clarity risks further alienation of professionals who already feel disengaged from the debate and are suspicious of unspecified intentions. If the Government want professionalism to drive quality healthcare they need to attend to their relationship with those professionals. The King's Fund, as the Minister knows very well, cannot be considered to carry a torch for the professions. The warnings should be heeded.
We welcome the idea of co-ordinating professions and making them more transparent and accountable. We differ from the Government in the route that we would take. We would make the professions truly accountable directly to Parliament and not through yet another quango which, in effect, largely answers to government. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This part of the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and I am pricking up my ears. Of all the groups of amendments in the Bill, those which confirm the setting up of this over-arching body are the ones that the Government could and should abandon.
My understanding of a profession is that it is defined by the fact that it regulates itself; it is not regulated by anybody else. The Government are now intending to regulate the regulatory bodies. The Minister shakes his head, but one only has to look at the amendment to see the power of this over-arching body. It is extremely dangerous.
I hope that the Minister will find time to read the first Reith lecture, which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, gave, and indeed the second one also. The first was all about the dangers of over-regulation and Byzantine arrangements for answerability, the overregulation of professionals and the lack of trust in them. The series is about trust and the noble Baroness made some important points that are directly relevant to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should think very hard about this. It is a dangerous arrangement.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise to support Amendment No. 159A and speak also to the amendments which stand in my name.
In relation to the proposal for a Select Committee, although it may be repetitious I must reiterate the need for transparency, independence from any kind of political pressure on the regulatory bodies and direct accountability to Parliament. In his excellent report on the tragic cases in Bristol, Kennedy highlighted the need for liaison between the different professional regulatory bodies. That is different from the way the proposal stands in the Bill at the moment.

649
In a helpful answer to me earlier in response to Amendment No. 114A, the Minister made clear that it was not in the framework of this Committee to call for the establishment of a Select Committee. Will it be possible to have a separate debate outside this Committee, in the House, to establish whether such a Select Committee could be set up
I agree with the Government's intentions in subsection (2). They are all general principles required to ensure teamwork functions at the highest possible level. Such teamwork functions must not be the lowest common denominator and there must be equity in decision making, discipline and conduct where needed. However, I seek reassurance from the Government that the healthcare professions will not be forced together under the proposed council and the fundamentally different areas of knowledge, skills and competency are recognised as crucial points of interplay of all those within a clinical team.
There is a need for independence of the individual professions. That is how innovation occurs. Clear examples have been with revalidation where the nurses have led on continuous professional development and now the General Medical Council is leading on revalidation.
Amendment No. 165 is compatible with Amendments Nos. 165YA and 165ZA which stand in my name. I speak to them as a doctor registered with the General Medical Council and as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Let me explain why the regulatory bodies must remain directly accountable to Parliament. This regulation is a reserve power under devolution. NHS services are evolving differently in different parts of the UK and the demands on the professions may well vary in the four different countries of the United Kingdom.
It is noteworthy that concern over the establishment of such a council has come from all of the regulators, including the new Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council. This concern is not from an old guard, nor is it reactionary. It is from the chairman of the new body. The GMC has proposed and is pursuing radical reforms to introduce revalidation for doctors, to have a smaller and more effective council, dropping from the current 104 to 35 members and to increase lay membership from 25 to 40 per cent. It also proposes radically to reform fitness-to-practice procedures to bring together performance conduct and health issues which are all part of fitness to practice. That will increase transparency and allow the GMC to issue warnings to doctors.
The GMC's document Good Medical Practice is small and easily read and written in plain English. It lays out the contract between doctors, patients and society. It stipulates the practice required for patients to know that they are being treated by safe and competent doctors. Kennedy commends that code in paragraph 45 of his report, which suggests that it should be incorporated into doctors' employment contracts and terms of service.
There is concern that by making the regulatory body subject to directions from the Secretary of State in England, openness and transparency may be
650
threatened and the role of Ministers in the three other countries may be undermined. Whistleblowers from the professions have had the courage to speak out, often at personal risk, to maintain standards in patient care. I know that from my own experience: I have blown the whistle myself and felt extremely vulnerable in doing so. I was glad that the GMC was wholly independent of any government department and anyone funding the health services.
It is a real fear that the healthcare professions will not be truly independent of government and that the goalposts of expectations will be moved. Let us suppose that it is a few months before an election. The polls indicate falls for the Government. Sadly, another disaster happens and healthcare professionals are taken to task by the regulatory bodies, but not struck off. Bereaved relatives, angry and grieving acutely, are desperate for public redress. The press start baying for blood.
We saw exactly that situation in the tragic case of Dr Philip Evans, an excellent GP who had been a personal friend since we were students. He took his own life as a result of unbearably damaging allegations in the local press. How could any government resist the pressure to state that they would re-examine the issues, implying a possible raising of the stakes, even though the decision had been equitable for all the healthcare professions involved and all the evidence had been considered?
An article in the British Medical Journal on medical error by Albert Wu states:
"although patients are the first and obvious victims of med cal mistakes, doctors are wounded by the same errors; they are the second victims. Nurses, pharmacists and other members of the healthcare team are also susceptible to error and vulnerable to its fallout … They too are victims".
Sadly, human fallibility is an inescapable reality.
Amendment No. 173 removes the power of direction completely and is therefore to be supported. I support also Amendment No. 166, although I have reservations about its wording, as it would not be practicable for all the professions as a whole to be consulted, although the professional regulatory body should certainly be consulted.
Amendment No. 172 is important. There may be a request which on examination would not be in the best interests of patients. I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure me that the term "co-operation" as outlined in the Bill means that the regulatory body must listen to, consider carefully and make a reasonable decision on an issue. The amendment ensures that one professional regulatory body can stand out for evidence on what is best for patients, even when that position is against the interests of some of the professions.
The Minister has not yet spoken to Amendments Nos. 174 to 179, but perhaps I may outline some of my concerns because I realise that we are running late. I cannot support these amendments because they represent a compromise position between the Bill as it stands and the maintenance and regulation of the healthcare professions as independent from the

651
government of the day and directly answerable to Parliament, which is the stand that I should like to take. They also do not allow equal recognition of the Ministers of health in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under devolution, as the Secretary of State for England would exert control.
11 p.m.
Earl Howe: Lest the Committee is in any doubt, I should point out that it is my name and not that of an interloper that appears at the head of this amendment. I should like to express my support for the concept of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
The chief defect of the council is that, from the standpoint of each individual health regulator, it purports to offer accountability to Parliament at one remove. As the Bill stands, only the council has direct accountability to both Houses of Parliament. That seems an unsatisfactory way to proceed. While under the Bill the council will be able to exercise control over the individual regulators and (if we accept the government amendments) will be accountable to Parliament for any directions that it may issue, what surely matters to Parliament and to us all, at least as much as any differences of opinion between the council and the regulators, is the way that the regulators discharge their functions year in and year out. If accountability to Parliament in this context is to be taken seriously and be truly visible, that accountability should surely take the shortest route. It should also be delivered in a manner that allows for maximum openness, and, if need be, for cross-examination. A Select Committee to which all the regulators would be answerable would provide an ideal vehicle for the process.
All this begs the question of whether there is any need for the powers of direction to be enjoyed by the council for the regulation of healthcare professions. If the regulators report to and are called to account by Parliament directly, then an affirmative resolution, if ever one were required, could be triggered through the mechanism of the Select Committee and its reports. As has been said, it is not for this place or the Bill to establish such a committee; that is a matter for Parliament. However, the Government's views on the proposal will be of some importance. It would be useful at this stage to hear the reactions of the Minister.
As the noble Baroness has included a later group of amendments with this one, perhaps I can speak briefly to Amendment No. 168 which points to a part of Clause 24 that seems to me to sound alarm bells. It appears to give the Government carte blanche at some future date to widen the remit of the council in virtually any way they choose.
As I read it, paragraph (e) of subsection (9) could allow the council to involve itself in every single area of policy and activity with which a "regulatory body" is concerned. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that paragraph (c) could not be used to enlarge the council's powers of direction, which is important; nor,
652
I take it, could it override subsections (3) and (4), which prevent the council from intervening in "fitness to practise" cases. Can the Minister say whether it could enable the council, for example, to assume a wider or more direct role in determining ethical codes of professional practice, or in determining the detailed content of clinical education and training; or, indeed, in deciding who is, or is not, admitted to the register? I believe that we ought to have this part of the clause explained in more detail than we have been given hitherto.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Before I deal with the amendments, perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I have been most interested in the Reith lectures given by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that she has made about the potential for over-regulation. The Government have signed up to the importance of professional self-regulation. However, I ought also to point out that the purpose of self-regulation is not for the greater glory of the profession itself; it is to serve better the public interest. The intention behind the Government's proposals is to strengthen self-regulation in the public interest.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, suggested in her opening remarks, we need to go back to the Bristol inquiry report and to the specific endorsements and comments in recommendations 39 and 40 which stated:
"a council for the regulation of healthcare professionals should be created to bring together those bodies which regulate healthcare professionals … in effect, this is the body currently referred to in the NHS Plan as the council of healthcare regulators … [it] must ensure that there is an integrated and co-ordinated approach to setting standards, monitoring performance, and inspection and validation. Issues of overlap and of gaps between the various bodies must be addressed and resolved".
We accepted Kennedy's recommendation about the council. We published our more detailed proposals and engaged in a consultation exercise. The results of that consultation exercise supported the establishment of a new, more transparent framework for self-regulation which explicitly puts patients' public interest first and provides for greater integration and co-ordination and sharing of good practice between the regulatory bodies.
The existing regulatory bodies have responded to the need for reform; for example, to improve their fitness-to-practise procedures and to modernise and streamline their governance. The value of the council for the regulation of healthcare professions in this climate will be in keeping up the momentum of change and helping it to happen in a co-ordinated way.
Regulatory bodies and consumer groups have welcomed plans to establish the council. We reached an agreement with the regulators on the new council's proposed powers and that was communicated in the press statement issued on 5th March. That also contained statements from the presidents of the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council expressly stating that the new council would preserve parliamentary accountability and the

653
important principle of self-regulation. Sir Graeme Catto, President of the General Medical Council, stated:
"I am delighted that we have been able to reach an agreement with the Government that maintains the line of direct accountability of the GMC, and the other regulatory bodies, to Parliament. The issue of maintaining our independence from Government has been crucial throughout our discussions and I am delighted that the proposed amendment satisfies these concerns."
We have not reached the group of amendments which I shall move which relate specifically to the comments of the president of the General Medical Council. However, in addressing this first group of amendments, it is important to make clear the agreement that has been reached between the Government and the regulatory bodies.
I turn to the group of amendments which are about accountability to Parliament of professional regulatory bodies. Essentially, the core of the amendments would do away with our proposed new council for the regulation of healthcare professionals and propose that many of its functions should be given to a health joint Select Committee if Parliament should so decide to establish such a committee. I shall come to that in a moment. However, I take the opportunity to spell out how the accountability of regulators will work under the Bill. The council will be accountable to Parliament. Schedule 7 of the Bill obliges it to lay a report before Parliament each year. It must also, under the same schedule, provide Parliament with a special report on any matter which Parliament asks it to. It must also lay its accounts before Parliament.
The regulatory bodies have long been accountable to Parliament in the sense that Parliament can ask them to provide evidence to, for example, departmental Select Committees. That has happened on a number of occasions in the past few years. The Bill maintains that accountability to Parliament for the regulatory bodies. What it changes is that in essence it provides Parliament with some assistance in the work of the new council. Reports from the council will allow Parliament to see more readily how the world of regulation is developing, what is going well and, if necessary, what is going less well and requires closer scrutiny.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the amendments that she specifically puts forward are somewhat unusual. They seek to specify the way in which Parliament could exercise its powers to hold the regulations to account and, in essence, to appoint a joint Select Committee to take on the functions of the proposed council.
Amendments Nos. 165E and 165F appear to be particularly unusual. Their effect would be to turn the tables so that the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department for Health in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Minister, could ask Parliament for advice; and it would be obliged to comply. That surely cannot be right. The noble Baroness forecast that I would say this, and I shall: it is for Parliament to decide whether it wants a joint health Select Committee. I can have no views about the rights
654
or wrongs of this particular means of improving accountability. That is a matter for Parliament and not the Government.
I am concerned to see that regulators should he more effectively accountable to Parliament. I believe that the proposed council will, as I said earlier, enhance accountability to Parliament by helping it assess the performance of the regulatory bodies.
I do not think that the parallel with the Ecclesiastical Committee helps us. I never thought that I would discuss that committee on health matters. But my understanding is that its role is in the passage of Church of England primary legislation. That is very different from this new council which exists to promote best practice in regulation, overseeing the work of regulated bodies and helping Parliament hold them to account. Unlike the Ecclesiastical Committee, the council and the regulated bodies do not have powers to intervene in the making or amending of primary legislation. I would be happy to write extensively to the noble Baroness about the Ecclesiastical Committee if she would like me to.
Amendment No. 167—and indeed I think that I can now refer to Amendment No. 168 as well as Amendment No. 169—would take away the ability to modify the scope and functions of the council by a Section 60 order. I take the substantive point of concern of both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl about this matter—a feeling that the Government might be allowed to use this power to build up the council's power over time over the regulated bodies. But I would remind Members of the Committee that Section 60 is limited by some stringent safeguards provided in Schedule 3 of the Health Act 1999.
As a result of Schedule 3, as well as a stringent consultation and parliamentary approval process, the Government cannot abolish an existing regulatory body; they cannot impose a lay majority on an existing council; they cannot remove a function conferred c n the Privy Council; they cannot remove core functions from existing regulatory bodies, such as keeping the register—I think that this is the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—determining standards of education and training for admission to the profession; and administering procedures relating to misconduct, fitness to practise and similar matters.
It is not as though future changes to the council provided for here could diminish the independence of the regulatory bodies. We have also added a new safeguard in Clause 24(10) that an order about the council may not give the Secretary of State more powers over that council. I think that that preserves the independence of professional self-regulation fairly comprehensively.
Amendments Nos. 167 and 169 stop us modifying the council in any way without a new Bill. We could not clarify some of its functions. We could not remove a regulator from its scope. Although any new regulators set up would automatically come under its responsibilities under Clause 23(3)(j). We could not at some future date decide that the council's field of activity was too wide and remove a subject, say education, from its scope.

655
Amendment No. 168 removes the power in a future Section 60 order to take a regulatory body which had a mix of regulatory and other functions. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland are the current examples. We could not alter the mix of its functions which fell within the council's scope. It is logical to include that flexibility, although at present we have no plans to use it. By way of conclusion, I return to our great debates about Section 60, which was created to allow more flexibility in the workings of professional regulation. So far, we have introduced several orders covering medicine, dentistry, nursing and the allied health professions, all of which have benefited from those provisions. Given all the caveats and safeguards that I have mentioned, it would surely be odd if the council that brings all the professions together were to be the only one over which there could be no such flexibility.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Northover: I very much regret the fact that we have reached this major part of the Bill for debate at this hour. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady Finlay, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe—not "the Eark Howe" described on the Marshalled List—for their careful exposition of the issues.
Healthcare professions have self-regulated since at least 1858. Precisely how we move forward to a more transparent and accountable system in the 21st century should not be decided at the tail end of the agenda late at night like this. I understand that the Minister may well feel demob happy as he nears the conclusion of the Bill's consideration in Committee, but I trust that on Report we shall have more thorough consideration of the issues involved. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159B not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 29, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
The noble Earl said: We come now to a significant group of amendments relating to the proposed council for the regulation of healthcare professionals. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 165, 166, 172 and 173.
We all know the origins of this part of the Bill. In his report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy drew attention to the need for an independent body to oversee the activities of the various statutory regulators of the healthcare professions. In response, the council for the regulation of healthcare professionals is to be set up, with an explicit remit to promote the interests of patients and the public in the way that the regulatory bodies carry out their work. I have no problem with that general concept—indeed, I welcome it in so far as it provides a formalised means of promoting good practice and a consistent approach among all the regulators.
When the Bill was first published—indeed, right up until Second Reading in this House—the proposals for the new council excited no little degree of concern. The main concern related to the council's powers. Besides having the worthy and uncontroversial function of promoting best practice and co-operation between the regulators, it was also being given power to direct any or all of the regulators and, furthermore, to do so without reference to Parliament.
Two cardinal principles are thereby undermined: the accountability of each regulator to Parliament; and the regulator's independence from government. Since Second Reading, an agreement has been reached between the Government and the regulatory bodies that addresses at least part of those concerns. The Minister has already referred to that agreement. The amendments tabled by the Government. to which the Minister will no doubt shortly be speaking, embody the substance of that agreement.
The government amendments provide that any direction made by the council would come into force from a date specified by order and that such an order would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. Those provisions reflect the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am grateful to the Minister for so helpfully writing to me on the matter. I acknowledge that the amendments have been welcomed by the regulatory bodies.
If I am able to give only one-and-a-half cheers to the amendments, not three, that is because they do not go to the root of the concerns that I and many others have voiced. What do we mean by the term "profession"? The essence of a profession is its expertise and its standards. For many years, we have, in this country, had a mechanism for defining and overseeing professional expertise and standards. That mechanism—in the case of the medical profession, it is embodied in the GMC—is characterised by a professional majority in decision-making and by its independence from government. It is the profession, not the government, that decides what constitutes proper standards of practice, training and ethical behaviour. That is as it should be. Governments are in no position to second guess the standards that the professions set themselves. The day that that happens is the day on which the professions will be devalued; their ethos will no longer be their own.
Ultimately, of course, each profession and each professional regulator derives its authority from Parliament. However, Parliament allows them to operate independently. That independence is crucial in the setting of standards. The standards of behaviour and integrity expected of a professional person are higher than for other types of occupation and cover, for instance, sexual mores and the duty to maintain strict confidentiality. We cannot expect a professional to operate to an elevated code of conduct if, at the same time, we allow non-professionals to dictate to him how he should practise. Professional expertise and standards are inextricably intertwined.
What are we to say about the Bill through which an overarching council with a lay chairman and a lay majority is being given powers to direct the professional regulatory bodies? We must examine what the Bill says. Clause 24(2)(c) says that the council may,
"recommend to a regulatory body changes to the way in which it performs any of its functions".
I ask the Minister whether that includes ethical guidance and standards. If it does, that is territory we enter at our extreme peril. Taking that in conjunction with provisions in Clause 25, a regulator has a legal duty to co-operate with the council in the exercise of its functions. In addition, the council has a power to direct the regulatory body to change its rules when it considers that it would be desirable to do so for the protection of members of the public. The regulator must comply.
Whether or not such regulations are subject to affirmative resolution in Parliament, I am deeply troubled that I am being asked to approve a situation in which lay people have power to direct the professional majority and the Privy Council-appointed lay minority of the GMC, the GDC or other regulators. Such lay people will not have been elected and may have no experience of any of the health professions or of the performance or conduct committees that hear allegations against health professionals. They will not obviously have a better sense of the public interest than the lay members of a regulatory body.
I do not know what I would think if I had been appointed by the Privy Council to serve on the GMC and had served for several years only to be informed that the GMC must comply with an instruction issued by a small number of inexperienced lay people, most of them political appointees of one kind or another. I think I would feel demeaned and also that the medical profession was being demeaned.
Can the Minister clarify whether the duty of a regulator to comply with a direction from the council conflicts with the Trustee Acts? The GMC is a charity; its trustees have a duty to act in what they perceive to be the interests of their charity. How can they legitimately be required to do something they consider wrong just because 10 people in another body happen to disagree?
If we are looking for a way of improving the accountability to Parliament of the regulatory bodies, then a mechanism such as a Joint Select Committee would provide that. The Minister will have gathered that I regard the power of direction contained in Clause 25 to be misconceived and likely to lead to serious difficulties. But difficulties are also likely to arise in interpreting some of the wording elsewhere. In Clause 23(2)(c) and (d), dealing with the functions of the council, exactly what are we to understand by the words "encourage" and "promote co-operation"? In precisely what ways will this be done?
What are the implications of those words for the future of uni-professional regulation? Can the Minister say whether the Government are committed
658
to uni-professional regulation or is there an intention, over the longer term, to try to merge the regulation of the various healthcare professionals, not necessarily in a formal way but perhaps under a more de facto arrangement?
If we look on a broader level at what the council will be charged to do, it is not immediately easy to see how a body tasked with policy making and promoting co-operation between the professional regulators at one and the same time be effective wielding a stick as a regulator in its own right. Simultaneously it will be a facilitator trying to bring bodies together and a prosecutor, judge and jury on any actions of the professional bodies of which it does not approve. That is a potentially uncomfortable combination of roles and, I should have thought, a virtually automatic recipe for tension. I am therefore doubtful about flow effective the council can hope to be in any of its stated roles.
Other features also puzzle me. Why is it that when the Secretary of State asks the council for advice on any matter connected with a healthcare profession, as he may under the terms of Clause 24(7), there is absolutely no requirement for the council to consult or seek advice from the profession concerned? I wonder what kind of advice the Secretary of State is likely to receive without such consultation. Furthermore, in Clause 25(1) there is a duty placed on each regulatory body in the exercise of its functions to "co-operate" with the council. Exactly what does that mean? What would a regulatory body have to do to fail in this duty and who would decide whether it had done so?
I am sorry to have spoken at more length than usual, in particular at this time of night, but it has been necessary to do so with such a large grouping of amendments. I beg to move
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I want to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I think his fears are overstated. Frankly, I do not believe that they are shared by the regulatory bodies themselves, as I intimated from the extracts of the statement made at the beginning of March by the regulatory bodies, in particular the presidents of the GMC and the GDC.
I share the view that promoting the best interests of patients through securing common principles of regulation and the adoption of best practice is the main goal. To achieve that, we are working with the regulatory bodies to strengthen the framework of professional self-regulation so that it explicitly puts patients' interests first, and provides for greater integration, co-ordination and the sharing of good practice between the regulators.
I understand the concerns raised by the noble Earl about how the new council will discharge its responsibilities. I have no doubt whatever that the new council will be able to achieve its goals in a light-touch way through persuasion, agreement and co-operation with the regulatory bodies on any necessary reform.
However, I also believe that it is important for the council to have the necessary tools to ensure that it can do its job properly, as advocated by Professor

659
Kennedy, in order to overcome obstacles to reform which could arise. Furthermore, the amendments that I shall speak to shortly and other amendments that have been tabled during the passage of the Bill, which ensure the council's main powers are subject to parliamentary approval, do provide the necessary safeguards in relation to the power of the council to direct the other regulatory bodies.
I re-emphasise the enthusiasm with which the regulating bodies generally have welcomed plans to establish the council. One cannot ignore the fact that many of those regulatory bodies have issued statements which make it clear that they welcome the approach the Government have taken.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I really cannot sit here while the noble Lord makes his speech. Does he not realise that in accepting the Kennedy report—which they did not have to do—they were doing so in an atmosphere of the "something must be done" syndrome? In accepting the report, the Government made it very difficult indeed for the regulatory bodies to do anything other than welcome it. What would the public have thought if they had refused? It is for Parliament to look at the democratic effect of what the Government are saying. To argue that the regulatory bodies and the professions are quite happy is simply not good enough.
My noble friend made an extremely important speech, which I hope the Minister will read with great care. He put all the points very clearly. The Government will have to be extremely careful. They are on very tricky ground indeed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not accept that point at all. The fact is that we have had long and detailed discussions with all the regulatory bodies over the past few months. We have come to an agreement over the use of affirmative resolutions in relation to the discharge of the power of direction which is to be given to the new council. In a statement—not at the height of the publication of the Kennedy report but only a few weeks ago—the regulatory bodies themselves have said that they are agreeable to what is being proposed. One cannot discount the views being expressed by the regulatory bodies.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for giving way. While he is on the point, can he confirm that an affirmative resolution of the power of direction must not merely be laid before Parliament but must be debated and will be subject to a free vote?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly, if it is an affirmative resolution it will have to be debated. I dare not talk about free votes with the Government Chief Whip in his place. That is not a matter for me. However, as my noble friend has pointed out, there is always the prospect of a free vote for Cross-Benchers.
660
I find it difficult to support Amendment No. 160. It would give a less proactive role to the council to encourage co-operation between the regulatory bodies and to conform to good principles of regulation. The amendment would only hinder the council in its constructive activities of ensuring a consistency of approach between the different regulatory bodies. That again was surely a point made by Kennedy. It was a part of his rationale for establishing the council. It was also, in his view, a reason for the council to work closely with other quality-related bodies.
The amendment would make it harder for the council, should it find it necessary, to promote co-operation between, for example, the regulatory body and the quality assurance agency in regard to the fitness for purpose of educational courses and qualifications; or between all of the regulatory bodies and, for example, the General Social Care Council; or between the GMC, the GDC and the National Clinical Assessment Authority in regard to the thresholds at which poor performance by a doctor or dentist must lead to referral to his or her regulatory body.
Of course these dialogues could take place without the council's encouragement—some already do at the moment—but if they were breaking down, the amendment would make it hard for the council to use its good offices to salvage them. The amendment would also delete the council's role in encouraging regulatory bodies to conform with the principles of good, professional self-regulation but that is just what we want the council to do. I do not believe that the regulatory bodies have any problems with that concept.
Amendment No. 165 deletes one of the examples of the council's powers from Clause 24(2). It takes away the words
"recommend to a regulatory body changes to the way in which it performs any of its functions".
We want the council to be able to recommend changes to a regulator. Surely that flows naturally from the other functions of reporting on performance and, where appropriate, comparing the regulatory bodies mentioned in Clause 24(2). That is also a necessary way of carrying out the functions bestowed on the council in Clause 23. The purpose of the council is to provide energy for improvement. If we agree that—as Clause 23 states—the council should promote best practice, for anyone not already following best practice surely that amounts to a recommendation for change.
The council's working methods are for it to decide. It might decide to invite regulators to pool their experience on an issue such as using the findings of overseas regulatory bodies. That might show that one or two bodies with more experience had better systems than the others. The council might publish guidance suggesting the advantages of their approach. Surely that should be encouraged.
Amendments Nos. 165YA and 165ZA address the same subsection. Instead of deleting it, they would make minor changes to the wording. They would not alter the effect of the Bill. I do not believe that it is

661
necessary to spell out that any changes recommended would need to be improvements. The council would not suggest changes unless it believed that to be the case.
Amendment No. 166 requires the council to consult a profession on which a Minister has asked its advice before giving that advice. I agree that is a reasonable way to expect the council to proceed but I do not think that needs to be written into the Bill. There may be situations where it would be appropriate for the council to consult the professions before giving advice. Equally, we can envisage situations where the council would consult regulatory bodies frequently through consultations, meetings and documents in the legitimate way that it goes about its business. There may be a situation where Ministers need information about a profession to which the council already has access. Some of that information may be fairly routine. If the council had to consult before it could give such advice, that would surely cause unnecessary delay.
I listened with great interest to the noble Earl's comments about the dangers, as he saw them, of a lay majority on the council but it will contain also nine members appointed by the regulatory bodies who will have expertise of particular health professions. They will be in a good position to give advice on the information that should be provided directly to Ministers and on the issues that may need appropriate consultation with the regulatory body. It would be inflexible if such processes needed to be prescribed in the Bill—particularly since one is talking about giving advice.
I understand that the purpose of Amendment No. 172 is to seek reassurance that the duty to co-operate is not absolute. When a comparable amendment was debated in Committee in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health, Mr. John Hutton, gave an assurance that in approaching any decision, the council would have to act reasonably and on the basis of evidence that would support its determination, which shows that there are sufficient safeguards in the system.
I can also offer the reassurance that the duty to co-operate is not absolute. If any court is ever called upon to consider whether a regulatory body was in default, I expect that reasonableness would be very much part of the courts determination. In essence, that is the answer to the noble Earl. If a regulator refused to comply with a direction made under the clause, it would be open to the council to seek, by way of judicial review, an appropriate declaration or order from the courts. Then it would be up to the courts to make such a decision.
Turning to Amendment No. 173, Clause 25 contemplates a situation where the council has identified a problem with the way in which one regulatory body's rules operate. There will have been discussions, perhaps extended ones, but no meeting of minds. If this is about some minor matter, it can clearly be allowed to rest there, but if the council has concluded that change is necessary for the protection of members of the public it needs to have some means
662
to allow it to carry on its work. That is why we it must retain the power of the council to impose a change, although we envisage this rarely if ever being used. My right honourable friend the Minister for Health also gave such assurances in Committee in another place. Amendment No. 173 would weaken the council and its ability to work in the interest of the public.
I repeat that there have been statements of support from regulators. For example, the UKCC of nurses, midwives and health visitors welcomes the suggested accountability arrangements. The chief executive of the UKCC said last August:
"Being accountable to Parliament through the new council seems sensible and simple and ensures independence from the government of the day".
I have other quotations with which I shall not trouble the Committee at this late hour.
I now turn to the government amendments, which are important to our debate. Amendments Nos. 174 to 179 and 189 to 194 ensure that before the council could use its reserve power to direct a regulator to change its rules, the direction would need to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The council should, as a last resort, be able to require a regulator to change its rules in the public interest provided that both Houses of Parliament agree. Surely, adopting this approach preserves the principle that regulators are accountable to Parliament.
The drafting is a little complex for two reasons. The Bill puts all the provisions relating to orders together in Clause 36. Secondly, the amendments have to cover all eventualities, including directions which vary or revoke earlier directions. I hasten to add that the number of words used is not a guide to the frequency with which this power is likely to be used.
The key amendments are Amendments Nos. 176 and 191. Together, these provide that a direction shill come into force on a date specificed by the Secretary of State by order, such draft order being approved by resolution of each House. That is the change which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recommended in its report on the Bill. I am grateful to the committee for its report. As I have said, the changes it suggested have won the approval of the professional regulatory bodies, leading to a satisfactory conclusion.
I do not under-estimate the original concerns of some of the regulatory bodies. I take in good faith the criticisms that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has brought together. I strongly believe in professional self-regulation. I believe that the new council will enhance that self-regulation, and that the amendments that I now propose will ensure the primacy of Parliament in having to agree through the affirmative resolution procedure any use of such a direction.
A balance must always be held between professional self-regulation, parliamentary accountabilty and the public interest. I believe that, taken together with these amendments, we have got the balance right.
Earl Howe: If parliamentary approval is given to an order that embodies a direction given by the council,

663
why is it necessary to include the words "must comply" in Clause 25(4). If there is an affirmative resolution in Parliament, surely the regulatory body is bound to comply anyway. I wonder whether that part of the clause could be re-examined.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to look at the technical wording. However, as I understand it, that was certainly the intent before we placed the amendments before the Committee; namely, if the regulator refused to comply with a direction made by the council, it would be open to the council to seek, by way of judicial review, an appropriate declaration or order from the court. Of course, I fully accept that, if Parliament had determined through an affirmative resolution that a direction should be made, it would be highly unusual for one of the regulatory bodies to say that it was not going to apply it. I will, however, look at the wording to ensure that it is consistent with the amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising that point.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall make a few concluding comments, if I may. He is, of course, perfectly right to say that the regulatory bodies do not share—or, at least, have not expressed—the same concerns as I have. They have welcomed the Government's amendments, as do I. The amendments are a step in the right direction, and I do not wish to take anything away from that. Wider issues, however, remain unresolved, and they are the ones that I have tried to articulate.
The fact remains, that I fear, that the powers of direction proposed for the council in Clause 25 are potentially wide. As the Royal Pharmaceutical Society pointed out in a paper that it sent to me, no real limits are specified on the use of these powers, on how frequently they can be exercised, or on the circumstances in which they can be deployed. I do not feel any clearer on those points, having listened to the Minister's reply, and we need to be clear about them if we are to understand how the regulatory duties and responsibilities of the professional regulators are to be affected and influenced by the new council.
I do not think that the Minister answered my question about the Trustee Acts, or my question about whether the functions referred to in Clause 24(2)(c) could include ethical guidance and standards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall be happy to respond in writing to the noble Earl, but my understanding is that the council will operate in respect of all functions of the regulatory bodies, although the pharmacy bodies will be an exception because they serve as representative bodies as well as professional self-regulators. So, in relation to the power of direction under Clause 25, what the council will be able to do will depend entirely on what powers
664
the regulatory bodies have to make rules, and on whether directing a change in rules would be for the protection of the public.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that. As I said, the amendments tabled by the Government are welcome as additional safeguards against any possible maverick direction by the council. We need to be honest with ourselves, however. When all is said and done, the power of direction that is being conferred on the council brings to an end the concept of professional self-regulation. For me and for many others, that is a serious and very regrettable development. This has, however, been a useful exchange of views and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals]:
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 88, line 34, leave out "regulatory body" and insert "of the regulatory bodies referred to in section 23(3)(a) to (h)(i), and three members appointed by the regulatory body referred to in section 23(3)(h)(ii) or the successor regulatory body (within the meaning of Schedule 3 to the Health Act 1999 (c. 8)) to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (the Health Professions Council) established by order in Council under section 60 of that Act"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 161 and 162. As currently proposed, the council will give equal weight to all existing regulatory bodies, regardless of their different sizes, and of whether the body in question regulates one, two or 12 separate professions. No doubt, this was the simplest way that the Department of Health could come up with, given the minefield that it was entering. At present, for example, the Bill allows for the appointment of only one representative on the council for the 12 allied health professions regulated by the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. The allied health professions will, therefore, be regulated as though they were a single profession, despite the fact that they are 12 professions with little in common.
Although we recognise that the council could not reflect all the differing proportions of the various bodies, some recognition of this fact is surely due. The Bill allows the General Osteopathic Council and the General Chiropractic Council each to have one person on the over-arching council, despite the fact that the former represents only 3,000 registrants, and the latter only 1,600, while the allied health professions' organisation, which represents 111,000, would also have only one. That does not seem right. The situation is an historical accident. When new bodies are set up, they should not simply enshrine historical accidents but should look at things afresh. After all, the NHS, which was set up with the historical accident of having over-provision of hospitals in one place and under-provision in another, has spent the past half century trying to sort that one out. We should not let historical accident dictate in such cases. The body needs to be

665
able to take with it all its constituent parts if it is to work. I suggest that the issue should be addressed again.
On Amendment No. 162, the Bill establishes an important principle, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has already referred. There is a lay majority on the council. We do not feel that a lay majority is the answer to the problems that the Government are trying to tackle. We would have the professions answerable directly to Parliament. That is appropriate. Meanwhile, the professions themselves are surely best placed to regulate their members, provided they are then answerable to Parliament. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: In the interests of time, I have decided not to speak to Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 and do not intend to move them. However, I shall say a few words about Amendment No. 162, which seems to get to the heart of the awkwardness that characterises the council's intended role. If there are points of agreement among all sides in the debate, they are that we want a council that is independent in its operation and is informed and effective in holding the regulatory bodies to account. The virtue of the Government's formula whereby the appointees of the regulatory bodies are in the minority is that no credible body that formally holds the regulators to account can be controlled by representatives of those regulators. To that extent, I venture to part company with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
On the other hand, the noble Baroness has made some very powerful points. How can we call the council independent when it will be controlled by individuals who owe their appointment to Ministers or to one of the regional assemblies? Were it not for the power of direction, I would have much less difficulty with the Government's formula, but I have come to think that there is no perfect answer to the conundrum. We need both the informed input of those who represent the regulatory bodies and the detached common sense of lay appointees, who will be there above all to represent the interests of patients and the public.
Perhaps the ideal formula would be for neither group to be able to force a majority. That would be a good discipline. If the council is to be worth anything, it should speak with a united voice and a voice of authority. It should consist—or be perceived as consisting—of two separate camps. If neither group was in the majority, all appointees would be bound to try to co-operate and work together by consensus. I wish that I had tabled an amendment to that effect. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on the idea.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, suggested that we were in a bit of a minefield on issues of representation of various regulatory bodies. She is right that the representation has historical roots. However, reopening that historic basis would he likely to lead to great problems between
666
the different professions and regulatory bodies. The regulatory bodies have accepted that this is a sensible way forward.
We must also bear in mind that the health profession members of the council are there to perform a collective function. I revert to our earlier discussion on patients forums electing members to the boards of NHS trusts—which may be the route by which some members arrive at the table, and to which they will bring a great deal of public and patient experience. However, once they get to the table, they will have a collective responsibility. Surely the same applies to the health professional members of the council.
I think that rather than being seen to represent one sectional interest, the health profession members will bring an expertise in professional regulation in general. The council's work will not usually focus on a single profession but will instead consider the needs and problems applying to all professions. Where necessary, the council will be able to publish drafts for consultation, hold ad hoc meetings with interested parties and find other ways of obtaining the input of individual professions.
I tell the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the problem with accepting such an amendment is that it would risk damaging the spirit of co-operation that the regulated bodies have shown in welcoming the new council. Moreover, on a strict numbers case, it is probably the nurses and doctors who have a stronger argument than anyone. One thing that has struck me in all the discussions on changes to professional regulation which we have had with the professions in the past two or three years is that they have all accepted the need for a hit of give and take. In the interests of getting progress, movement and co-ordination, people have accepted that there will be discrepancies in relation to the membership of each council. I believe that the current proposal is the best way forward and that we would be opening a can of worms by reopening the whole question of representation and numbers. Ultimately, that would not lead to any improvement.
I also accept that Amendment No. 162 takes us back to our discussion on the previous group of amendments. This amendment would replace a majority of one for those representing the public with a majority for the professions. My argument has always been that we are trying to strike a balance between the necessity of professional self-regulation, the wider public interest and appropriate accountability to Parliament. The Government contend that, with professional self-regulation, the professions will have a majority on the regulated bodies. We have also already agreed the use of the affirmative resolution in terms of any directions made by the council. I think that there is a persuasive argument in favour of a narrow majority of one on the council in favour of the lay element.
I should also point out that those appointed will be chosen by the NHS Appointments Commission alongside the devolved administrations, who will appoint one member each. I also make it clear that the type of people whom we expect the Appointments

667
Commission to choose are those with experience who will be able to speak out for the patient and public interest in relation to the health service. We certainly do not expect the commission to choose, as was unkindly suggested, government stooges. The whole purpose of creating effective self-regulation is to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded. That is the case for a majority of one for lay people, who I believe will be of the highest calibre.
I tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the regulated bodies themselves have not questioned being put in a minority of one on the council. Their concern was about the majority being appointed directly by the Government. However, that matter has already been dealt with by amendments in another place.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am only too well aware that there are various cans of worms in this particular sphere. I shall certainly examine his comments. I should emphasise, however, that underlying all our amendments is our public interest argument of accountability to Parliament. Some of the changes we suggest in some of our amendments have to be posited on that basis. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Powers and duties of the Council: general]
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 169 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 31, line 41, leave out from second "profession" to "which" in line 42.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 170 draws attention to what is on the face of things a drafting oddity. Clause 24(12) states that
"'health care profession'" means a profession (whether or not regulated by or by virtue of any enactment) which is concerned (wholly or partly) with the physical or mental health of individuals".
That is an extraordinarily wide compass. It would be hard to think of any profession which is not at some time, at least in part, concerned with the physical or mental health of individuals. Architects build hospitals; bankers lend money to build hospitals; solicitors act for the sick. Even vets are concerned with the physical and mental health of individuals—namely, themselves.
The Government's intentions may be clear, but I ask whether there might not be a tighter form of words which encapsulates more precisely the territory that the new council will occupy. The existing professions that are to come under the jurisdiction of the new council can surely be listed by reference to the regulatory bodies that govern them. If in the indefinite future there are to be other professions admitted under the same umbrella—there may well be, of course—we
668
already have an order-making power in the clause which will ensure at least some parliamentary control over what professions can be added to the list.
I do not understand why in subsection (12) there needs to be such a catch-all type of definition which appears to open the door unnecessarily wide. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can clear up the matter for the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The definition was used in the Health Act 1999, having in view the profession of psychology whose leaders wanted the door to be open to statutory regulation, although most do not practise in the health sector.
The clause uses the definition where Ministers, including the devolved Administrations, can seek the council's advice on any matter connected with a healthcare profession. If the definition is narrower, the list of professions on which the council can advise us is reduced. The problem with that is that the narrow definition would exclude many groups who aspire to statutory regulation in the next few years. As the noble Earl will recall, about a year or so ago we debated with Lord Alderdice in his psychotherapy Bill. There are other examples including psychologists, psychotherapists, operating department practitioners, perfusionists and physiological measurement technicians, all of whom have expressed the wish to be regulated at some time in the future.
There is nothing more sinister than that. The wide definition is simply to ensure that, if at any time in the future we wished to seek advice on professions to be regulated, it would be straightforward to do so.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Regulatory bodies and the Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 32, line 2, leave out "direct" and insert "give directions requiring"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 179:
Page 32, line 5, leave out "so direct" and insert "give such directions"
Page 32, line 7, at end insert—
"(3A) The Council must send a copy of any such directions to the relevant authority.
(3B) The relevant authority is the Secretary of State or, if the regulatory body in question is the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety there.
(3C) The directions do not come into force until the date specified in an order made by the relevant authority.

669
(3D) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament, or (as the case may be) the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly, a draft of an order—

(a) setting out any directions he or it receives pursuant to subsection (3A), and

(b) specifying the date on which the directions are to come into force.

(3E) Subsections (3A) to (3D) apply also to—

(a) directions varying earlier directions, and

(b) directions revoking earlier directions, and given after—

(i) both Houses of Parliament have resolved to approve the draft order specifying the date on which the earlier directions are to come into force, or (as the case may be)

(ii) the Northern Ireland Assembly has done so.

(3F) Subsections (3A) and (3B) apply also to directions—

(a) revoking earlier directions, but

(b) which do not fall within subsection (3E)(b),

but subsections (3C) and (3D) do not apply to such directions.
(3G) If the Council gives directions which fall within subsection (3F), the earlier directions which those directions revoke shall be treated as if subsections (3C) and (3D) had never applied to them, and as never in force."
Page 32, line 8, at end insert "which have come into force and have not been revoked"
Page 32, line 14, leave out "directions given" and insert "the giving of directions"
Page 32, line 16, leave out "it directions" and insert "directions relating to it"
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 175 to 179 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 32, line 19, at end insert—
"(9) Cases brought against clinicians will continue to be heard using the criminal burden of proof."
The noble Baroness said: We seek assurance through Amendment No. 179A that the level of proof expected to be obtained in cases against health professionals will remain that of criminal rather than civil proof. As Members of the Committee will know, in civil cases the claimant has to prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities. In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Given the importance of these kinds of cases, the criminal standard is surely appropriate if a person's right to practise is to be removed. That does not remove the right to apply sanctions to people for misconduct found on the balance of probabilities. I trust the Minister will be able to reassure me on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 179A is designed to prevent a direction by the council from requiring a regulator to change its rules to move away from the criminal standard of proof; that is, the need to prove, for example, misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before taking action affecting someone's registration.
670
In fact the Bill does not alter the burden of proof; it is silent on that. Nor does legislation specify what standard should be adopted by regulatory bodies in disciplinary cases. That is a matter of case law rather than statute.
I appreciate that some professionals might be concerned at the possibility of a change to the burden of proof. But that is not something the Government are seeking and I have no reason to believe that it will be something the new council raises. Does that imply, as the amendment seems to, that we should use the Bill to make it impossible for a regulator ever to change the burden of proof? I suggest not. For example, the GMC's current proposals to reform its fitness to practise procedures would allow it to close a case with a formal warning or advice to a registrant rather than deregistration based on a finding on the balance of probabilities, as would be the case in many other situations where a case of misconduct which did not lead to deregistration or dismissal might operate.
Therefore, for some kinds of action it is possible that the civil burden of proof may be a live issue. In the unlikely event that the council wished to oblige some regulators to follow that route, I remind Members of the Committee that we have now tabled amendments to the Bill so that the direction would only have effect after both Houses of Parliament had approved an order setting a date for it to come into force. Moreover the council would have to prove that any such move was desirable for the protection of the public, which is the standard that the Bill applies. It would also have to convince Parliament of that. For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Northover: I thank the Minister for that reassuring reply. I shall read it in the cooler light of day. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Complaints about regulatory bodies]:
[Amendments Nos. 180 to 188 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 34 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 188A and 188B not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedules 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 43, line 28, at end insert "or, in the case of an order made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland under section 25, by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12))"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 194:
Page 43, line 31, after "section" insert "25,"
Page 43, line 34, after "34" insert ", or an order of the Secretary of State under section 25,"
Page 43, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) No order shall be made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland under section 25 unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly."
Page 44, line 15, at end insert—
"(6A) Subsections (4) to (6) do not apply to orders under section 25."
672
Page 44, line 16, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6A),"
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 190 to 194 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Employment Bill

    The Committee met at eleven of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]:
    Clause 38 [Failure to give statement of employment particulars, etc.]:
    Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 192A:
    Page 41, line 45, leave out subsections (1) to (7) and insert—
    "(1) Where an employment tribunal makes any determination under section 12(1) or (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (determination of references) the employment tribunal shall make an award that the employer pay to the employee a sum equal to the amount of two weeks' pay."
    The noble Lord said: I trust that we are all suitably refreshed and have done our homework over the Easter holidays. The purpose of this amendment—and I am indebted to the work that the Low Pay Unit has done here—is to attempt to deal with one of the difficult issues, the complexity of Clause 38. I think everybody will agree with the comments of Judge Prophet that the existing Clause 38 is mind-numbingly complex. As Judge Prophet says,
    "It is so complicated that even the judiciary who have looked at the clause are uncertain what it means. Pity then the ordinary employee and the small business".
    The object of the amendment is to provide a freestanding remedy for failure of an employer to provide a registered statement which is both proportionate to the mischief it addresses and provides a sufficient incentive to employers to comply with this requirement.
    I am sure we are all agreed that the widespread failure to provide written statements, as identified by the DTI, causes damage to the employment relationship. That certainly conforms to the experience of people who are familiar with this field. Therefore, there is no dispute from these Benches as to the rationale for a sanction on employers to encourage compliance. We would, however, agree with the comments of the Low Pay Unit and others that the question must remain as to whether Clause 38 is the best public policy response to this problem.
    Perhaps I may share with the Committee some of the problems that can arise. First, we submit that the measure is badly targeted. The sanction under Clause 38 will apply only where an employee has brought one of the claims listed under Schedule 5. It will not apply to claims brought for other purposes, even though the failure to provide a written statement may be just as fundamental to that claim. For example a claim for under payment of the national minimum wage is not in Schedule 5, whereas a claim for detriment in relation to the national minimum wage is. In both those cases, it would seem equally important for the tribunal to
    CWH 430
    determine fundamental terms of the contract, such as hours of work, which should have been included in the written statement.
    The compensation mechanism is also complex and, we would suggest, flawed. In summary, Clause 38 provides for the following—and it is complicated. As Judge Prophet says, it is mind-blowingly complex. First, to trigger extra compensation, the applicant must have made a claim under one of the jurisdictions under Schedule 5. In determining that claim, the tribunal must then find that the employer has not complied at all, or only complied partially with the requirement to provide a written statement.
    If the tribunal then decides the claim in favour of the employee but decides not to make an award in respect of that claim, the tribunal must still make an award for the failure of the employer to provide a written statement. This must be two weeks' pay where no written statement has been provided and one week's pay if the statement is incomplete or out of date.
    If the tribunal decides the claim in favour of the employee and does make an award in respect of the claim, then the award should be increased. The increase should be the greater of 5 per cent of the award or one or two weeks' pay, depending on whether the failure to comply with the requirement was complete or partial. If this increase in the award is less than 25 per cent of the original award, the tribunal can then increase it up to 25 per cent of the original award, if it would be just and equitable in the circumstances. The tribunal may, however, have increased the award already through the operation of Clause 31. This would apply in circumstances where the employer is at fault for failure to complete internal procedures and could result in an increase in the award of up to 50 per cent. If such an increase has already been made, the total of the increase under Clause 31 and the clause should not exceed 50 per cent of the original award.
    I believe that in the past two minutes that I have demonstrated the mind-blowingly complex nature of the clause as drafted. Not only is the formula unnecessarily complex, we would submit that it is also flawed and that one gets inconsistent and unfair awards for compensation. I will not list all the examples that the Low Pay Unit has demonstrated, but I will take two. One example is that of an employee who earns £ a week, wins her claim, but receives no compensation. She is then awarded compensation as she has had no written statement. This is two weeks' pay or £400. Therefore, the compensation for the written statement in that case is £400.
    A second example is of an employee earning the same amount—£200 a week—who wins her claim and receives £10,000 compensation. She is then awarded compensation as she had no written statement. Under the first part of the calculation, that would be the greater of 5 per cent or two weeks' pay, so there would be £500 compensation for failure to provide the written statement. The tribunal then decides it will be just and equitable in the circumstance to increase the compensation up to the 25 per cent maximum, so she receives £2,500 for failure to provide a written

    CWH 431
    statement. With exactly the same earnings as in the previous example, there is a difference between £400 compensation and £2,500 for an identical role.
    The amendment is clearly designed to get an answer from the Government as to whether they propose to make this complex and flawed formula simple. I beg to move.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 193 to 197.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It has been agreed that I should speak to Amendment No. 198, which might be more efficiently grouped with this particular clause and it is wholly my fault that the groupings do not include it. It would be a saving of time if I did so and my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, have kindly agreed that I should do so.
    The effect of Amendment No. 198 would be very similar to that of Amendment No. 192A. It was drafted after the excellent argument of Judge Prophet on Clause 38, to which I wholly subscribe, and before I saw the excellent briefing from the Low Pay Unit to which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has referred. If I may return a comment conversely from what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said on a previous occasion, I think that his amendment may be rather better than ours.
    This gives me the opportunity of saying that Amendment No. 198 would apply in the case where, as it puts it,
    "an employer has failed to give to an employee a statement as required by the sections 1, 4 or 8"
    of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under Section 12, which at the moment allows only for a declaration by the tribunal, there would be added an automatic right to compensation. In case the Government were going to insist on their extraordinarily complex, not to say tortuous, Clause 38, we linked it to Clause 38. If, of course, the Government have had second thoughts on Clause 38, we would merely wish to give the tribunal a discretion as to the amount which it must award.
    This is a longstanding ground of criticism of what is now the Employment Rights Act 1996 and began as the Contracts of Employment Act 1963. For many, many years the tribunal has been allowed to make a declaration as to the inadequacy of the written statement of employment particulars but to go no further. It seems to me that by the very fact of including the complex Clause 38, the Government accept that in the normal case there must be a sanction on an employer who does not give proper written particulars.
    It is in that sense that both the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and our Amendment No. 198 are important from a long-term point of view. They seek to provide a long-term improvement to the employment protection rights legislation by ensuring
    CWH 432
    that the tribunal has a duty to give compensation to an employee to whom proper written particulars have not been given by the employer at the proper time. In that respect, they provide a clear and automatic sanction upon employers who fail to do so, and many employers do fail to do so. That sanction improves the working of the employment protection legislation and practice at the place of work. I speak to Amendment No. 198.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have introduced their amendments, and I welcome the opportunity to deal with both amendments together. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, Amendment No. 198 is similar to Amendment No. 192A but it differs in that it would not remove the penalty regime which is in Clause 38.
    Amendment No. 192A would insert a new provision into the Bill relating to the enforcement of existing requirements in the Employment Rights Act 1996 that employees should receive a complete and accurate written statement of employment particulars. The effect of the amendment would be to enable employees whose employers have not fulfilled those requirements not only to take a case to the tribunal to rectify the position, as they can now, but to go beyond that and obtain a fixed level of compensation if they win their case.
    At the same time, the amendment deletes the provisions in the present clause, having the effect that the awards made as a result of complaints to tribunals about other issues are to be increased by a percentage if no, or an inadequate, statement of written particulars has been given.
    I have mixed feelings about the amendment. I have to resist one of the effects that it would have but I shall agree with the other and take action accordingly.
    It is clear that we all agree that the effective resolution of disputes in the workplace and clarity in employment relationship more generally requires that employees should be given the written statement of employment particulars to which they are entitled. We all share the aim of encouraging compliance with that requirement.
    The Bill directs tribunals, when a successful claim is made under the majority of the main types of tribunal claim—that is, what are called "jurisdictions", which are set out in Schedule 5—to make an increased award where the written statement was not issued or was incomplete or inaccurate.
    Before I go further, perhaps I may say a word about Schedule 5. That schedule is intended to be fairly comprehensive. It is intended to cover pretty well everything that comes before an employment tribunal. If it is found not to be comprehensive, and if there are changes in matters which can and should go before an employment tribunal, it can be altered by regulation. It does not require primary legislation for that purpose.
    I want to correct one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, concerning his statement that the schedule does not apply to the national minimum

    CWH 433
    wage. The national minimum wage is enforced under Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is a provision specified in Schedule 5. I do not believe that the issue of what is included in Schedule 5 is absolutely essential to the argument that we are making today, the point being that the amendment would create a stand-alone penalty for noncompliance and would remove the linkage with the other types of tribunal claim and replace it with a freestanding right to compensation.
    I believe that the current approach in the Bill creates the right balance in encouraging compliance and by putting employers on notice that they neglect their obligations under the written statement provisions at their peril, without in effect creating a new stand-alone right to compensation. It focuses on an area of particular abuse—that is, those situations where the employment relationship has been damaged and that is the employer's fault.
    Of course, we could go further. We could, as the amendment suggests, enable tribunals to make awards where the only issue is the absence or inaccuracy of a written statement. However, we take the view that this would be a step too far. At the moment, where a complaint is made of the absence or inadequacy of a written statement, the tribunal will determine what should have been included in the statement and the employer will be deemed to have given the employee a statement containing that information. That seems to me an acceptable and appropriate remedy for the abuse suffered. Providing a stand-alone financial penalty where the only problem is the absence of a statement might encourage speculative claims where no real damage has been suffered.
    I turn now to the other issue, which is the simplified fixed penalty approach which is proposed in the amendment. The amendment would take out subsections (1) to (7) of the clause, which the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has quoted so effectively. It would remove the penalty provisions as currently drafted. These provisions enable an award made for one of the types of claims listed in Schedule 5 to be uplifted by a variable percentage of between 5 per cent and 25 per cent, with a minimum floor of one or two weeks' pay. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that that was impossibly complicated: I agree. I have read the clause and the Explanatory Notes very carefully, but at the end of that—not being a lawyer, and certainly not an employment lawyer—I was none the wiser.
    Although we do not wish to create a stand-alone penalty and we want to preserve some link between a penalty for a breach of this requirement and a penalty for breach under some other type of claim, we should adopt the simplest and most readily understandable formula for calculating the penalty that we do impose.
    I am persuaded that a fixed-rate penalty—I suggest two or four weeks' pay—would be as effective as the current percentage-uplift system in discouraging employers from ignoring their obligations. It would be a good deal simpler to operate. The Government will therefore bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report.
    11.15 a.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful that the Government will reconsider Clause 38. When they consider whether to impose a two or four week basic award, will they do further research, which they say that they have not done, on the effect of sanctions an employers fulfilling their obligations?
    Government policy is not to allow for any standalone penalty for the failure by an employer to give proper written particulars to the employee of his conditions of employment, because they only want a remedy where the employment relationship is damaged. Do not the Government regard it as an automatic damage to the employment relationship if the employer does not give to the employee a written statement, which he is legally obliged to give, of the main terms and condition of employment?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend rightly describes the Government's position. We do not think that there is automatically a damage to the employment relationship—it only matters if anything goes wrong as a result. In a very large number of employment relationships, particularly continuing employment relationships before this Bill conies into effect, nobody has ever queried the need for a written statement. Unless something goes wrong, nobody will query it—neither the employee nor the employer. If something goes wrong, it must be clear—we ate making this clear in the Bill—that there will be a penalty if it is missing. That is as far as we can reasonably go without introducing a whole new category of matters going before the tribunal simply because there is not a written statement, or an adequate one.
    On the first question posed by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn about research, we consulted on Clause 38 and consultees were broadly happy. However, I rather think that they were happy before they saw the way in which Clause 38 had to be drafted in order to achieve what we were seeking to achieve. I cannot imagine that there will be any difficulty with a simplified approach.
    Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am most disturbed by the language that my noble friend has just used. The concept that no damage has been done if no contract of employment is ever issued is one that I hope does not receive too much publicity. This is monstrous. You cannot pretend in this regard—not issuing a contract of employment to someone you have employed just does not stand up to examination. I cannot go along with the idea that unions that have been consulted are happy with this concept.
    Lord McCarthy: I want to be clear about what the Minister is saying. It seems to me that he is not prepared to make a single concession. He said that, if necessary, he wants the regulations in Schedule 5 to be more comprehensive, because he wants them to cover everything. If we find that they do not cover something, you use regulations to state that they do. That is not a concession. He also said that he wants to retain the indirect approach. You have to go to a

    CWH 435
    tribunal and win before anything happens. That is not a concession. In so far as he explained why he wants such provisions, he said that we must not have speculative claims. Most claims to tribunals are speculation; no one knows exactly who will win, and if the worker does not win, he will receive no money. If we said in advance that if there was a chance that he would receive no money, he should not take a case, that would simply—this may be getting close to the reason why the Minister is making more concessions this morning—get the Government nearer to the necessary 40,000 cases. He is quite happy in this regard. This is another non-concession, with a fixed rate, even if it turns out—if the Low Pay Unit works on the matter again—that it is just as anomalous and just as unfair as the complicated system in the Bill.
    The main concession that the Government will not make is about doing anything that enables the applicant to believe that he or she might get justice. There is no justice in this. A fixed rate is not justice and the refusal to move on an indirect approach—and all the other issues—are not justice. This all goes back to the need to cut 40,000 cases; that is the only justification. The Minister, of all men, said that consultation of interested parties is the same as research, or is a substitute for research. He should make some concession somewhere or we shall have to come back on Report.
    Lord Davies of Coity: I want to reinforce the concern that has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Gladwin. An employer's obligation to provide contracts of employment or a written statement is rather unusual. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that no damage could be done. The chances are that in some circumstances a complaint will not be registered and, as a result, no determination by a tribunal will be provided.
    However, if a complaint is made, a stand-alone penalty must of necessity be an obligation for the tribunals to impose upon the employer because they have not fulfilled a legal obligation they should have fulfilled. It seems to me that in its present form the Act—and I welcome it being looked at again to take away some of the unnecessary complex complications there—is giving the employer an excuse to advance an explanation as to why he did not fulfil his legal obligations. That is an absolute nonsense.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly, in view of what has been said, I will look again at the experience of the 1996 Act, the point being here that it is already a requirement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 that employees should receive a complete and accurate written statement of their employment particulars. That of course is not being taken away. The difference between us is not that it is not a legal requirement that there should be a complete and accurate written statement of employment particulars, but that there should be a stand-alone penalty for failure to comply with that. There has not been a stand-alone penalty until now and clearly it is appropriate that we should
    CWH 436
    look at whether that has caused problems. The experience of the employment tribunals is obviously relevant to that.
    We are neither advancing nor retreating on this matter at the moment. What we are doing is proposing that where there seems to be—I do not know whether the right term is "collateral damage"—a combination of one of the matters covered in Schedule 5, in other words, nearly all of the matters going before an employment tribunal, and where that is accompanied by an inadequate or non-existent statement of written particulars, the employer should pay an additional penalty to the employee. It may not be called a concession but I believe that it is a step forward for employees. Certainly, between now and the Report stage, if there is anything else we can discover which is relevant to this we shall certainly do so.
    Lord Davies of Coity: Before my noble friend sits down, there is one point that strikes me arising out of what has just been said. It may be that there is not a current provision for stand-alone penalties in certain circumstances. However, the emphasis of the Bill, as I understand it, is to ensure that something like 6 million people will have provisions for settling their complaints within the company that employs them. If that is where the emphasis is, it places obligations upon employers to ensure that employees have all the facilities and knowledge that they are entitled to. Consequently, if an employer does not provide that, then a stand-alone penalty for not doing so seems a very legitimate approach.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Further to my noble friend's, with respect, well taken points, what my noble friend has said suggests to me that the Government need to think again whether they can find any experience in the tribunals, as he put it. Of course, the tribunals have no experience of this matter because there is no right in the tribunals to a penalty for failure to observe Sections 11 and 12 with just the right to a declaration. Even that has obscurities as to its precise scope.
    My noble friend does not answer the point that to keep the worker in the dark—because that is what it is—as to his proper written particulars of his employment terms in itself damages the employment relationship. Of course, from the employer's point of view, it may not be much damage, and that is the point of view the Government have espoused. Will the Government think again, from its roots, on this matter of sanction in Section 12 of the Employment Rights Act?
    11.30 a.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that I have anything to add. It is not just for the employer's benefit that we do not seek to provide a stand-alone penalty. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, returned to the issue of 40,000. I think he will agree there is nothing in any of these provisions which provides any barrier to access to the tribunals which does not exist at the moment. To have a stand-alone provision that any

    CWH 437
    failure to provide a complete and accurate written statement would in itself be an offence which could be taken to the tribunal and could attract a penalty is a very major step.
    Lord Razzall: Taking the point that has occupied the Committee for the last 10 minutes, I feel that those of us on this side—and indeed the Members of the Committee on the other side—have been somewhat remiss in failing to spot this point in the 264 amendments that had been tabled to the Bill. None of us has tabled an amendment on the point that has just been debated for the last 10 minutes; that is, whether or not there should be a stand-alone remedy. With the greatest respect, I am not sure the amendment that has been tabled would have that effect, but in any event I am delighted that the Minister will look again at this issue. I suspect that I know the answer that will occur when he has looked at it. I suspect the Government will not wish to reopen the question as to whether or not there should be a simple stand-alone remedy because contract employment law, ever since the requirement came in all those years ago—when the noble Lords, Lord 'Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, were teaching us all about employment law— right from the start did not impose a stand-alone penalty for this. This would therefore be a significant change in the law. However, I would he interested in the comments of the Government and it is obviously for Members on either side of the Committee to decide whether they wish to move an amendment on Report.
    On the substantive point of my Amendment No. 192A, in the light of the Minister's comments some 20 minutes ago, it would be extremely churlish of me not to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 193:
    Page 42, line 5, at end insert "and
    (c) the breach by an employer of the duty to provide a written statement is the main reason why the employment tribunal finds in favour of the employee in paragraph (a)"
    The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I would like to make a comment on something that was said which has some bearing on Amendment No. 193. First, I certainly took some comfort from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the Minister found great difficulty with Clause: 38 and the notes on the clause, as I did. I found it difficult to cut through all of it and find the essence of what was meant. However, I note that Members of the Committee opposite had no difficulty whatsoever because they were able to talk for quite some time on this amendment. Bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, suggested that Amendment No. 198 be discussed with Amendment No. 192A—he said in the interests of speed and not wasting time—my Amendment No. 193 is a very short amendment and is to the point.
    CWH 438
    Secondly, I drew comfort from the Minister's reply. Had he accepted Amendment No. 192A in its totality, I could not move Amendment No. 193, as the Deputy Chairman of Committees informed us. It is important because I want to touch on another point of view. I understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said when he talked about employers. I understand totally where he comes from and I understand totally the interests of the section that he is representing, as indeed are the noble Lords, Lord Gladwin, Lord Davies of Coity and Lord McCarthy. However, as a former employer—and a good employer—it is worth mentioning that there are some employers who are very interested in the interests of their employees. However, something might happen that did not make any difference whatsoever to the employee but if this stand-alone provision made such a matter an absolute offence right away that might cause some difficulty.
    Clause 38 applies—as stated in subsection (1)—to proceedings before an employment tribunal in relation to a claim by an employee under the eight Acts and four regulations listed in Schedule 5. The clause, as the Explanatory Notes describe, provides for employment tribunals to award compensation to an employee where,
    "the lack, or incompleteness or inaccuracy of the written statement becomes evident upon a claim".
    The clause as at present before the Committee does not carry that description into effect. The amendment makes it clear that the defective written statement, or the absence of one altogether, must be the main reason why the employment tribunal found in favour of the employee. In other words, the section will not apply if such defect or the lack of a statement actually made no appreciable difference to the outcome of the case. I believe that when the Minister first spoke—from recollection, it was some time ago—he used the same wording: "made no appreciable difference to the outcome of the case". I believe that that is what he said.
    The old-established legal maxim is de minimis non curat lex, which simply means that the law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is used by the civil courts, particularly the appellate courts, to justify the refusal to countenance matters of very small import. There is no reason why the same principle, relying on the tribunal's common sense, should not be used to ensure that penalties are not increased clue to what the tribunal considers is an irrelevant technicality, thus denying one of the parties justice. It is not what the employer considers is an irrelevant technicality; it is what the tribunal considers to be an irrelevant technicality.
    I hope it can be accepted that, without in any way depriving any employee applicant of his rights to a fair hearing, there ought not to be rough justice to an employer when he commits what the tribunal itself decides on the facts of a particular case—not a sweeping amendment that is now stand alone but on

    CWH 439
    the particular case in front of the tribunal—turns out to be some inconsequential breach of the rules. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I will not repeat the context in which we have been debating Clause 38. I think the Committee is well seized of that. I will concentrate on what this amendment would actually do. What the Government are doing in Clause 38 is to provide, for the first time, a penalty for not having an accurate or complete written statement in the circumstances where a case comes before the tribunal for one of the other reasons for which a case could come to the tribunal.
    The amendment would restrict the awards where the successful claim itself attracts no awards to those occasions where the employer's breach of the written statement was the main reason for the tribunal's finding for the employee. But that change would undermine the whole purpose of the clause and would remove the benefit which employers are gaining from the clause. It would make it virtually impossible for the tribunal to make an award for a failure to meet the written statement requirements.
    For example, a tribunal is very unlikely to find, where it is considering an unfair dismissal claim, that the main reason for finding in favour of the employee is the absence of the written statement. It may well deduce that the lack of a written statement contributed to a breakdown in communications between employee and employer, which in turn led to disciplinary action and dismissal but that would not make it the main reason. It is more likely to be the case that the employer does not have one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissing an employee set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
    In many cases, the connection between the written statement failure and the actions complained of may not become clear at tribunal proceedings. It would be inconsistent and unfair to do what the amendment suggests because the outcome would be that there would always be a penalty if the employee received an award for his claim, but where the employee does not receive an award there would be a penalty only if the offence were the main reason for finding in his favour.
    We do not intend to limit compensation to situations where the employer's breach of the written statement requirements is relevant to the matter complained of. The written statement is a key document, clarifying the relationship between employee and employer and helping to avoid workplace disputes. We believe that if a tribunal finds that, in addition to the subject of a dispute, the employer has not met his written statement obligations, it is right that he should incur some penalty, regardless of whether the breach is material to the case being heard.
    Where the clause gives tribunals the discretion to vary the increase, they will be free to use that discretion to relate its level to the effect of the employer's breach on the matter complained of. However, we have deliberately not limited compensation to occasions
    CWH 440
    where the employer's breach of the written statement is relevant to the matter complained of by the employee, for the reasons I have given.
    Most employers do comply with the requirement and will not be affected by it. However, it is right that those who do not are penalised, because the written statement is fundamental to rights and responsibilities in the workplace. While the majority of responses to Routes to Resolution were in favour of this measure, a few suggested that allowing employees to claim compensation for an offence against the written statement alone would be more effective. However, I believe we are striking the right balance here in encouraging compliance, by putting employers on notice that they neglect their obligations under the written statement provisions at their peril—without in effect creating a new stand-alone right to compensation. I do not think that what we are proposing is an excessive penalty, but it is enough to make a difference and the amendment would make that impossible.
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: I find the Minister's answer totally fair and I accept that he is trying to steer a middle course. I will be most interested when I see what comes back on Report because it seemed that, after a good deal of pressure from noble Lords on his side of the House, he was moving a little further from what I would consider the neutral position. Nevertheless, it was a very fair response from the Minister and I intend to withdraw the amendment.
    On several occasions much earlier in the proceedings, I listened with great interest to Members of the Committee opposite who spoke for a very great length of time. I listened with great interest because I believe that they have a great knowledge and I wanted to hear what they said. Indeed, on one occasion I asked them to accept in good faith that I was also speaking from an important point of view. I noticed that there were many sniggers when I was talking and some remarks were not sotto voce. In a small Committee room, that is not appropriate. That is all I would say—I would like them to give me the same courtesy as I give them when they speak. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 194 to 197 not moved.]
    11.45 a.m.
    Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 197A:
    Page 43, line 12, leave out subsection (10).
    The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is straightforward and I shall not detain the Committee for long. We have already accepted that Clause 38 is fiendishly complex, as the Minister indicated in his remarks following my moving Amendment No. 192A. Given the fiendishly complex nature of the clause, we from these Benches do not believe it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able, by order, to dip in and dip out of the

    CWH 441
    clause as he, or his successor, so wishes, in a matter of this complexity and importance. The meaning of the amendment is quite straightforward. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This comes back to the issue we were discussing in respect of Amendment No. 192A, about what is included in Schedule 5 and what is not. Schedule 5 lists the types of tribunal claims—in other words, what are technically called the "tribunal jurisdictions"—to which we currently believe Clause 38 should apply. It includes many of the major ones which attract the largest number of complaints, including unfair dismissal, non-payment of wages and all types of discrimination in the employment field. The amendment seeks to remove subsection (10) of Clause 38, which gives the Secretary of State powers to amend this list by varying the jurisdictions covered, by specifying claims of a certain description under any of the jurisdictions otherwise covered to which the increased awards are not to apply. It also gives power to extend the measure to non-employees.
    Our starting point is that we seek to underline the importance of communicating the minimum disciplinary and grievance procedures to employees. Therefore, the jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5 are currently the same as those listed in Schedule 3; that is, the provisions allowing for adjustments of award for non-completion of the statutory procedures.
    Just as occasions may arise where it may be appropriate for the statutory procedures to apply to a particular type of claim in all circumstances—and we have need of the power to amend Schedule 3 which we discussed when we debated Clause 31—so we may find that it is appropriate to amend the list of jurisdictions in Schedule 5, as I have already indicated. Those variations may differ from the changes we want to make to Schedule 3—otherwise we would have only one schedule instead of the two—because different regimes may work better for some types of claim and descriptions of claims than they do for others. I believe it is important that we maintain a separate power to vary the detail of Schedule 5 by regulation, which is what this subsection does, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has, of course, considered the matter and concluded that the powers are appropriate.
    If we were making changes to the schedule, we would consult and consider the results of the consultation. On that basis, I hope that we shall not be denied this power, as would be the effect of the amendment.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, when the Government reconsider Clause 38 in light of the proposed amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will they consider whether it is proper for the Secretary of State to have power to remove from the list the jurisdictions that depend upon European Union directives? Does he believe that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg would accept a removal, which the Secretary of State would have powers drafted to make, from the list of those three items that depend particularly upon European
    CWH 442
    law? That would mean that a worker could be deprived of knowledge in the written particulars by way of a deprival of sanction such that his rights would be effectively diminished in that respect in relation to those items.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer to that is that under the Human Rights Act 1998 not only dies primary legislation have to be accompanied by a declaration from the Minister that it is in conformity but the same applies to secondary legislation as well.
    Clearly it is not the same point but, following on from that, we should be very ill advised to put forward secondary legislation to amend the matters in Schedules 3 or 5 if that brought us into conflict with European legislation. Therefore, if the question that I am being asked is whether we shall take that into account, the answer is that we shall certainly do so.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very sorry. My noble friend or his advisers must have misheard me. I was not asking about the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court: I was asking about European Union directives and I specifically mentioned the Luxembourg court. It has nothing whatever to do with the Human Rights Act.
    I ask again: are the Government happy that the Secretary of State should have power to diminish and effectively make much less valuable the rights of workers under the three items in Schedule 5 that depend upon their implementing European Union directives?
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the record will show that, when I was referring to human rights legislation, I was doing so as an analogy, that I said specifically that it was not the same point, and that, having made the point about human rights legislation, I went on to say that clearly we would be extraordinarily foolish if we were to bring forward secondary legislation that brought us into conflict with the European Union directives and therefore with the Luxembourg Court. The answer to my noble friend is "Yes". We are conscious of the importance and effect of European Union directives and of the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Court. We will take that into account, as necessary, when drafting secondary legislation.
    Lord Razzall: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. He is, of course, right that the background to this amendment touches on a number of points that were raised when we debated Amendment No. 192A. I have not been totally persuaded by what he said. Bearing in mind the importance of Clause 38 and Schedule 5, it is incumbent on the Government and their draftsmen to put into Schedule 5 a comprehensive list of sections and pieces of legislation that are covered. As regards the past, they ought to be satisfied, before the Bill is enacted, that they have included such a list. Therefore as regards the past, this provision should not be necessary and as regards the future, any new legislation should have built into it the provision involving Schedule 5.

    CWH 443
    I am not persuaded that this is anything other than simply protection of the Government draftsmen, in case they have got something wrong. However, I will obviously read carefully what the Minister has said and think about the matter before Report. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 38 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
    Schedule 5 agreed to.
    Noon
    On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friends and I have given notice that we resist Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. It is of some importance to deal carefully with the clause. I shall do so as briefly as possible, but since it has never been explained to Parliament, it must not proceed to the statute book without a most careful consideration in Committee and, if necessary, on Report.
    I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not in her place. I wanted to make it quite clear to her, in view of her somewhat remarkable remarks, that we on this side deal with these matters as we were asked to do and as we would in the Chamber, subject to there being no Divisions. We shall do so in relation to Clause 39. Nowhere is it more true than in this clause that before the industrial relations implications can he understood, the cloud of legal technicalities must be understood and swept away. The camouflage of the Explanatory Notes—in this case, as is so often the case with regard to the Bill, that is what they are—should be cast aside. The clause crosses a Rubicon into the new territory of managerial prerogative, which will enable employers to keep workers from enforcing their rights in the tribunals.
    That is a strong claim and I must justify it. From the time of the foundation of the modern law of employment rights in the great Bill of my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn, to whom I pay tribute in the history of workers' employment rights, it has been a fundamental provision of legislation that those rights cannot be excluded by supposed agreement between worker and employer. Translated into real life, that means that the employer cannot lawfully lean on the employee to make his employment or the offer of a job dependent on his surrendering his employment rights. That prohibition is now in a series of provisions, which are listed in Clause 39(2). They relate to race discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, minimum wage, working time and employment rights generally in Section 203 of the 1996 Act.
    It has always been the case that the settlement of a dispute with the assistance of an ACAS conciliation officer can be exceptionally one where the employee may lawfully surrender those rights. The conciliation officer is a guarantee of fairness in such a settlement,
    CWH 444
    which is often called, in practice, a COT3 compromise, because COT3 is the heading of the forms and documents in ACAS practice.
    The Explanatory Notes to the Bill, in a masterpiece of obfuscation, state that Clause 39 ensures, and I quote:
    "that compromise agreements are as effective and as wide in extent as ACAS conciliated settlements".
    That is, compromises without the assistance or guarantee of a conciliation officer.
    Technically, conciliation-officer-prompted settlements can allow, in a COT3 agreement, the exclusion of future rights of action. However, I have consulted various experienced practitioners and they tell me that, although technically that is correct, they have rarely, if ever, in practice encountered it. Nevertheless, this clause—and this has never been explained to Parliament, not a word was said about it in Committee in another place—does that by removing a vital condition from these legislative provisions.
    At present, a compromise agreement is allowed only when two major conditions are fulfilled. First, the employee must have independent advice. Initially this had to be from a legal practitioner, but the Conservative government gradually widened the exception to include certified trade union advisers—I hasten to interpret that that means advisers of the trade union certified by the trade union—and advisers from the citizens advice bureaux. That is the first condition.
    The second condition is that the compromise must relate to particular matters or particular complaints or proceedings. That links it to past, or at most present, events. The Explanatory Notes suggest that there has been uncertainty involved here. The DTI has never produced any evidence of special or unusual uncertainty. There have, of course, been arguments about whether a so-called agreement has compromised particular rights, or all rights in existence, or only a section of them. However, the uncertainty has been no greater than in any other area of the law, and practitioners accept that that is so at present.
    I challenge the Government to produce one single quotation from any commentary or text criticising that aspect of the provisions set out in Clause 39(2) or (3) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on compromise agreements.
    However, the clause would remove the second condition. That means that a worker or employee, and the employer, could make a so-called agreement at any time, whereby the worker would sign away all his employment protection rights, past, present and future. That is what the Government intend. Indeed, in their response to consultation on the Bill, they declared, and I quote at paragraph 39:
    "The consultation document proposed that the scope of compromise agreements should be widened so that they equal ACAS COT3 in terms of their ability to allow individuals to contract out of their employment rights".

    CWH 445
    That would allow the situation to emerge where the employer says, "You can have the job if you promise never to sue me in the tribunals". That is one way to reduce the number of cases in the tribunals. Do not bother with a letter or waiting 28 days; just get rid of the rights by compromise agreement.
    The government response of 2001 continued:
    "This was well received by the CBI,"
    and they went on:
    "However the TUC considered the proposal unnecessary".
    I interpose that the TUC said far more than that in opposition to the proposal. The response of the Government goes on:
    "The Government will amend the legislation to widen the scope of compromise agreements".
    No good reason has ever been given for this extraordinary change, except that the CBI is well disposed towards it, as drafted by its agents in the DTI. However, it will he said, "You overlooked something". I always try not to do that. It will be said, "You still have the guarantee of advice for the employee from a lawyer or a union adviser or an advice centre". In practice, you do not.
    If you have ever tried to advise on a COT3 agreement, you know that when you are advising a worker whether to give up rights about particular proceedings or particular complaints, the adviser can calculate what it is the worker is surrendering. He or she can say, "Yes, that is a fair price for giving up that particular complaint on unfair dismissal". Or he or she can even say, "Yes, in view of the circumstances of what has happened, or what is happening, I think that is a fair deal in regard to the harassment you have suffered by way of sex discrimination". Or it can be said, "That is not a fair deal at all"; or, "As a disabled person you are being fairly recompensed by the failure of the employer to adjust the circumstances to your case".
    However, an adviser faced with a worker who is being asked to sign away all his or her rights, or all his or her rights on particular matters, in the past, present and the future, is faced with a quite different problem. How can he possibly advise the young woman who says—and this is what the Government must face—"I need the job, I need the money, I am a single parent and my boss says I can have the job if I sign a compromise agreement agreeing not to go to the tribunals ever in the future. And by the way, just pop round to the CAB adviser and see if he won't approve it."? How can the adviser possibly know whether that is a good deal or not? He needs to know much more about the employer. How does he know whether the employer will ask her out for a drink every Friday? How cart he know whether, if he tells her she can sign the thing and safely take the job for the money she needs, he is not selling her into a world at work of permanent and unremitting harassment without remedy? How can he possibly know that?
    CWH 446
    Once the second condition limiting compromise agreements to particular and known circumstances is removed, the position of the adviser—however independent—becomes impossible, and advice is in all conscience impossible to give in many cases. In my discussions with experienced practitioners, I have found that that is a situation which they well understand. Indeed, the experience of the Law Society prompts it to say on this clause—I quote from page 19 of its brief:
    "We are concerned that, as drafted, unscrupulous employers could make the signing of a compromise agreement a condition of employment and use this mechanism as a way to avoid their statutory obligations to their employees".
    What do the Government think they are doing? There is no suppression of research material here. There is no wilful misinterpretation of the statistics. There is no false perspective to the parliamentary Human Rights Committee, all of which my noble friends and I have shown on previous matters, in Part 3 of the Bill. I interpose the remark that we shall be writing to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, asking it to reconvene on the Bill as so many matters referring to human rights have arisen which are more than doubtful.
    Why do the Government want to give—and they know they are giving it because they said so in their response to the consultation—a power for employers to lean on people as workers, either before the job or when they are in the job, to contract out of all their employment rights? Is it because the CBI received the idea well? That is apparently so. What is the extent of the savings from this extraordinary provision? On conciliation as a whole, in their response to consultation, the Government comment on various matters, such as the new fixed conciliation periods. On the new fixed conciliation periods, they say that,
    "the number of hearings is likely to fall between 1,700 and 3,400 each year".
    Where they can, they tell us how many cases that will solve in the tribunals. At the moment, they do not like mention being made of the fact that they have a target or ambition; that is, that 40,000 cases should be solved under this Bill. They do not like that up in front of them—as Corporal Jones might say—but they put it there; we did not invent it. How many will they save with the clause? They do not say in their regulatory impact assessment—at least, I could not find it. How many of the 40,000 cases will be saved by the clause? The statistical genius who came up with 1,700 to 3,400 cases on conciliation does not tell us. Are the Government too ashamed to tell us?
    It may be said—this is the final point of great importance—that the courts simply would not accept such injustice. However, the courts would have no option because, as a matter of pure chance—I imagine that the Government's advisers must have noticed this—just at the time that they were drafting the Bill, there came before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in 2001 the case of BCCI v Ali (ICR 337). In that case, the Law Lords dealt with a COT3 settlement. They insisted that compromise agreements

    CWH 447
    strictly cover only the claims which the wording of the agreement has in mind and is in the contemplation of the parties at the time.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said in the leading speech:
    "It is no part of the court's function to frustrate the intentions of the parties once those have been objectively ascertained".
    He made it clear that he meant ascertained in the written agreement. He, and the majority, concluded in that case that particular rights were not covered by the compromise agreement, but that was a matter of construction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who dissented on the conclusion, made it clear, in his 13-page speech, that when the words of compromise agreements cover all possible claims, the worker has no claim if the COT3 agreement is binding. On that ground, he held that the release in this case, as drafted, the claimant might not be,
    "entitled to bring a claim after leaving his employment on the ground that he was suffering from repetitive strain injury",
    which was under discussion. He continued:
    "The bank might be entitled to say that it paid the extra money in return for not having to hear from [the claimant] again".
    That, of course, is just what Clause 39 would allow. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, sympathised with a claimant who had been made redundant,
    "at the difficult age of 49",
    as he put it. He went on:
    "But this is regrettably a very common occurrence".
    If you get the drafting right—unscrupulous employers will pay to get it right—this very common occurrence in redundancy will become a very common occurrence, excluding the worker from claims in the tribunals, either on particular matters or all employment rights, which the Government have made clear in their own documents will be the effect. You would not even have to show that the deal is reasonable. In the recent case of Brigden v American Express Company in 2000, (IR LR 94), the High Court, before which it came, held that a clause whereby the employee gave up his right not to be dismissed without the operation of a contractual disciplinary procedure was lawful and did not have to meet the standards of reasonableness under Schedule 1 and Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
    I hope that Ministers will not reply to this argument by reading out briefs which are irrelevant to the argument. That has so often marred this Committee stage, for all its other moments of great jollity. Clause 39 is a low point of moral turpitude in Part 3 of the Bill. It should be struck out if this Committee has an ounce of decency that can stretch beyond fox hunting, badgers, salmon and deer because it concerns 25 million human workers. I see that that point does not meet with approval from the Opposition. I shall put it more moderately: this is matter which concerns 25 million human workers. I should not mention other animals as that always gives rise to dissent across the Floor.
    CWH 448
    However, for those workers, and especially for those who do not have jobs or who do not have the protection of an effective trade union—there are many, unhappily—this clause could become a bosses' charter for the exploitation of the vulnerable. Those who have newly taken up on their flag the case of the vulnerable should give careful thought to the effects which Clause 39 could have in practice. I believe that I have described them accurately. Clause 39 should, therefore, go from the Bill.
    Lord McCarthy: I call this the "hugger-mugger" clause. There is something secretive, clandestine and hugger-mugger about it. It is quite amazing that this clause has not been debated before. When I first began to look at the Bill, I thought, wrongly, that the most dangerous clause was Clause 25 because it operated directly upon the worker who would not get a chance because he or she would not come to a tribunal. Then I began to think that Clause 33 was even worse because it operated directly on the tribunals. It was designed to put a barrier between the applicants and the tribunals.
    However, now I believe that Clause 39 is the most dangerous in the long run because it operates directly on the employer. It encourages the employer. My noble friend gave examples of what a bad employer might do and the sweeping way in which a bad employer might abolish, or offer the abolition of, all employment rights.
    I want to suggest in a moment or two that even reasonably good employers might fall for that. They might consider it to be a rather clever way out of particular problems. There are possibly employers out there who do that, although it is not strictly legal now. There are possibly employers who do not bring in ACAS, or perhaps sometimes they do bring in ACAS. I believe that my noble friend is right—the conciliation officers would not want to do anything in front of a particular dispute. They would not want to reach an agreement in ways that they could not measure and evaluate, as my noble friend says. However, there may be employers who occasionally behave in such a manner, and I shall come to that in a moment.
    Therefore, Clause 39 is insidious as well as being secretive, clandestine and amazingly undiscussed. I am not complaining about the fact that it was not discussed at Second Reading. We did not discuss it at Second Reading; in a way, it is not a Second Reading point. The first time one really notices it—the non-notice of it; the fact that it is not there—is on 18th December at col. 250 of the Official Report of the Committee in another place. I am not making this up. Just before the Christmas break, one Member said, in effect, "We've had a good day. Now we'll go off for Christmas". Just before the Christmas break the Committee kicked Clauses 39, 40 and 41 into place and they were all ordered to stand part of the Bill—all three of them together. Then the Members of the Committee went off for Christmas.

    CWH 449
    Similarly, there was no reference to the matter on Report and no amendments were tabled at that stage. We are, in fact, the first body, up here on this floor, to consider this clause. That is amazing, considering its importance.
    As my noble friend said, you can read Routes to Resolution, you can read the reply to Routes to Resolution—I shall go into that in a moment—and you can read the Explanatory Notes. You get very little guidance. Routes to Resolution, after suggesting various ways in which you could encourage conciliation, including making charges—which, I am glad to say, the Government have subsequently dropped—stated:
    "Compromise agreements are another means of discharging legally a claim or potential claim. These can offer a fast and confidential route to settlement, but they are limited to a particular claim. Unlike ACAS-conciliated settlements, they cannot provide general, final settlement of all employment claims. This acts as a disincentive to using compromise agreements, as employees may retain a residual right to go to a tribunal. Ensuring the scope is the same will remove this disincentive".
    You would have thought that at this point the Government might have told us what scope they envisaged would follow from taking out the particularism of particular employment Acts, how far the abolition would allow for generality and what they meant by generality, or even, as my noble friend has said, what use ACAS has made of these powers.
    I cannot find anyone in ACAS who has ever used such forward-looking powers. What kind of powers do the Government want to believe are possible or are likely? We have no description whatever in Routes to Resolution and we have no descriptions in the response to Routes to Resolution. Here I want to say a little more about what was said about the opinions of those who were consulted.
    My noble friend mentioned the TUC. The Government said that,
    "the TUC considered the proposal unnecessary".
    I must be careful about parliamentary language. At the very least that is a misleading statement of the TUC's position. What the TUC said in its first submission to the Government on the Bill is as follows:
    "Some affiliated unions have found compromise agreements useful additions to the range of [possible] settlements. Others are less enthusiastic; much appears to depend on the nature of the business or undertaking and the attitude of the employer. The TUC supported the extension of the scope of compromise agreements to include trade union officers and advice centre workers. Such people clearly have sufficient expertise and the backing of their respective organisations to make this a viable solution".
    Here we come to it:
    "These advisors and employers' advisors will generally be clear over what is being compromised. Sometimes though residual points emerge after a settlement and it would be wrong to disallow these points to be heard separately if they have not been addressed in the agreement. There should also be an express prohibition on excluding claims which have not yet arisen"—
    this is the TUC's position; they are not indifferent—
    "and on excluding personal injury claims. The TUC would not support the extension of the scope of compromise agreements to provide a general settlement".
    CWH 450
    That is the position of the TUC. They did not think it was unnecessary; they thought it was wrong. They thought it was unfair and they did not think it should be put on the face of the Bill.
    So I turn to the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 90 does its best to explain why we need Clause 39. It says the change will offer an opportunity,
    "to change the legal status of compromise agreements"
    I am not quite sure what that means or how it changes the legal status. One of my questions to the Government is to tell me how it changes the legal status. Presumably, it does not make it criminal but it must change the legal status in some way. How will it ensure that these measures are as effective and wide as ACAS settlements? The Explanatory Notes also stare that the clause will achieve that by taking out the requirement in Section 203(b) of the Employment Rights Act. That has been mentioned already.
    Apart from repetition, the only thing added at the s point is the alleged change in the legal status. One might think that we might find out from ACAS itself ACAS is not prepared to discuss what happened in the past in any detail. All we know is that Section 18(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 states:
    "This section applies in the case of industrial tribunal proceedings and claims which could he the subject of industrial tribunal proceedings".
    Therefore, in principle, as my noble friend has said, in the ACAS settlement situation as a result of Section 18 there is a general right to go forward and deal with future issues. My question to the Government is: is that what they want? They have not really said so They have not specifically said that they want all employers, as a way of reducing the demands on tribunals—and by God it would do that—to be able to offer a partial or total washing away, or cancelling out of employer rights, perhaps for some consideration.
    I give a few examples. Do the Government want to see a situation in which art employer might offer a compromise agreement which removes all restrictions on hours, overtime and holidays in exchange for job security? An employer might come along and say, "We want to put certain of our workers in a particular category but they will get job security. If you look at the small details, it will not be total job security but they will get preference as regards redundancy. However, in exchange for that we cannot have all these other rights so we have a special category of workers who may get a little more money. They are going into a separate grade. They have total job security but they do not have any restrictions, they are more flexible". The employer might call them the "flexible brigade" and say that they have no restrictions as regards hours, overtime, holidays and so on and that he can call on them to do whatever he likes. Are the Government saying to me this morning that they want to facilitate that? Are they saying that is good industrial relations? Is this being done in the workers' interests?

    CWH 451
    Let us take the example of another employer. An employer might say, "I have had terrible trouble with this man or this woman who keeps considering that they are somehow being picked on on grounds of sex or race or disability, so in this case this person is going to be given a one-off amount of £2,000 and they undertake never to bring this kind of series of cases before me again". Or he might be better than that. He might say, "We want you to contract out of your unfair dismissal rights. We do not want to get involved in the unfair dismissal procedures of going to tribunals. We have another procedure; it even has arbitration in it. It may not be independent arbitration but it is arbitration. Why not sign up, come out of the statutory unfair dismissal rights and go into our special grievance and disciplinary procedures"?
    Are the Government telling me that this is good industrial relations that they would like to see and that they would encourage? Perhaps they would have seminars on how to contract out of employees' rights while you give them something in exchange. Is that what the Government are saying? We are entitled to have answers to these questions. We are entitled to know why this particular clause has been so little discussed. We are bound to say, as Claudius said, that the Government have "done but greenly" in huggermugger to inter this clause. It is time to bring it out in the air and it is time to defend it. I want to hear what the Minister says.
    12.15 p.m.
    Lord Gladwin of Clee: I was going to describe this as a nightmare but that is too fanciful because it is a real situation. I know of cases where employees who start work without a contract of employment are subsequently offered one that has in it the requirement that they do not take the employer to an employment tribunal.
    Let us suppose that a worker who has been in employment, perhaps for the first time for several months, gets a job and then a week or two later is offered a contract of employment with that clause in it. He then goes to one of my officers for guidance and advice as to what he should do. The alternative is to sign it or, if he does not sign, it will be, "Thank you and good night" because he will have lost his job. Will the Minister comment on that situation?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): Before I respond to the specific points raised by noble Lords, I should like to remind everyone of the Government's overall objective in this part of the Bill, which is to encourage alternatives to resolving disputes at tribunal. Compromise agreements have an important part to play in this objective, although it is a small one. Clause 39 needs to be seen in this context.
    In their response to the consultation on Routes to Resolution, the Government stated that they would make the necessary arrangements to change the legal status of compromise agreements.The Government's
    CWH 452
    objective in making this change is to ensure that compromise agreements are as effective and as wide in extent as ACAS-conciliated settlements.
    The clause will achieve this by taking out the requirement in Section 203(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and other legislation which makes similar provisions that such agreements must relate to the particular proceedings or the particular complaint. This requirement has led to uncertainty about the extent to which all claims and potential claims to the employment tribunal can be contracted out via a compromise agreement.
    The uncertainty that that produces was originally put forward by lawyers involved in this area, so that the original suggestion that there was uncertainty came from the legal profession. The change we are making will ensure that a compromise agreement does not have to be limited to agreement about the particular complaint. This widens the extent of compromise agreements to match the current extent of ACAS-conciliated agreements.
    In this context, the widening of the potential extent of compromise agreements is entirely consistent with the general thrust of the Bill to encourage the settlement of disputes outside of the employment tribunal. It makes the option of settling claims and potential claims to the employment tribunal via a compromise agreement more akin to that available via ACAS-conciliated settlements. In so doing, it adds to the options for settlement of claims or potential claims.
    I would stress that this remains a voluntary option that both the employer and employee need to agree to. Furthermore, and of exceptional importance, there is the inbuilt safeguard for the employee that he needs to receive independent advice before agreeing to a compromise agreement.
    I turn now to the various points that have been raised. First, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that none of the possibilities that he suggested as flowing from this are things that we want.
    Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Lord give way? If the noble Lord is saying that the Government want none of these things—and I am very pleased to hear him say that—why are the Government legislating to make them possible?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I will come to the question of whether this does legislate to make them possible. I wanted to make the matter clear to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He asked the specific question, "Are these things that the Government want?". I am making the very clear statement to him that these are things that the Government do not want. That is the first point.
    The first substantive point is one that relates to the TUC position. I do not think that his statement about what the TUC said was an exact representation of it.

    CWH 453
    It did not sa.y that it was wrong; it said that it had some particular views about the ways in which it would work. At least, that is from what he—
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It's a lie. It's a lie.
    Lord McCarthy: No, look, the TUC ends up by saying,
    "The TUC would not support the extension of the scope of compromise agreements to provide a general settlement".
    That is clear enough. It does not want it. It is asking the Government not to do it.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: But it makes the very clear point, as was said, that there are certain cases where it is valuable and helpful to have these compromise settlements. Let me get on—
    12.30 p.m.
    Lord McCarthy: I am sorry, I will not do this again, but I must do it. This is all from the TUC. In the first five or six lines, it is talking about the existing situation. At one stage, it actually says that it supported the extension in the past. Therefore, it is talking about a quite separate situation when it says it has been helpful. De facto, that is the status quo: that is what it is talking about.
    Then it says, "But you want to go further", and it says, "Don't do it".
    Lord Wedlderburn of Charlton: Absolutely.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is it right that even in Committee the words, "It's a lie. It's a lie", should be used?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may continue with the issue. If I misinterpreted what was said by the TUC, I apologise for that. I thought the noble Lord was making a point that in particular circumstances, it could see values for it. I accept that the noble Lord says that he puts that interpretation on it. I am happy to accept that.
    The point I wanted to deal with was the point made by the TUC that it is wrong to disallow residual points from being heard at a tribunal. That is an important point.
    If there is a possibility of residual points, that may influence whether a person would be prepared to sign up to a wide-ranging settlement. The scope o:7 the settlement is of course something that has to be agreed by both parties. It is true to say, however, that one of the purposes of the clause is to provide certainty as to what can be settled by a compromise agreement.
    The second key issue is whether there is any protection for people inadvertently signing away their rights to, for example, a personal injury claim. This will be covered by the general case law relating to the scope of settlements. In general terms, if an employee's personal injury claim against his employer is in the
    CWH 454
    minds of both parties to an agreement, when they sign a "full and final settlement" of all or any claims, the settlement is likely to have the legal effect of preventing the employee later succeeding in suing the employer for damages in respect of that personal injury.
    If, however, such a personal claim was not in the minds of parties when they signed the settlement in those terms, the settlement is unlikely to have the legal effect of preventing a future claim. Such issues require professional advice and it is for this reason that a requirement of a compromise agreement is that the employee or worker must have received advice as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement.
    The third substantive point is the one which has been raised by the GMB and the Law Society which argued that employers will now be able to make it a condition of employment that an employee signs a compromise agreement undertaking to refrain from instituting any tribunal proceedings. That is obviously a legitimate concern.
    Case law has established that the court will not uphold general exclusion of legal rights that could not possibly have been in the minds of the parties when they signed the settlement. If an employer demanded that an employee signed such an agreement as "a condition of employment", the courts would be unlikely to consider that the claims were contemplated by the parties at the time of signing, and so the agreement would have no legal effect.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Does my noble friend have any authority or case that he can cite which shows that the court will take precisely the attitude he has taken, which is contrary to that which the Law Lords state in the BCCI v Ali case?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I do not have a detailed brief on that point, but it seemed to me that from what the noble Lord was saying that was exactly the point which was being made as regards what was in the minds of the people signing the agreement.
    Also, reference was made to the fact that the requirement that an employee cannot sign the agreement until he receives advice from an "independent adviser" (which since 1998 includes authorised trade union officers) will deter any employer from such behaviour. The noble Lord's remark about, "We're just popping round to get CA B advice and clearance on this", is not an appropriate way to deal with the work of the CAB, which I am sure would take this issue very seriously.
    Given what I have said—and that can be briefly summarised by saying that there is the safeguard of people having to get independent advice, in addition to the other points I have made about case law in this case—I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to agree that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill.
    Lord Gladwin of Clee: Before my noble friend sits down, can I be clear? The answer to the question that I posed is that a trade union officer being faced 'with the situation that I described should say to the employee, "Sign it, because you're not being damaged

    CWH 455
    by signing it. You keep your job but it's worthless; if you feel you have reason to go to a tribunal then that is okay because the Law Lords have said that your contract is worthless".
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I believe that very simple advice can he given in this regard. First, if there is any debate about what is covered, that can be specified very clearly. The advice can be, "Do not sign this, other than in relation to the very specific points that you want to have covered by the proposal".
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend therefore agrees that if the drafting is absolutely clear, without any doubt whatever, as covering present, past and future claims in the tribunals it would, as the House of Lords held in the Ali case, be binding.
    Lord Davies of Coity: My noble friend's comments suggest that if an employee understands the circumstances and has received advice, he can enter into an agreement that waives completely and totally his rights. If that is true, I am in a great deal of difficulty because my clear understanding is that this legislation was intended to avoid reference to employment tribunals by ensuring that employers had a mechanism for dealing with issues that arose in the workplace. To that extent I have supported the thrust of the Bill. If, however, the suggestion is that an employer and employee can waive all the rights that Parliament lays down to which employees are entitled in the workplace —rights relating to discrimination of any kind, to the national minimum wage and to industrial injury—I cannot see what direction we are going in. If we legislate for people to have rights, why do we legislate again so that they can waive those rights?
    Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may help the Minister? The Minister said earlier that he did not want those examples; he thought that they were bad examples. He would not call that good industrial relations. Now he says, in contradiction to what my noble friend Lord Wedderburn says, that they may not be lawful anyway because he has a different set of beliefs about what the judges would do. That inspires me to think that he might come forward with an amendment on Report to make that absolutely clear. We should make it clear that what is not in the minds of the parties when they sign the agreement does not apply. Will he put his words where his intellect is? Will he put on the face of the Bill the statement that those matters that he does not like and that he believes the courts would not have, will not take place because he has added an amendment to the Bill?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I suspected that help from my noble friend would not be help in the way in which I would define it. To be absolutely clear, I repeat that I dealt very clearly with this point. Case law
    CWH 456
    established that the courts will not uphold general exclusion of legal rights that could not possibly have been in the minds of the parties when they signed—
    Lord Davies of Coity: I hope that Minister will excuse me for interrupting. If his view is that the courts would not uphold that, why are we legislating for it?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Because we are legislating for a particular set of situations that are sensible compromises, which are reached between parties—two parties in this regard—and in this case the employee will have independent advice. My noble friends suggested that they would be used for a totally different purpose—to exclude people from their basic rights. I am dealing with that situation and I am giving what I believe to be the best legal advice; that is, that case law established that courts would not uphold general exclusions of legal rights that could not possibly be in the minds of parties when they signed the settlement.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Does my noble friend understand that he is saying something different from what was laid down in 2001 in the BCCI v Ali case, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, for the majority of the Judicial Committee? I hesitate to read out too much of his speech—all of it is rather different from what the Minister has said.
    The noble and learned Lord made it clear—I am sure that this is common ground—that the intention of the parties is to be objectively ascertained from the agreement that they have signed. What is in their contemplation is primarily recorded in the agreement. He went on, at page 342, to say:
    "This seems to me both good law and good sense. It is no part of the court's function to frustrate the intentions of contracting parties once those have been objectively ascertained".
    They are objectively ascertained in the agreement that they have made. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, thought. This is a matter of interpretation, of course; it is not a rule of law that the courts will not enforce agreements where the parties have objectively stated that all claims are excluded. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, says so over 13 pages.
    The Minister must take that into account— future claims could be excluded. He does not want them to be, so why does he not put such a provision in the clause?
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I think that the policy in this regard is very clear. We would like to take that point away, see what application it has to the views that we are putting forward and reflect on the matter before coming back.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I believe that a few more words are appropriate. I am tempted to say that an Opposition who have put up the flag of protecting the vulnerable, and who do not take these problems seriously, are not worthy to be—
    Baroness Miller of Hendon: I object to what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is starting to say. He

    CWH 457
    said something earlier to which I objected—a sotto voce remark which I heard very clearly—and I made a complaint, which is in Hansard. I have to tell the noble Lord that I thought that he had not heard my comments; he did not look as though he had heard them and he continued to chat. However, I understand from my noble friend who is sitting next to me that he did hear them. When I unavoidably went out for a few moments, he made some comments about my remarks and said that he regretted that I was not in my place.
    I would like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to continue our debate on the amendment by discussing the amendment and not by continually talking about the Opposition claiming to be the party of the vulnerable. We are all here from our own point of view and we are trying to scrutinise a Bill that has gone through the House of Commons. Many of the points that have been raised were not even discussed in the other place. We are sitting here patiently listening to the points that noble Lords are making. However, there is absolutely no reason, in the course of doing so, why they should continually talk about us claiming to be the party of the vulnerable or the party that is more concerned with animals or hunting, which they said earlier. We should be dealing with the amendments. We are listening very carefully. As I have said to the noble Lords before, I listen carefully to everything that they say and treat it with respect because of the knowledge that they have. I must insist that they do exactly the same for us.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that it would be most undesirable if the fact that we are in close proximity in Committee led us to behave in any way other than how we would behave in the Chamber, where we cannot hear each other's conversations. If we studiously keep our ears open to the person who is on his feet speaking at a microphone, and if we refrain in what we say on our feet from ascribing motives to each other, then we shall get on together much better.
    12.45 p.m.
    Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister. I assure the noble Baroness that I listen very attentively and carefully to what she says, both here and in the Chamber, and I listen to her party. I always do that. I understood that the position of Members of her party was that they were now particularly concerned with the vulnerable. I believed that this clause raised an issue where the vulnerable were especially vulnerable, and I was surprised that she did not weigh in to object to the possible scope of the effects of Clause 39. I make no apology for not always pleasing and satisfying the noble Baroness. However, it is a function of Members of the Committee to criticise those whom they believe are open to criticism. I criticise my own Government, and in relation to this clause I criticise them extraordinarily.
    The reply that I have been given is such that I am almost tempted to say that my noble friend lives with his advisers in some fantasy land. He says that it is all a matter of voluntary options and voluntary agreements, as though he did not hear my noble friend
    CWH 458
    Lord Gladwin give to him a straight case where options, exercised in the real world and not in a fantasy land, are exercised under pressure.
    The employment relationship is not one of bilateral contracting in a marketplace where the parties are equal traders. The employment relationship is one where, unless the worker has the protection of an independent trade union of strength, he is in the weaker position. That is the basis of the whole of employment law in western Europe and beyond—the worker is the weaker party. Therefore, he does not exercise voluntary options without pressure not. only as regards his employer but also as regards life, discrimination and family problems.
    The Law Society did not make a case different from the one that I and my noble friends made. It made the case that, if the clause goes through as it is, the unscrupulous employer could, with the approval of the citizens advice bureaux, give effect to certain pressures on workers. I was rather surprised and somewhat pained to hear my noble friend suggest that I was in any way criticising citizens advice bureaux. Without them, the workers' position would be much worse.
    My noble friend Lord Gladwin gave the example of a trade union adviser. What is he to say to the worker who says, "I can have the job if I sign and not if I don't sign"? That is the predicament in which the Government will place workers. It is intolerable that this Labour Government will put workers in that position. I have news for the Minister. Expert employers' advisers are already drafting common form Clause 39 compromise agreements. Perhaps if the Minister asks them they will give him one. I have heard the rough outlines of the agreements and they will not leave any question of uncertainty. They will do what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, suggested in the Ali case. They will be absolutely clear and certain, and the courts will not be able, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingharn, said, to evade such agreements.
    I press my noble friends the Ministers to he a little more forthcoming in their reconsideration of this clause which we understand they intend to make. Are they confident that the clause is compatible with the Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rig ts Act? Are they going to ignore the Human Rights Act in this regard, as they haw ignored the 12th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights? Are the Government confident that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 could have no impact, despite the decision in the Brigden case in 2000 in the High Court, which I cited? Are they going to add a little item to the schedules, a new parcel of provisions from Postman Pat, to make it quite certain that the Act does nit obstruct unscrupulous employers from using this route to freedom from the tribunals' jurisdiction?
    Events move fast in this area. Today's law report in The Times shows that the European Court in Luxembourg will not accept public security provisions in Northern Ireland as a proportional ground for a blanket exclusion of a worker from the fair employment tribunal in regard to his rights against

    CWH 459
    unfair dismissal. The Luxembourg Court holds that in the report in The Times law report this morning. Is the Minister confident that this clause, together with the other clauses of the Bill, will escape similar criticism? On the point concerning the Convention on Human Rights, will they agree to the reconvening of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider these and other clauses?
    Those are straightforward questions, of which the most important is: do they understand that advisers already have in draft absolutely copper-bottomed compromise agreements, whereby workers will be asked to contract out of their rights—past, present and
    CWH 460
    future? If they do not, their reconsideration will be flawed. Will they take that away and look at it? I ask the Minister again, will they look at that and will they look at Clause 39 from the bottom up in regard to total exclusion of employment protection rights?
    Clause 39 agreed to.
    Clause 40 agreed to.
    Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is a convenient moment for us to adjourn until four o'clock this afternoon.
    [The Sitting was suspended from 12.53 until 4 p.m.]
    [For continuation of the afternoon's proceedings see the second part of the Official Report published on Friday.]

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Employment Bill
  [Continuation of Official Report from col. 460]
  Clause 41 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
  Lord Borriemoved Amendment No. 199:
  Page 44, line 19, at end insert—
  ""grievance" does not include a protected disclosure under Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) as inserted by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c. 23);"
  The noble Lord said: I feel rather like the man who plays the cymbals in a great orchestra who, after all the big instrumentalists have had their big performances and taken some time about it, is called upon to strike a single note. I can only ask that Her Majesty's Government will find that this single note chimes with their own thoughts.
  I am grateful for the drafting abilities of those at Public Concern at. Work, the so-called "whistle-blowers'" charity, for the work behind the scenes. We are concerned with the general purpose of Part 3 of the Bill being to require employers to introduce adequate internal grievance procedures and to require employees to use these internal procedures before doing anything else.
  The purpose of my amendment is to place no such requirement on an employee who seeks to disclose wrongdoing in his workplace, for example to the appropriate regulator. In other words, the amendment seeks to make it clear that the new statutory grievance procedures should not undermine the disclosure regime provided for in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was also inspired by the charity, Public Concern at Work, and which I had the honour to pilot through this Chamber.
  Several commentators and lawyers have expressed the view that the Bill before us, the Employment Bill, as it stands requires an employee who wants to make a proper whistle-blowing disclosure to use the employer's internal grievance procedures. I argue that there is a major distinction in the whole purpose and point of whistle-blowing, which is raising a public interest concern that wrongdoing should be investigated, and grievances, which seek redress for oneself for a wrong done to oneself. Chambers Dictionary underlines the distinction by defining whistle-blowing as:
  "Giving information (usually to the authorities) about illegal or underhand practices".
  Chambers defines "grievance", on the other hand, as,
  "a cause or source of grief, a ground of complaint, a condition felt to he oppressive or wrongful, distress, burden, hardship".
  At Second Reading I referred to this matter and I was grateful that my noble friend Lord McIntosh said,
  "the Bill and the accompanying regulations will ensure that there is no conflict with the Public Interest Disclosure Act".—[Official Report, 26/02/02; col. 1407.]
  CWH 462
  My amendment to Clause 41, the interpretation clause for Part 3 of the Bill, will clarify the matter across the statutory grievance procedures provided for in the Bill. At present both the National Health Service and the Financial Services Authority are preparing to launch initiatives on whistle blowing, flagging, up the option to make protected disclosures directly to the regulators. As this amendment happens to have come before the Committee today rather than a week or two ago when I thought it might, I am able to quote to Members of the Committee from the April 2002 document of the Financial Services Authority. I shall do so as briefly as possible:
  "We will encourage all whistle-blowers to exhaust their internal mechanisms before disclosing to us but we will not refuse to listen to a whistle-blower who does not want to disclose to his employer. It is better that the employee speaks to us than telling no one, or inappropriately making a wider disclosure, e.g. to the police, a Member of Parliament or the media. We think it very important that the whistle-blower who is genuinely concerned about malpractice in the workplace but reluctant, for whatever reason, to blow the whistle internally has a safe alternative. We would hope that firms would share that view".
  It would be a pity if, in the light of the Bill before us, employers and employees were being advised that, in raising concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace, public interest disclosures should first have to be raised internally. Whistle-blowing should not, in my view, be confused with grievance procedures. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I rise with some diffidence to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. That diffidence arises not through not wanting to support the amendment—I very much want to do that. My diffidence concerns something that I mentioned earlier. It seemed to me that, when I supported an amendment from the other side, the amendment did not seem to find favour with the Government. On the other hand, when I rose to say that I did not like the amendment, it immediately found favour. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will not be cross with me later for intervening to support him because I hope very much that the Government will accept his amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, quoted something that the Minister said earlier in Committee. With regard to that quote, I made a note that the Minister gave the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, an assurance that both,
  "the Bill and the accompanying regulations will ensure that there is no conflict with the Public Interest Disclosure Act".—[Officio/ Report, 26/02/02; col. 1407.]
  I was very surprised to see that the Government did not return with an amendment to take into account the point that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, makes. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to find favour with the amendment.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My noble friend raised concern about the perceived effects of the statutory procedures on the ability of employees to make protected disclosures to outside parties in line with the Public Interest Disclosure Act. He believes that the statutory procedures might cause problems or confusion in some instances, requiring employees to

  CWH 463
  raise complaints about wrongdoing with their employer first. I believe that his concerns are centred on Clause 30, which will insert the statutory procedures into contracts of employment as an implied term.
  Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government greatly value the protections contained in PIDA. The Act has generally worked well. We have no intention of weakening or undermining them in an way. Therefore, we shall ensure that the Bill and its associated regulations will not restrict the rights of employees to make protected disclosures.
  In general, most cases of whistle-blowing have nothing to do with the treatment of the person disclosing the alleged wrongdoing. For example, an employee may be disclosing some fraudulent practice or other criminal activity committed by his or her employer. In such cases, the complaint cannot be construed as a grievance of the employee. Therefore, the existence of the statutory procedures should not affect adversely the ability of employees to make protected disclosures in those circumstances.
  However, there may be other instances where the disclosure does, indeed, concern an individual's treatment. For example, an employee may wish to make a protected disclosure to the Health and Safety Executive about dangerous or unsafe working conditions to which he or she is personally exposed. These cases may not be common. But I recognise that some people might see a tension between the statutory grievance procedure and the PIDA rights.
  I think the concerns may rest on the presumption that Clause 30 forces employees to raise with their employer each and every grievance they may have. That is not the way we intend the clause and the statutory grievance procedure to operate. The procedures would simply require employees to take certain procedural actions where they choose to raise a grievance formally with their employer. My noble friend wants us to ensure that we close off all possibility for the PIDA protections to be undermined. I share that aim.
  We believe that this matter could be tackled in the regulations. However, there may be a case for addressing the issue on the face of the Bill. This may help clarify the issue at an early stage and assist organisations who are currently operating or devising dedicated disclosure policies. We are therefore minded to bring forward an amendment on Report which would address this issue.
  We are very grateful to my noble friend in starting the ball rolling and drafting an amendment to Clause 41. However, we are not sure at this stage whether his amendment adequately deals with the issue. Our aim is to give employees a choice in cases where a protected disclosure is also a grievance. We want to ensure they are free to make the disclosure outside the statutory grievance procedure if that is what they want to do. Equally, we want to give employees the freedom to raise a protected disclosure as a grievance if they choose to do so, ensuring that the grievance is fully
  CWH 464
  explored within the statutory grievance procedure. We have questioned whether the amendment would close off the latter possibility. It would seemingly allow an employer to turn down a request by the employee to apply the three steps to a grievance on the grounds that the grievance also constitutes a protected disclosure.
  In conclusion, the Government fully appreciate the point that he has raised. We intend to bring forward an amendment on Report and we will examine my noble friend's amendment as part of that process. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: Before my noble friend responds, in view of the fact that there is really one organisation involved in this, could I suggest that we have an assurance that there will be the closest possible consultation with Public Concern at Work so that when the amendment is brought forward by the Government on Report we do not have any difficulty?
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes. I am very happy to give the assurance that we will have very close discussions on this.
  Lord Borrie: I thank the Minister and I thank my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee for his intervention. I was slightly anxious when the Minister began to speak because I thought he was being a little too tentative and might not actually reach the point of saying that he would bring forward an amendment to the actual Bill at Report stage. However, he did do so in due course, as I patiently listened. I am delighted at that and look forward to seeing that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 41 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 42 [Equal pay: questionnaires]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 201:
  Page 45, line 2, at end insert—
  "( ) Any questionnaire prescribed by the Secretary of State under this section shall ensure, so far as practicable, that the right of privacy of any other employee of the respondent shall not be breached, in particular by disclosure of his or her name or address."
  The noble Baroness said: I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 together. Clause 42 relates to equal pay questionnaires. After some 32 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, the Government have decided that it needs to be strengthened by the addition of a new Section 7B coming after a previous legislative addition, Section 7A. The new section consists of 10 subsections contained in 63 lines of text. Every one of those subsections, every one of those lines, relates to the rights of an employee seeking redress for what the first subsection describes as,
  "a person who considers that she may have a claim under section 1".

  CWH 465
  The Committee will, I am sure, have noticed that the subsection refers to her as "the complainant" and not the claimant. The new section goes on to describe in detail the obligations of the employer to provide information to enable the complainant to investigate and pursue her claim and the remedies available if the employer fails to co-operate and the powers of the employment tribunal to enforce that co-operation.
  I am willing to assume that the long experience of the operation of the Equal Pay Act has revealed an impediment to its operation, or to the ability of claimants to be able to prepare their cases, or indeed whether they have a viable claim at all.
  My involvement in the cause of promoting the advancement of women in every sphere, and the promotion of women's rights, goes back by coincidence at least as far as the 1970 Act. I am appalled at the fact that, as I have said, 32 years after the passing of the Act women are still paid, on average, only 82 per cent of what men receive when you work it out on average hourly earnings for someone who is working full time. That is an 18 per cent gender gap. Women working part time earn 60 per cent of what part-time male workers receive based on an hourly average wage. That is a gender gap of 40 per cent, which is not acceptable.
  However, while welcoming any procedural change that will help to redress that balance—and I hope that they can—I have to point out one major defect in this clause. While assisting an employee to obtain her rights, all of the 10 subsections ignore the rights of her colleagues. None of the 62 lines of text protects a basic right of those colleagues. I refer to the ones she wishes to use as comparators in support of her claim and to the rights of those colleagues and co-workers to have their personal privacy respected—a right enshrined in the Convention on Human Rights, to which this country subscribes, and which are also provided for in the Human Rights Act 1998.
  The Minister certified to Parliament—as the Committee will see on the front cover of the Bill—that:
  "In my view the provisions of the Employment Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
  However, in the case of Clause 42 as presently drawn, that is not so. Fortunately, this defect can easily be remedied by the adoption of this amendment. I hope the Minister will have noticed that I have not provided for an absolute right of non-disclosure of a fellow employee's name and address because I am well aware that in a small firm the comparator may be just one employee whose identity will therefore be obvious to absolutely everyone. But what has to be avoided "so far as practicable"—and I have used those words in the amendment—is the possibility of identifying that person either to other employees, or to the public, or to anybody else.
  In this case the inevitable answer of the Government that the point will be covered by the regulations is not acceptable. First, the object of this amendment is to prescribe what those regulations must contain and not leave that to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Secondly, without the requirement being incorporated
  CWH 466
  into the Bill itself, not in some piece of secondary legislation, the certificate of the Minister as it stands is simply not correct.
  So far as Amendment No. 202 is concerned, I have to confess that when I first put this amendment down I did so because it had been put down by my honourable friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in the other place. Although I had seen the amendment, I put the amendment down before I had the opportunity of reading what he said about it in the debate. However, I now see that he conceded that the amendment was defective to the extent that it does not cover the situation of a case going beyond the employment tribunal or the employment appeal tribunal to, for example, the European Court of Justice. If the Minister now concedes the principle of the amendment, or if the Committee decides to accept it, this minor deficiency can easily be corrected by a further amendment which I could introduce at a later stage, or, indeed, the Government could do so.
  The principle involved in this amendment is absolutely identical to that applicable to my Amendment No. 201—which is grouped with it and to which I have just spoken—in relation to the questionnaire that the claimant is allowed to serve. The issue is that of the right to privacy of other employees and the right not to have their personal affairs bandied about the workplace or elsewhere. The right of the employer to ensure that a disgruntled employee does not use the rights to information are not used as a foundation for a general fishing expedition or to stir up discontent among other employees who may not be receiving the same pay or the same benefits that the employee who is being used as a comparator is receiving.
  During the debate on this amendment in the other place, the Minister suggested that an employer, who was suspicious that a fishing expedition might be being embarked on or who wished to protect the rights of other employees, could withhold the information.
  However, new Clause 7B to the Equal Pay Act 1970 provides in subsection (4) that a tribunal may draw any inference which it considers just and equitable if an employer deliberately and without reasonable excuse omits to reply. I ask Members of the Committee to predict whether a tribunal will regard it as a lawful excuse for an employer to decline to answer because he is protecting the privacy of another employee or group of employees. I also ask Members of the Committee whether they believe that an employer would stick his neck out and risk an adverse inference being drawn against him because he is altruistically protecting other employees' rights of confidentiality.
  The Minister in the other place tried to draw an analogy with what he called other areas relating to discrimination. If that is so—I am not sure to which areas the Minister was referring—they should he amended as well.
  What we need is for the provisions to be upgraded; we should not bring this legislation down to the deficient level in other legislation. Two or more wrongs do not make a right. Once again, I draw

  CWH 467
  attention to the fact that automatically loading the scales in favour of the claimant to the detriment of other employees who are by no means or in any way involved in the dispute is a gross breach of their rights under the Convention on Human Rights.
  The Minister has certified to this House on more than one occasion that the provisions of this Bill are compatible with convention rights. In the High Court, a litigant who makes improper use of pleadings, or affidavits, is liable to find himself hauled off by the tipstaff for contempt of court. Instead of producing, as his colleague did in the other place, a series of specious arguments against a simple and entirely reasonable code of practice, I hope that the Minister will accept that all employees' rights are equal and that one employee is not more equal than his or her colleagues. I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, had to say, but I find it rather difficult to understand how legislation that is based on comparisons—the equal value legislation has that basis, as does the original Equal Pay Act—and which requires that employees should produce comparators can possibly sit with the kind of amendment that she is proposing. She may argue that the privacy of other employees can be affected, and that may well be so. However, if one is going to get equal pay on an equal footing, it has to be compared with somebody and that automatically means that one has to some extent to lose the privacy of other employees.
  Baroness O'Cathain: May I ask for clarification on the clause? I am concerned about subsection (1)(a) of new Section 7B, which is at line 28. It refers to,
  "a person who considers that she may have a claim under section 1 above".
  The second lien of subsection (2) states,
  "and, if she does so, to formally present her case in the most effective manner".
  I raise this because I have personal experience of coming out on the wrong side of the Equal Opportunities Commission by supposedly favouring women over men. My noble friend's amendment was not gender specific and neither is the rest of the clause. Why was it in those instances?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister answers my noble friend's question, as I am sure he will, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that my understanding, which may be incorrect, is that where there are comparators, they do not have to fill in the questionnaire with the name and address so that the person can be identified. I thought that they were able to compare and find out if somebody was getting equal pay without having to go down that route. That is an unusual route; we are not familiar with it. Unless my information is incorrect—I am sure that the Minister will tell me if it is—that answers the noble Baroness's point.
  Baroness O'Cathain: In a very small organisation where two people do the same job, there would be a difference. I do not know how that would be covered.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: The amendment states:
  "the right of privacy of any other employee of the respondent shall not be breached",
  and goes on, "in particular by disclosure". It actually says "shall not be breached", but that is not possible in the situation that we have discussed with the kind of legislation that we have.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the way in which the amendments have been introduced, and I am glad to acknowledge the credentials of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in this regard—they go back over a period of years. I add that I will lend her a copy of my book, Women and Work, which is based on research for the Department of Employment in the 1970s precisely on this point. I hope she will acknowledge that I, too, have a track record in this area.
  The amendment seeks to ensure that an employee's right of privacy is not breached, specifically protecting their names and addresses. We do not need to go back over that point. Clearly names and addresses are not necessary if the comparators are a number of people, but they might be necessary if it is only one or two people. That is why there is the danger.
  There must be a balance between the ideal of complete transparency—we want as much transparency as we can get in order to make the equal pay questionnaire work—and an individual's privacy. That is why our proposed questionnaire will not alter any common law duty of confidence that exists between employers and employees.
  The amendment assumes that individuals have a "right of privacy" which must be protected. Unfortunately, it is by no means clear that a general "right of privacy" exists in United Kingdom law, particularly between private individuals. There has been a great deal of publicity recently about the balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been about issues of confidentiality rather than about the specific matter to which the amendment refers. However, it is clear that the law has never been entirely clear, and may not be entirely clear even after recent judgments.
  There is an alternative. Certain information about individuals is protected by the common law of confidence and the Data Protection Act 1998. Where information is confidential, an employer would be able to disclose the information only if he had the consent of the individual in question, where he had a legal obligation to do so or where there was a strong public interest requirement.
  We believe that the common law on confidentiality is the appropriate method to deal with issues of confidential information that might arise in the questionnaire. The common law already works. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, quoted the

  CWH 469
  Minister in the other place as using the phrase, "other areas". The other areas are existing questionnaires for sex, race and disability discrimination.
  Exactly the same issue arises there. If we were to change the legislation to introduce the concept of a right of privacy where the other legislation does not do so, we could be creating difficulties. We would expect employers to answer the questionnaire as fully as possible, and not to hide behind a blanket excuse of confidentiality, but we believe it would be very unusual for an employer to disclose confidential information in response to the questionnaire. We would not expect an employer to provide exact details of an individual's pay where the comparator did not consent or where the questionnaire was simply a fishing expedition to obtain details of a colleague's pay. We also think it unlikely that a tribunal would consider that an employer had acted unreasonably simply because he or she had erred on the side of caution and decided that it was not clearly in the public interest to disclose confidential information.
  Of course, the tribunal can order the disclosure of this confidential information if the case proceeds formally. This is exactly the same position with the existing discrimination law questionnaires, to which I referred. In those cases, employers might be asked to provide information that is subject to a common law duty of confidentiality. They have to consider whether it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to disclose the information. If they are not prepared to disclose it, tribunals can and do decide whether it is in the interests of justice to do so.
  The law of privacy is complex and it is still developing. It is far better to stay within the common law duty of confidence, which has worked well in the other areas to which I have already referred. Incidentally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised no objection to the provisions. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will agree that that amendment is unnecessary.
  Amendment No. 202 requires that all information provided in response to the questionnaire would be treated as confidential and could be used only by the complainant for the purposes of taking a case to a tribunal.
  As I have already explained, the questionnaire will not alter the common law duty of confidence. It is far better to stay within the well-established common law duty than to try to construct an alternative version.
  The amendment would allow information to be used only in proceedings before an employment tribunal, or an employment appeals tribunal, but a case might proceed to one of the higher courts of the European Court of Justice. The complainant should not be prevented from relying on the information gained in those courts as well. That amendment therefore does not commend itself to the Government.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I wonder whether the Minister can help me a little further. He referred to the other questionnaires on sex, race and so forth. Could
  CWH 470
  he tell me whether names and addresses are included in those questionnaires? That is the point that I was concerned about.
  Secondly, the Minister said that the questionnaire was confidential and the information could not be released unless the person concerned gave permission. However, I have read Clause 42 but cannot see where it says that it is confidential. That was the point of my putting the requirement into Amendment No. 202. I would be very grateful if the Minister could elaborate on those two points.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not say that it is confidential because it does not need to: the common law of confidence between employer and employee applies and is not affected by this Bill.
  As regards the other questionnaires on sex and race and disability discrimination questionnaires, they are all different because they address different issues. However, they address fundamentally the same issue that, in order for a case to work, there have to be comparators, and those comparators should be as plain as possible within the limits of the common law duty of confidence. I do not think there are any cases where there would be a need for names and addresses, but there would be cases where somebody could be identified simply by being the only comparator available. Exactly the same issue arises in an equal pay questionnaire as arises in a discrimination or race questionnaire. I cannot give an over-riding answer which applies to all of them, because they are all slightly different.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister far the extra comments he has made. I know he accepts that I speak with feeling about equal rights for men and women. I accept what he says and will take up his offer of borrowing his book—it sounds to me as though it would make very nice holiday reading.
  However, I have to say that I have some concerns about this. I shall read extremely carefully what the Minister has said—I am sure that he means it all very well, but it is just that from where I sit, it appears that problems could arise for other employees. I will read his reply very carefully indeed and then make a decision for another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 203:
  After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
  "EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION
  (1) Where, in the light of the answers given by the employer to a question put under section 42, an employer or one or more recognised trades unions recognised by him requests the Secretary of State to do so, the Secretary of State shall consult the Equal Opportunities Commission (the "Commission") concerning the desirability of requiring employers generally to observe the Commission's Code of Practice on Equal Pay in so far as it relates to the pay review process.

  CWH 471
  (2) Where the Commission so recommends, the Secretary of State shall, after consulting all parties with whom he considers it appropriate to consult, make regulations requiring employers to observe a recommended, or one of the recommended, pay review procedures."
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my two noble friends. On Friday 8th March, I attended a conference organised by the Equal Opportunities Commission; I was for some six years a commissioner. The EOC is concerned that, despite 30 years of equal pay legislation, there is still a substantial gap between the pay of men and women. Women earn 80 per cent of full-time men's average hourly earnings, while men's average income is almost twice that of women's. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has already referred to those statistics.
  The effects of unequal pay and income on women include reduced economic independence, greater likelihood of low pay while working and greater likelihood of poverty in old age. Reasons for unequal pay include gender segregation in employment, different patterns of working among women, discrimination within payment systems and undervaluation of women's jobs.
  In 1999 the EOC launched a major campaign on equal pay. Among its aims was to persuade employers to examine their pay systems for sex bias, to raise awareness of equal pay issues among the public, to enable those in employment more easily to access their legal rights and to promote the case for legal reform.
  The EOC appointed a taskforce which included senior figures from the private and public sectors, from employers to trade unions and experts in pay equality and gender issues. The taskforce took evidence from a wide range of individuals and organisations and produced a set of recommendations.
  Although it is clear that the existing legislation, including access to tribunals, has been of great assistance in reducing gender inequality, there are problems about the legislation. Why should it have taken 13 years, for example, to deal with the equal value pay of speech therapists?
  There is a continual problem that it is not possible to take class actions; that is, for a union to take a case to a tribunal for a whole group of employees. Test cases of individuals have to be mounted. Therefore, as well as seeking to promote changes in legislation, which is also part of EOC policy, the EOC is endeavouring to promote activity within the workforce by employers and by trade unions.
  Hence the campaign for equal pay reviews. This approach involves partnership between recognised unions and employers. I understand that the Government welcome this approach and have nailed their own colours to the mast by deciding to initiate equal pay reviews in government departments.
  Many employers welcome the approach as well. In fact, major employers were represented at the conference on 8th March. My own union has started a
  CWH 472
  campaign in line with the EOC's recommendations and has issued a leaflet stating how the issue of wage reviews should be approached.
  The amendment is intended to assist this process. I believe it is in line with Government policy, so I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it, though I must say that we are by no means wedded to this wording at all. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn was responsible for drafting it and he told me this afternoon that he is not committed to this wording. However, if the principle is accepted, we would like to see something rather similar forthcoming from the Government on Report. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is obvious from what I said in response in the previous debate that I am very much in sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, says that there is a gap between the pay of women and men, women earning only 80 per cent of men's full-time pay. When I was working in the area in the 1970s, the figure was 73 per cent, so there has been progress but very little or inadequate progress. I had better lend the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, a copy of my book as well. Alas, it is not for sale. Anyway, it is Government property.
  Of course, we recognise the good intentions behind the amendment. The trouble is that our understanding of the amendment is that it would require all employers to undertake mandatory pay reviews. However, it is, in line with all of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has said, Government policy to encourage and help employers to do so on a voluntary basis. The amendment would allow any employer who had replied to an equal pay questionnaire to request that the Secretary of State consult with the EOC about whether employers should be required to observe pay review procedures set out in the equal pay code. Any trade union recognised by the employer would also be able to make such a request.
  There is no threshold requirement, no discretion. As soon as a single employer or one relevant trade union made the request, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult the EOC. That would take the matter out of the Secretary of State's hands. If the EOC recommended that one or more pay review procedures contained in the equal pay code should be obligatory, the Secretary of State would be obliged to make regulations to require employers to do a pay review.
  The pay review model (or one of a variety of models) would therefore become obligatory for all employers. Although the amendment refers to the Secretary of State consulting with interested parties before making these regulations, it seems that the Secretary of State would be obliged to make the regulations even if a large proportion of people consulted were not in agreement. Thus, we would land up making pay reviews through a very unsatisfactory process, where the reply of just one employer, or the request of one employer, could force the Government to require all employers to carry out pay reviews.

  CWH 473
  We just do not believe that is the right way forward. Equal pay reviews must be carefully and sensitively done. Employers need the tools to carry them out properly—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, would no doubt agree that many of them do not do so—and we have therefore given the EOC an extra £100,000 to work with employers to develop a pay review model and software to help employers with computerised pay systems to conduct pay reviews. The EOC is piloting this new pay review model with a number of companies and will be publishing guidance before the end of the year. There has been no equal pay review model until now.
  The pay review system must be shown to be workable for business and effective for women. It is important that the model takes business into account, its voluntary use is promoted and its impact is fully tested. With out developing the voluntary model and testing its impact, we think it is difficult to assess whether pay reviews are proportional to the problem of unequal pay and whether they will deliver practical benefits.
  We consulted on the questionnaire and that received widespread support, with nearly 90 per cent of respondents supporting it. To link the questionnaire with a mechanism that would lead to mandatory pay reviews would risk damaging its credibility. I hope that in the light of the description of what we are doing and the progress that is being made, the amendment will not he pressed.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may clarify something with him. I should declare that I was an Equal Opportunities Commissioner for eight years prior to coming to your Lordships' House. The Minister said that he was sympathetic towards the aims behind the actual amendment and I take his point about the EOC pay review model. However, if we are going to have to wait for the EOC pay review model, would that not be closing the stable door after the horse has gone; that is, after we have debated the Employment Bill? Is there not a way of putting something on the face of the Bill to show the sympathy of the Government towards this kind of review model? If we do not include a provision in this Employment Bill, we may miss the boat because what exactly can we do when we receive the report from the EOC?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We do not know what conclusion the EOC is going to reach as a result of the development of the pay review model and testing it with companies. I do not think we should assume that the result will be a recommendation that there should be a mandatory pay review for all companies. If what we are doing is encouraging a voluntary pay review in those companies where it is necessary—and I do not think we should assume that it will be necessary or desirable in all companies—we will not need legislation in order to implement what the EOC does. Therefore, we have not missed an opportunity if we have not included it in the Bill.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that very full description of the Government's position. That is extremely helpful and I am very gild indeed to have that in Hansard. I note that the main problem with our amendment is its mandatory nature; that the Government agree with what we are trying to do but do not want it to be made compulsory. I note what the Minister said about that and I will have to consider it between now and Report stage. Perhaps I will also consult colleagues at the EOC who currently have this campaign in hand. In the meantime, I am grateful for the explanation that the Minister has given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 204:
  After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
  "UPPER AGE LIMIT
  Section 109 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (upper age limit) is hereby repealed."
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment deals with employment rights for older people. The new clause as suggested would remove the existing legislation that denies older people protection against unfair dismissal. It would therefore provide people who work over the age of 65 with the same rights in law as those who are under 65. The right not to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to an employee who has obtained either the normal retirement age, whether it is above or below 65, or in any other case has reached 65. Neither can an employee in such circumstances seek a redundancy payment.
  However, there is a growing consensus around the need to enhance employment participation rates among older people. There have been government attempts, with only limited success, to enhance participation of older people by campaigns among employers, and I was involved with some of those some while ago with the Carnegy Third Age Group which was also concerned with increasing employment among older people. The recent debate about pensions provision gives impetus to the argument.
  There now appears to be a general acknowledgement that ending age discrimination in the workplace needs legislative action and the authority behind it if it is to be achieved. The Government are currently consulting on the implementation of the EU directive on equal treatment. The new law—expected to be effective no later than 2006—will prohibit discrimination at work against people on the basis of their age and also religion, sexuality, disability and so on. However, I understand that no question has been included in the consultation on the issue of employment rights for older people, and the present position of the Government is therefore unclear.
  There are no grounds, either in principle or in practice, for older people to be discriminated against. Sixty-five is an arbitrary age at which people lose important rights. What is proposed in the amendment

  CWH 475
  would result in a strong signal being sent out that the state values the contribution older people can make. It would assist the Government in their positive moves to tackle discrimination against older people in the workforce. It would enable people who wish to, and who are capable of doing so, to carry on working later in life.
  It might be argued that during the consultation on the EU directive it would not be appropriate to make this change. That means that even if legislation eventually occurs, it will not happen until 2006, so that older people would have to wait almost a further five years before attaining rights available to younger employees. Employers may perhaps argue that they need the age "cap" in order to manage workforces, to get rid of workers who have become incapable and to promote younger workers, but employers already have the right to dispense with the services of employees not capable of performing the tasks for which they are employed. Everyone should be assessed on the basis of competence and there is no need for age to be a factor.
  Many employers are reporting skill shortages in a number of key areas. It is therefore important that the skills and experience of older workers are not lost because of an arbitrary age bar. There is increasing discussion about the possibility of abolishing a mandatory retirement age, and the Government are currently consulting about retirement ages. However, the abolition of a mandatory retirement age is not enough to protect older workers. Without specific rights to protection from unfair dismissal, an employer would still have the freedom to dismiss older workers.
  In view of the stated position of the Government relative to older workers, I hope that there would be an indication of support for this wording—at least in principle, even if not this exact wording—as a move in the direction towards protection for older workers. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As someone who is substantially over the age of 65 but is still managing to continue in work, I believe that it will be obvious why I am very much in sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment. Of course, this is an important issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, is right to say that older people have a valuable contribution to make. However, perhaps I may explain, first, that the situation is not quite as bad under Section 109 of the 1996 Act as the noble Baroness seems to think. Secondly, the Government are very much seized of the issue which is raised by the amendment.
  The right to claim unfair dismissal is only one of a wide range of employment rights, the great majority of which, including the right to the minimum wage and the right to paid leave under the working time regulations, are not subject to an upper age limit.
  It is generally the case that employees who believe that they have been unfairly dismissed may not be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if they have reached the normal retiring age in the undertaking employing them for employees holding their positions,
  CWH 476
  or, in the absence of a normal retiring age, if they have reached the age of 65. No upper age limit applies if the dismissal is for a wide range of specified reasons which are regarded as automatically unfair. Those include dismissal for trade union membership or for asserting a statutory right. I should add that no upper age limit applies for dismissal claims made under sex and race discrimination legislation. While admitting there is still more to be done, that is some modification of the problem.
  The Government are currently working on implementing the European Commission's employment directive, which includes provisions to combat discrimination on the new grounds of age, sexual orientation and religion. As a result, we shall be introducing legislation—obviously I shall not say when—to combat age discrimination by employers. A consultation document, Towards equality and diversity, sought views on the implementation of all the new discrimination strands in the directive, including views on retirement age. The consultation finished at the end of March, and we are in the process of evaluating the responses.
  Many complex issues need to be addressed and resolved so that the emerging legislation is practical and helpful to employers and employees. I am conscious that many people, including myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, have strong views on the upper age limit to making an unfair dismissal claim. However, the question as to whether to repeal it can be properly considered only in the light of consultation and the work which the Government are doing towards the implementation of the directive. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will he withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for the sympathy that he has once again displayed towards my amendment. However, I am very sorry to learn that there will be further delay before the amendment, and all that it implies, can be introduced. As I indicated, the consultation process will take some time and it is unlikely that there will be legislation before 2006. That means that older people will have to wait until that time.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that. I do not want to make any promises, but I said that the legislation had to be implemented by 2006.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Therefore, presumably it could be implemented before then. I thank the Minister very much for that in any event. I do not believe that I can say anything further about the matter at this stage. I said all that I wanted to say in moving the amendment. I am grateful for the assurance that has been given on the issues in relation to which people cannot be dismissed, even though they may be aged 65 or over. But, of course, the main thing is that employers can get rid of people simply by dismissing them at that They can simply say that they have reached retirement age and that is it. That is really rather unfortunate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CWH 477
  Clause 43 [Union learning representatives]:
  Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 205:
  Page 46, line 12, after "take" insert "reasonable".
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I would like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 205 to 209, 211, 213 to 215 and 218 to 220. This is a series of 12 amendments to Clause 43, which will add new Section 168A to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
  Before I explain my amendments, I have to say that I am surprised by the number of patches and additional clauses that are being added to various Acts by the Bill. I am sure that it would be helpful to employers, employees, their advisors and union representatives alike if the Consolidation Act 1992 could be reconsolidated, taking in all the employment legislation that has been enacted since 1997, so that all of the law can be found in one place. Consolidation Acts are uncontroversial, so long as all they do is amalgamate a whole series of Acts. All that is needed is a good draftsman with a liking for jigsaw puzzle!
  We are currently considering the new Section 168A, which will introduce the concept of time off for learning representatives. Since this is a new statutory concept, as distinct from the voluntary system that has operated in some cases hitherto, it is proper that we should smooth off some of the rough edges that currently appear in the Bill. I will deal with them in the sequence in which they appear on the Marshalled List.
  Amendment No. 205 would insert the word "reasonable" as a qualification to the amount of time off that a union learning representative may take for the purposes described later in the clause. Without the word "reasonable", the implication would be that the representative could take any amount of time off that he chose. I do not believe that that is being prescriptive; it is merely inserting in the legislation the word that the courts would imply if there ever were a dispute. It is a well known principle that what is reasonable depends on the facts of the individual case.
  Amendment No. 206 would insert the words,
  "subject to the employee providing appropriate written notice".
  It may be that some employers on some occasions will dispense with the notice but Parliament cannot or should not authorise a situation where an employee can simply down tools and go off to act as a learning representative, whether or not that is convenient to the employer, and possibly with insufficient notice for the employer to make alternative arrangements.
  On Amendment No. 207, subsection (2)(a) describes some of the activities of a learning representative. All of the activities that are referred to in paragraph (a) are essentially ones that should be conducted at the place of work or, if that is not convenient for some reason, at the union offices. It is not right that work should be disrupted by the employees trooping off to some other location or conducting the training, for example, on a street corner. This, of course, refers to activities being conducted in normal working hours. What employees and the unions do in their own time has nothing to do with the employers.
  CWH 478
  Amendment No. 208 deals with the purposes for which an employee is entitled to take time off in connection with his duties as a union learning representative. Subsection (2)(b) of new Section 168A, which will be added to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides that one of those purposes is for consulting the employer about carrying on such activities. Consultation with the employer is a very desirable course of action and can most certainly lead to co-operation and avoid possible misunderstandings and friction.
  One of the matters that should be the subject of consultation is integrating the learning representative's intended activities into the training that is being carried out, or that is intended to be carried out, by the employer. I have often spoken about the effects of the Government's employment legislation on small businesses. In this case, I imagine that it is more likely that larger employers will be affected by these provisions. It will be the larger employers whose employees may have trade union representatives, and it will be larger employers who may be going in for training activities. That is not to say that smaller employers will not have training activities of various sorts but, more often than not, they are likely to consist of sending employees on training courses.
  What is important is that, when an employer is conducting his own training—whether that is work-and-skill related or simply involves helping an employee to make up for a lack of literacy or numeracy—that training should not clash with whatever is being offered by the union learning representative. By that I do not mean merely that the two lots of training should not overlap in content. I also mean that the union and the employer should not clash over the time when such activities are carried out by each of them.
  I readily concede that there are many aspects of learning or training where consultation between the employer and the union is not merely desirable tut absolutely essential. However, the purpose of the amendment is to underline the fact that neither the employer nor the union is to be able to claim that its activities have priority over the other. It is not intended to limit the activities of the learning representatives because, as the Minister will doubtless point out to me, the consultation does not bind either party to a particular course of action.
  Amendment No. 209 inserted into subsection (3) gives the employer the right partially to veto the appointment of the union's learning representative.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I understand that there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspendedfor a Division in the House from 5.1 to 5.13 p.m.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was speaking to Amendment No. 209 and I think I had dealt with the first paragraph, ending "the union's learning representative". If it does not make sense, the Minister will undoubtedly tell me that I should start again.

  CWH 479
  I said -partially" because the amendment does not prevent the representative being appointed but merely means that an unapproved representative is prevented from having the time and facilities provided for in subsection (1). It is essential that the employer should have some say in who is to have access to his staff. The person appointed might very well be someone with whom the employer is at loggerheads. Considering the influence that the learning representatives will have on the other workers and the amount of time of the business that will have to be given for his activities, it is only right that he should be someone in whom the employer has confidence. It will be noted that the amendment requires the employer to be reasonable and also not to delay approval of the proposed representative.
  In Amendment No. 211, I have proposed the deletion of subsections 4(b) and 4(c) because my Amendment No. 212 in my next group sufficiently covers the qualification of the representatives.
  In Amendment No. 213, I have proposed in this new subsection to exempt an employer who has obtained and maintained the coveted Investors in People status from this whole concept of learning representatives. That particular status of Investors in People is far from easy to obtain, and to obtain it an employer has to have a substantial training programme both as regards the job employees are required to do and ensuring that the general basic educational infrastructure, if I may call it that—I mean literacy and numeracy—are up to standard.
  I do not believe that a union learning representative will be able to provide better training than that which an employer who is an Investor in People can provide. It is therefore unreasonable that, in addition to the expense and effort that the employer has put in in order to obtain the Investors in People status, he should also have the expense and disruption that this particular section will cause him.
  In Amendment No. 214, I have proposed to leave out subsection (6) because I believe that my Amendment No. 212—which as I mentioned before is in the next group—requiring a nationally recognised qualification, is more extensive. I do not doubt that the ACAS code would be acceptable, but I do not believe it should be the only qualification.
  In Amendment No. 215 to subsection (8), I have proposed that notwithstanding the fact that the clause stipulates that the amount of time off shall be, in a phrase which harps back to my Amendment No. 205, reasonable in all the circumstances, there should be a cap on what reasonable time may be. The amendment does provide for the employer to agree to any extra time off.
  Amendment No. 218, the new amendment to the proposed new subsection (2B) at line 41 on page 47, is to insert the word "reasonable" to qualify the time off, and I have explained this previously. I am gratified that the Government accept the idea of reasonableness, as they did in subsection (8). I remember the numerous times during the debates in the Committee on the National
  CWH 480
  Minimum Wage Bill the Government consistently rejected the word on the grounds that it was too prescriptive.
  In Amendment No. 219, there is a serious deficiency or omission to subsection (5), which confusingly introduces a new subsection (5) elsewhere. What is wanted is more than mere election by the union, or more if he carries out the duties. To be accredited it is essential that he acquires the relevant qualification himself.
  Finally in this group is Amendment No. 220 in which I have proposed the complete deletion of subsection (6). In it the Government propose yet another example, a ruling by ministerial decree. Having produced the Bill after extensive consultation, and after having produced an extensive menu in subsection (2) for an employee to take time off for the purposes of being the learning representative, the Secretary of State now also demands the right to change all that at the stroke of his pen. By any test, subsection (2) is quite comprehensive—I would say totally comprehensive. I cannot imagine what extra needs the Secretary of State could find that are not already catered for. I invite the Minister to tell me what circumstances he believes are not already covered. If he can think of one, I invite him to add it to the subsection right away so that it can be where it ought to be; that is, in primary legislation.
  I am not impressed either that the Government are asking for this sweeping power to vary a major part of the Bill under the negative procedure. Let the Minister be specific now if he really has something in mind, otherwise I believe this provision is not needed in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I would like to mention one or two reasons why this series of amendments taken together would drive a coach and horses through the Government's clause. The first point I shall make relates to Investors in People. The trade unions have done a great deal of work to support Investors in People. I do not know the statistics off the top of my head but I would not be at all surprised if there was not a very big correspondence between establishments and firms where unions are recognised and those that get IIP status, and that is not surprising. In fact, those matters are not in conflict with each other; they are complementary. For many years in the TUC there was a programme of encouraging firms to go for IIP status as it improves quality, performance in the workplace and so on.
  Indeed, as regards some of the benefits of the union learning approach, we have heard consistently over the years that there should be regulatory impact assessments of anything that puts costs "burdens" on business. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of this but according to the data I have the regulatory impact assessment of this clause in the Bill comes up with the following results on a cost/benefit basis. The benefits will rise in a bracket of £70 to £140 million a year as it builds up—and I clarify that is

  CWH 481
  pounds, not euros. I believe these days one has to specify which it is—with costs of £6 million rising to£26 million. The cost/benefit ratio is roughly six to one.
  I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister can confirm this but if one looks at the general results of regulatory impact assessments a six to one ratio on benefits and costs is pretty good. I would have thought it was at the high end of the range. The Opposition's job is to be the loyal opposition and so on but it would have been helpful if we could have heard a bit more recognition of the fact that the measure we are discussing can bring considerable benefits. However, the amendment would certainly drive a coach and horses through it. Amendment No. 213, as I read it, simply states that one does not need to comply with the requirements we are discussing if one has IIP status, implying that !IP status would flourish despite such an overriding of union rights.
  I have a couple of other points to make. I believe that Amendment No. 210, which is not grouped with the amendments we are discussing, is, as it were, implied in Amendment No. 209. I refer to the right of an employer to refuse the measure we are discussing. Is that right?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is in the next group.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: In that case let me stick with Amendment No. 209 as I will not be speaking again on this matter. Amendment No. 209 gives the employer, if not a veto, a certain right of saying yea or nay to a particular person and so on. As regards union safety representatives—and of course there is a good degree of analogue here, it is not as if this is total rocket science—we know roughly how the system bedded down after one or two teething troubles and the matter we are discussing will bed down in a similar sort of way. One cannot deny the fact that union representatives are elected through whatever complicated arrangements are designed to meet the democratic rules of the particular union concerned. As I say, the matter we are discussing would bed down in the same sort of way as the matter of health and safety reps bedded down. My final point is that it is not the case that union offices are an ideal place to undertake this in every case. In certain parts of the country that would, indeed, be the case, and many union establishments would enable it to be carried on very well on union premises. However, I believe that employers are being over-anxious about the general framework of this approach. It has been thought through fairly well. I hope that the Minister will perhaps reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that what the Government have in mind here is to help to pick up, and give a benchmark to, the rest of the economy.
  There is a paradox in all of this. As the noble Baroness said, large firms are, to use a type of caricature, unionised, and the small firms are not. Statistics show that generally large firms have higher levels of productivity and higher levels of commitment to this type of arrangement. It is not that we do not want small firms to go forward with such
  CWH 482
  representatives. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would not say that the solution would be to make union learning representatives mandatory in small firms. I would support her if she did say that, but I doubt whether that is her intention.
  We must recognise that here we are trying, as we have done in many other areas of industrial relations, to improve the benchmark through a quite ingenious system. But I hope very much that it will act as a benchmark to be copied in other sectors. Thus, the *type of discrimination or two-tier economy to which the noble Baroness alludes would not come about. That would be the arrangement to which other people would need to aspire in their own training arrangements, recognising that European comparisons show that we are not starting with a very good record on training.
  I know that that is a Second Reading point, but I believe that many of the implicit assumptions behind some of the remarks addressing the amendments go back to the philosophical problem which the CBI and the noble Baroness have with this issue. It seems that management's right to manage, if I may use an old formulation, is infringed. We should take the opportunity to say that this should be seen as a considerable and positive step in the British economy towards improving our training performance. Everyone agrees that more breakthroughs are needed for that performance to go forward in order to meet the international competitive level.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Perhaps I may say a few words to the noble Lord. The first issue that he addressed was the regulatory impact assessment, particularly with regard to Investors in People. He referred to the benefit being six times the cost—I believe he said that the ratio was six to one. I understand that, but the point that I was making was that it is very difficult to achieve the status of Investors in People. Many companies would like to reach that status but are unable to do so. They invest a tremendous amount of money in the training necessary to achieve that particular award.
  I am not sure whether, even with that award, if it was obligatory to have union learning representatives with the costs that those would involve, one might find in the distant future that fewer companies would seek Investors in People status. I make that point only to suggest that such representatives might in some way be excluded. The noble Lord has a different view, which is why I made that point.
  The other issue that I wanted to raise in view of what the noble Lord said was that at Second Reading I made the point that union learning representatives, of whom there are already many, who work in companies on a voluntary basis, have been shown to work extraordinarily well. The point is that that is done on a voluntary basis. I always believe that, if you force people to do things, that sometimes does not work very well. Although the amendment seeks to make adjustments to the clause, those adjustments involve simple requirements: that the employer had to be reasonable, that the employer could not delay and that if there was a difficulty with a particular person, that

  CWH 483
  should be taken into account. I appreciate what the noble Lord said. The Minister will no doubt tell us his views.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if she has already covered this point in introducing Amendment No. 206. The amendment refers to,
  "the employee providing appropriate prior written notice".
  What does "appropriate" mean?
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I suppose that I would be happy if the employer had to provide written notice but, in the circumstances of the case, if the employee downed tools that day and said, "By the way, I'm going off to do that", that would not necessarily be appropriate. It would be appropriate according to the conditions and time when it was said. It might well be that that would need refining and perhaps different words could be added. However, the arrangement is a two-way process and in those companies that operate it on a voluntary basis, it works very well, because all the parties agree and operate in an appropriate way. I use the word to mean, "appropriate for the circumstances of the particular time". It would be difficult for a company that was doing something very involved if an employee were suddenly to drop a notice on the desk saying that he was off in half an hour. I would probably not consider that to be appropriate, but that might vary according to the circumstances.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had better start by saying that I am informed on this subject as well, having produced training-at-work surveys for the Department of Employment for a number of years, and having done a number of studies on workplace training.
  I also say that I am a little surprised at the implicit tone of the amendments. I would have thought that a trade union movement that produced something in excess of 3,000 union learning representatives without any statutory support or an entitlement to time off work or other support, and who operate in the common interests of employers and employees to secure a better skilled workforce, deserves all the support it can get. I believe that that is what Clause 43 does.
  I make a final introductory comment about what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says about consolidation. Yes, we consolidate from time to time but I suspect that, even in 1992 when the last Consolidation Bill was produced, employers and employees did not read it. What they read was the guidance produced by the department for their use, and that can as easily be produced in relation to individual legislation as to a Consolidation Bill.
  Having said that, I have an obligation to respond to each of the amendments, which I shall do. Amendments Nos. 205 and 218 relate to the time off that the union learning representatives may take to fulfil their duties, and to the time off an employee may
  CWH 484
  take to access their services. Both amendments insert the word "reasonable" in relation to time off. Amendment No. 214 relates to the guidance that will be provided on what constitutes "reasonable".
  Amendment No. 205 is unnecessary as the restrictions that it seeks to place on a union learning representative's time—I shall refer to them as U LRs— have already in place. Under subsection (8) of new Section 168A, ULRs are already entitled only to reasonable time off during working hours. A union would be restricted from seeking unlimited time off or time off which would disrupt or damage the employer's business. So the amendment serves no purpose.
  Amendment No. 218 is also unnecessary. It replicates an existing reasonableness provision. Under subsection 4 of this clause, an employee will be entitled to have time off without pay to access the services of the ULR. It operates by inserting new subsections into Section 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. These new entitlements to time off must therefore be read in conjunction with the existing provisions of Section 170. Subsection 3 of that section already specifies that the time off must be "reasonable" in all the circumstances. Therefore, that is superfluous.
  Amendment No. 214 seeks to remove subsection 6 from new Section 168A. That provides for the issuing of guidance by ACAS or the Secretary of State regarding sufficient training. We wish a code of practice to be produced, which will give practical guidance on what constitutes "sufficient training". Removing that subsection would remove the power for ACAS or the Secretary of State to do so. The experience and attributes of individuals seeking to become ULRs will vary greatly. To cover all instances, the definition of "sufficient training" must not be too prescriptive. Removal of the section would mean that in the event of a dispute it would be left to the courts to decide what is "sufficient training". I am sure that Members of the Committee would agree that that would be entirely undesirable. It would be much better if a code of practice providing straightforward, well-researched advice were available to help avoid disputes.
  The remaining amendments place restrictions of one kind or another on union learning representatives. Amendment No. 206 seeks to place a requirement on the ULR to notify the employer in writing that they will be taking time off for their ULR duties. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has explained that that could be a slip of paper on a desk. However, it places an administrative burden on both the employer and the ULR that is unnecessary. As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, Clause 43 provides rights that are broadly equivalent to those that are currently enjoyed by shop stewards and other lay union representatives. My noble friend Lord Lea reminded us of health and safety representatives. There is no requirement on shop stewards to request time off in writing to undertake their duties.

  CWH 485
  Under subsection 8 of new Section 168A, either ACAS or the Secretary of State will provide guidance on reasonable time off rights. What we envisage is that this guidance will closely mirror the code of practice on time off rights for trade union duties provided by ACAS. This code gives guidance on requesting time off and what information they should supply to the employer but does not specify what form the request should take. The approach has no significant problems for employers. There is no reason to believe that problems would arise in the case of ULRs where they have not done so for shop stewards. As I said, there is no requirement for the notice to be in writing but if they all agree that written notice is the most appropriate, there is nothing to stop that.
  Amendment No. 209 provides that a ULR's appointment must be approved by the employer for the ULR to qualify for time off. That really is a step backwards. It gives at first instance a veto to employers over a ULR's right to time off. A ULR would be unable to take time off unless the employer had given their written consent to them doing so. By withholding their consent, an employer can prevent a ULR operating, which we cannot accept.
  There are currently 3,500 ULRs in place. Agreeing to the amendment would hinder the appointment of more. There would be more workers who would be denied the valuable services of a ULR. The amendment states that the approval cannot be unreasonably withheld or delayed but it does not give an indication of what would be unreasonable. Good employers, who want their workforce to be properly trained and 'who can see the benefits of ULRs, will not withhold their consent. However, bad employers who do not recognise the important role that unions can play in training the workforce and the partnership approach will use this amendment to avoid appointing ULRs. They will, as a consequence, be denying themselves the benefits of ULRs.
  We have already provided that the amount of time off must be reasonable in all the circumstances. It is unclear what the amendment would add. Such a condition would lead to disputes and bad feeling in the workplace. It would probably lead to more employment tribunal cases. We want to increase the number of ULRs in place and to do this they need clear entitlements to time off. The amendment would restrict the growth of the ULR network and be thoroughly undesirable.
  Amendment No. 215 seeks to place a restriction on the number of days off that a ULR can take each year to undertake their duties. Restricting the time off that a ULR can take to provide advice will reduce their effectiveness and create inflexibility. A ULR needs to be free to take off the time that is necessary to provide advice. However, as I have said, all time off must be reasonable so there are safeguards against excessive amounts of time off.
  The regulatory impact assessment indicates that the average ULF: will take 14 days each year—five days' training and nine days to carry out their duties. I imagine that that is where the noble Baroness, Lady
  CWH 486
  Miller of Hendon, took the 14 day-figure from. But these figures are averages. All the circumstances will be different in different cases. Newly appointed ULRs will need more time for training; successful ULRs will have more people coming to them for advice. Some will require less and some will require more. If employers are seeking Investors in People status, they will need to involve the ULR, and the time off that a ULR would need will increase.
  What happens if a ULR is responsible for advising, a large number of employees? A limit of this kind would reduce the effectiveness of ULRs and limit the number of people who could be helped.
  Amendment No. 207 restricts the location where a ULR may operate. It would mean that, in order to be entitled to paid time off, the ULRs would have to undertake their duties at their place of work or at an authorised trade union location. That would hinder the ULRs and affect the advice that they can provide. There will be occasions where the ULRs will need to go somewhere else; for example, for their own training. What about training at training centres or the local college?
  I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, does not want us to bar these more formal places of learning: it would not fit in with her general support for training. In any case, what is meant by "authorised trade union location"? Who will do the authorising?
  I assume that the intention is to stop ULRs travelling around the country and claiming paid time off. But Section 168A clearly defines the purposes far which a ULR may take time off, and that time off must be reasonable. If a ULR attempts to take time off that does not fall within this, he will not get it. It is likely that most advice will be provided in a ULR's own locality, but there will be occasions when ULRs will have to go further for specialist training, and that would be prevented. What about the health and safety implications of the amendment? What about the situation where the place of work is a building sit? Would that be appropriate?
  I turn to Amendment No. 208. Subsection (2) lists the purposes for which a ULR can be entitled to pa d time off. Subsection (2)(b) provides for the ULR to be entitled to reasonable time off to consult the employer about performing these activities. Amendment No. 208 adds to the wording of the subsection by mentioning that these consultations could include discussions about integrating the ULR's work with the employer's training activities.
  Many employers have elaborate training and development arrangements to encourage workers to develop their potential. We envisage that ULRs would complement this activity wherever it is possible and in the interests of their members.
  The consultations could cover the issues raised by the amendment. Most ULRs would want to know about employer initiatives and plans, and the employer would have an incentive to explore the interaction between his own training activities and those of the ULR.

  CWH 487
  Therefore, the clause already enables the ULR to be granted time off for consultations on this core subject. I do not see the purpose of complicating the wording of the clause by specifically referring to the issue. If we did, we should have to refer to all kinds of other topics as well.
  Amendment No. 213 seeks to exempt employers with IIP status from the scope of Clause 43. We strongly support Investors in People. It is a sign that employers have recognised the need to train their employees. To exempt ULRs from workplaces with IIP status would be not only wrong; it would be perverse.
  In order to achieve IIP status, an employer must demonstrate that he has procedures and practices in place that allow for training and learning issues to be regularly reviewed. In many instances, a union will have been heavily involved in helping an employer to gain IIP status. Why should the union then be excluded once it has been gained? It would be strange for a trade union and its ULR to help with workplace training and to work with a partnership to gain IIP status only to have trade union rights and the trade union contribution removed upon its attainment. I suspect that unions would be more reluctant to help an employer to gain IIP status if the amendment were agreed.
  We see the role of the ULR as complementing training activities that are already in place, not working against them. I see no reason why the attainment of IIP status should mean that a ULR is no longer necessary. In fact, Investors in People UK, the public body responsible for the IIP standard, does not support this amendment.
  Amendment No. 211 seeks to remove subsections (4)(b) and (4)(c) from new Section 168A. There will be occasions when a union member wishes to become a learning representative but has not yet received the training required for the role. Removing these subsections would mean that these individuals would not have the right to time off work to undergo their required introductory training.
  These subsections allow untrained ULRs to function as such for an initial six-month period. During that time the ULR would also have the right to undergo the initial training. However, if they did not receive the required training during this six-month period they would no longer qualify for time off.
  We have also included a training condition in the new Section 168A and we must ensure that union members are given the opportunity to meet this condition. We need these subsections if we are not going to exclude people from having the opportunity to undertake the role.
  Amendment No. 219 deals with the definition of a learning representative of a trade union provided for the purposes of the amendments to Section 170. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is in her place. I remember when she was a Minister her exercises in speed reading of complicated Government briefs and I can only attempt to emulate her. It is not
  CWH 488
  clear what this amendment is for. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, fears that there is a loophole allowing an employee to have reasonable time off to access a union learning representative who does not meet the training condition. That is not so. An employee only has the right to time off to access a ULR when that ULR is entitled to time off under new Section 168A. That means that he must meet the training condition.
  Finally, let me turn to Amendment No. 220. This amendment seeks to remove the order-making power. ULRs have been around for about five years. They are relatively new creations and it is possible that their functions could change over time. We need to ensure that we have the powers to deal with any future changes and so we have included this order-making power in subsection (6). It is not intended as a means to establish collective bargaining rights for unions over training. We have always made it clear that it is drafted to ensure that no collective bargaining rights are assigned to unions or to the ULRs they appoint.
  Bargaining about training and learning remains an entirely voluntary matter. Employers and unions are free to engage in such bargaining only where they both wish to do so. We intend to apply the affirmative resolution procedure and that is what is achieved by Amendment No. 221, which I hope we shall deal with shortly. I hope that goes some way to relieving the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: That was a bravo performance by the Minister. When one puts down a big group of amendments the Minister at least knows what the amendments are and has time to prepare his speech. When the Minister comes back with a bravado performance like that—I started to write things down, but I am afraid I got lost. I shall obviously read very carefully what the Minister had to say about all of those matters—I was disappointed—
  Lord Razzall: The word is "bravura".
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: What did I say?
  Noble Lords: Bravo.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was trying some speed talking to try to match the Minister and got caught up in it. I thank the noble Lord who corrected me. I was really disappointed when the Minister started off by saying that he did not appreciate the tone of my amendments.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The implied tone.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: That is much gentler and nicer, if I may say so!
  In my next group of amendments I shall say a little more about what I shall just touch on now in answering the Minister. At Second Reading I discussed union learning representatives and said how successful they were when they operated on a voluntary basis. I will come back to that in a moment.

  CWH 489
  I was trying to put down some markers as regards having union learning representatives on a non-voluntary basis. Once they become enshrined in legislation that is enforced on companies that are not ready for it, or whatever, they may not be as successful as when they operated on a voluntary basis. I was not saying that we should not have them but simply making the point that difficulties may arise in certain circumstances.
  In the other place the Minister was asked whether there was an organisation that would welcome union learning representatives. I believe that the answer was the CBI. But that was a sort of half answer as the CBI did welcome them provided they were introduced on a voluntary basis. However, some other organisations did not welcome them. One could look at my amendments in a constructive way and say that for five years we have had them—I believe that we have 3,000 of them—and they have worked well because they were accepted and they were voluntary. The position will now change. I refer to phrases such as "the employer should be given notice", or, "it should be reasonable". I shall read carefully what the Minister said. As I said, and I shall say it correctly, it was a bravura performance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: Before the noble Baroness sits down, could I clarify one of the points she has made repeatedly, which concerns the benefit of having voluntary arrangements rather than statutory arrangements? We have been living for three years since the 1999 employment Act with statutory trade union recognition procedures. If you do not have a voluntary arrangement and there is still a demand for recognition, you go to the central arbitration committee and, ultimately, if the matter is pressed that far you have a ballot. If 40 per cent of those entitled to vote, vote yes, you gain recognition.
  There was an understanding between the TUC and the CBI that, if you are going to do that, that is the best way forward. However, a great proportion of that iceberg is under the surface—I refer to the voluntary aspect—and on the top of it you have a little part which is statutory—that is what I call the bench-mark. I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on the fact that in one respect—this is a semantic point—trade union recognition is almost like recognition of Palestine in that it is a voluntary matter but one which is at the same time subject to some pressure. However, once the matter we are discussing settles down—it is often difficult to introduce it—it is operated on essentially a voluntary basis. Perhaps the noble Baroness would reflect on the fact that this sharp distinction between what is done voluntarily and what is done compulsorily, as it were, is being somewhat overdone in this debate.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 206 to 209 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 210:
  Page 46, line 30, at end insert "and
  (c) the employer does not object to the provision of a union learning representative"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 210, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 212, 216 and 217. They all relate to the introduction of what are called learning representatives into the workplace.
  I begin by hastening to assure Members of the Committee opposite that these amendments are most certainly not a bit of union "bashing". The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not in his place at the moment but I believe that he asked at Second Reading whether words of kindness such as "conciliation" ever passed the noble Baroness's lips. As a preface I wish to say that they often pass the noble Baroness's lips. It is important to get that matter into context. 'The only reason I did not answer the noble Lord before was that I had already withdrawn the amendment.
  On the contrary, as I said when I mentioned this part of the Bill at Second Reading—I refer to the fact that this is not union bashing—there are already, I believe, 3,000 learning representatives. Where they have been established on a voluntary basis—I come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall—there appears to be no problem whatsoever and they are welcomed. However, the key phrase there is "on a voluntary basis", and Amendment No. 210 specifically deals with where the employer does not have any objections at all. When the Secretary of State was asked in the other place whether any employers' organisation supported the idea of learning representatives—and I mentioned this a moment ago—she incorrectly claimed that the CBI did. I will now quote the CBI correctly. It states:
  "The CBI supports the concept of learning representatives, but the right to appoint union learning representatives without the employer's agreement is unacceptable".
  I would like to return to another aspect of the CBI statement in a moment. The fact is that very many of the provisions of the Bill add to the costs to be borne by the employer. This in particular is one of them. An employer is in effect bound to pay for the learning representative, and for his time and that of the employees, while he is legitimately performing his functions.
  The Employment Relations Act 1999 gave the unions enhanced rights to represent employees whether the employer wanted to recognise the union or not. In this next step the unions are seeking further access to the workplace by the insertion of learning; representatives whose activities will, of course, eat into the working time of the employees. I am not saying that it would necessarily be bad—Members of the Committee opposite have pointed out that training is a very good thing. I am just making the point that it is something in the balance and in the equation that should be considered.
  I do not know that the Minister will like my next phrase because the Government shy away from calling learning representatives "teachers". However, they
  CWH 491
  can serve a useful function to make good the deficiencies which often result in school leavers entering the workplace bereft of the elementary skills of numeracy and literacy. That is, of course, one of the functions in which the union learning representative could be involved. It is a pity that we should even have to consider—although we clearly do—that that function might very well be necessary, but there you, c'est la vie, that is the reality.
  In my own experience as an employer—and I accept that it will happen—young girls were coming to me for clerical jobs, and although they could read and they certainly could write, it was quite extraordinary that they did not know the alphabet. And I found it practically impossible to teach them how to work on the telephone because they could not look up telephone numbers. The only way they could find a number was to get back to the operator, which was quite a sad reflection.
  I also believe that there are many jobs where, with the virtual breakdown of the apprenticeship system, new employees are often thrown in at the deep end and they are unfortunately left to pick up the necessary skills on their own. In such cases the presence of a learning representative could be beneficial to both the employer and to the employee. However, as the CBI points out, it has to be for the employer to decide what degree of training is required for his particular employees, and not for the union to say to an unwilling employer that he will have to do A, B or C. Neither will it be fair to one who cannot afford the costs and loss of competitiveness that the imposition of a learning representative might entail.
  Amendment No. 212 requires a learning representative to acquire some nationally recognised vocational training or teaching qualification. As a transitional measure, and to anticipate possible objections from the Minister, I have proposed two separate measures. First, I have suggested an initial period of one year from the passing of the Act for existing learning representatives and those who are likely to be appointed shortly to acquire the necessary qualification. Secondly, any new learning representative will have six months from his appointment time to acquire the qualification.
  It will be noted that I have not prescribed the exact form of the vocational training or teaching qualifications that the learning representative will have to acquire. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is in his place because I can comment that he recently sent me a video in which he starred, promoting the work of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. From this I believe there is ample scope for any learning representative who wishes to acquire the necessary qualifications to find a reputable organisation to provide him with them. The Minister should note that I said he starred in his film. I am not sure whether everybody had the opportunity to see that film, but it was very instructive.
  I am sure it is naïve of me, but I cannot imagine that the Government will oppose this amendment because the implication would be that they do not care if
  CWH 492
  unqualified representatives are foisted on employers and on the workers whom they are supposed to be helping alike.
  Amendment No. 216 limits the number of learning representatives to one per work site and the reason is self-evident. In the case of a small or medium-sized enterprise, even one representative might be a financial burden. More than one, with competing agendas and calls for time to carry out their functions, will be severely disruptive.
  In the case of larger businesses, there is the problem that there may be several unions involved and the employer could be faced with the consequences of inter-union rivalry. If there is more than one union, they should get together and work out which will carry out the functions of the learning representative or persuade the employer that, as different skills are involved, their function should be divided in a way that is agreeable and convenient to the employer.
  Amendment No. 217 is also self-explanatory and I trust the Government will accept it as a constructive correction to an obvious omission from the draft Bill. Subsection (11) defines a learning representative as a person who is appointed or elected by his union. The other essential qualification is that he should have the qualifications laid down in subsection (4). Those qualifications are those that the Government themselves stipulated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), apart from the additional one that I just proposed in Amendment No. 212. It is, I understand, a rule of legal construction that if a later provision conflicts with an earlier provision, then the latter one prevails. In this case, as drawn, subsection (11) could arguably be said to override subsection (4); my amendment simply makes clear that it does not. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I want to make a couple of points on the procedures involved. There may be a misunderstanding on how the system would work in practice and this is illustrated by the remarks towards the end of the introduction by the noble Baroness, visâ-vis inter-union matters and so on.
  In practice, whether it is a voluntary agreement or, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, one that derives from the statutory procedures of recognition, there would be either a procedure agreement which was voluntarily arrived at, covering the areas of the recognition or, at the ultimate, the default procedure of the central arbitration committee.
  In either case one would have to identify the various elements of the procedure agreement. As I think it would be translated on the ground in consolidation of all these issues under the trade union recognition, there would be the addition of this training element in the procedure agreement. It is a matter of axiomatic training in practice that if these things are to be consolidated into the procedure agreement—not the wages agreement, but the procedure agreement—it would determine who would be involved in representation of the employees on any particular question. One can, therefore, put the noble Baroness's mind at rest on that particular point.

  CWH 493
  I make one other remark. The noble Baroness seems still to be taking as axiomatic something that is the reverse of the case; namely, that this is going to undermine the firm's competitiveness. The noble Baroness has stated this so many times now that I feel I must pick it up. The regulatory impact statement is precisely intended to address that kind of question and it says the opposite, by a ratio of six to one. Therefore, we are being told that we have to look at the new world globalisation in a pragmatic, empirical way, based on the evidence and so on. That is what we are trying to do.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I want to make one or two comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has said. One important thing that the House of Lords does is to scrutinise measures very carefully. Many of the things that we have been scrutinising over the past few sessions are matters that were not even considered in the other place; This one was, but many were not. There is enormous value in the fact that we scrutinise such matters and that we tease out each other's thoughts and so on. Therefore, I am not saying that I disagree with everything that the noble Lord said. I was very grateful to him for his comments. They may illuminate my thinking on certain matters in the future. I put: it no stronger than that.
  The noble Lord returned to the issue of the regulatory impact assessment and the benefits arising from it in a ratio of six to one. Unless I am totally mistaken in relation to the regulatory impact assessment, I assume that that has been carried out. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, as I may very well be, with regard to cases where there is already a universal learning representative; that is, in relation to voluntary cases.
  I was trying to make the point that what one may get out of 3,000 voluntary ULRs in situations where the employer, the employee and everyone else likes the arrangement may not necessarily be the same in every case. The Minister may be right that competitiveness has not been affected, but that may not necessarily be so in all cases. I considered it necessary to scrutinise that point, to investigate it, tease it out and talk about it. I am sure that the Minister, if he is able to do so, will correct me if I am wrong, and we shall see how we proceed.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I want to add one sentence. Competitiveness has been affected, and it has been affected positively.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Perhaps I may make one comment in relation to Amendment No. 216. As the noble Baroness said, it is good to exchange knowledge in these discussions. The amendment refers to,
  "no more than one learning representative".
  When the noble Baroness introduced the amendment, she said that difficulties may even arise between trade unions. In my experience as a trade union negotiator, which is nowhere near as wide as some of my colleagues on this side of the Committee, I never had
  CWH 494
  to deal with differences concerning learning representatives and training. Differences did occur in relation to recognition agreements but not in relation to the training or learning representation.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. We are talking about a new concept. At this stage one would hope that in a new organisation where the arrangement is voluntary it would probably work very well. However, that may not necessarily be the case; the arrangement may or may not work satisfactorily.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, introduced her remarks by saying that she was not union bashing, and I have to accept what she says. It is strange, therefore, that, when she referred to union learning representatives at Second Reading, she talked about having a curious image of unions infiltrating the workplace. We are not legislating for infiltration; we are legislating to ensure that unions can do even more than they do at present in workplaces where they are already recognised.
  As I said in responding to the previous group of amendments, union learning representatives represent the modern face of trade unions. They provide important services to individual employees. They help employers to improve the take up of training and learning opportunities, and they produce a substantial net gain to the economy, as the regulatory impact assessment showed, as my noble friend Lord Lea reminded us.
  The amendment would continue the existing veto which employers have over union learning representatives. It would restrict the positive role which unions can play in helping to address skill and learning deficiencies. It would hold up the development of the union learning representative system, denying individuals and, of course, employers the benefits which union learning representatives can bring. At present there are approximately 3,500 ULRs in a small fraction of the workplaces where unions are recognised.
  The numbers are growing slowly by about 500 to 1,000 a year. If we extrapolate that, we would have around 10,000 in place in eight years' time. According to TUC estimates, unions believe that they could realistically appoint and support more than 22,000 representatives by that date if they were allowed to do so. That is a substantial difference.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, says that there will be a difference between those who are appointed voluntarily and those who might be appointed if this clause applied—the compulsory side of what we are proposing is damaging.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not believe I said there will be; I said there may be.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that. I accept that that is what she said, but I believe that in fact the change will be in the other direction.

  CWH 495
  The fact that there are no statutory entitlements for time off restricts the activities of union learning representatives now. About a third of union learning representatives do not receive paid time off for training in their role. About a half do not receive paid time off to carry out their workplace duties. That has hindered the contribution which union learning reps can make and it has constrained the expansion of the network. I suggest that the implementation of the clause will not only increase the number of union learning reps but make them more effective.
  I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will recognise that our country's performance on skills and learning is not outstanding. Independent research has shown that ULRs bring real benefit to the workplace. We want to release this potential; we simply cannot afford to do otherwise. She believes that our approach undermines partnership but we do not think that way at all. We believe we are widening the role of the modern union, involving the union in the wider partnership of agenda, of improving workplace performance and enhancing the employability of the lower skilled. If we stifle the network, we are stifling the ability of unions to help individuals and businesses adapt to change.
  The amendment will give the employer a say in the union's choice of its union learning representatives. It would allow an employer to say that he would object to time off for Mr A but not for Mrs B. We believe this is not just a mistake but actually improper. It would threaten the independence of free trade unions. Employers should not interfere directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of trade unions. Nobody contests the notion that shop stewards should have time off to engage in collective bargaining. Nobody contests the idea that union safety representatives should have time off. These rights to time off are not, and should not be, contingent on the employer's approval of the representative in question. We feel the same way about union learning representatives.
  Amendment No. 216 would limit the number of union learning representatives that a union can appoint at any one workplace or establishment. We do not believe that this is necessary or desirable. The time off rights for union learning representatives are not the only time off rights for trade union representatives. There are time off rights for shop stewards and other lay representatives and the ULR clause is very closely based on those entitlements, as for health and safety representatives. However, none of them includes any limitation on the number of representatives at any workplace establishment and it is left to the unions to appoint the number that they believe is appropriate.
  It is not in the unions' interests to create complicated organisational structures. Unions are by and large sensible and pragmatic organisations that have no interest in appointing union learning representatives who will not have enough to do. Anyway, employers are not interested in the number of union learning representatives. They are interested in the total amount of time off that they take and the associated circumstances in which it is taken. There is no need to
  CWH 496
  specify a particular limit on the numbers involved. There are safeguards to ensure that the total amount of time off is not excessive, not the number of numbers, as it were. Those safeguards are in subsection (8) of new Section 168A. They have to be "reasonable in all the circumstances", and there will be a code of practice to give guidance on the practical application of those time off rights.
  The amendment is also undesirable because it would restrict the flexibility with which unions could apply the time off rights. There may be benefits where several union learning representatives operate in tandem, each specialising in one aspect of the ULR task or a particular occupational category. Why rule out that in legislation? Why leave it to the employer's discretion to decide whether such flexibility is required?
  Amendment No. 212 seeks to ensure that 12 months after the Act has been introduced only those individuals who have obtained a nationally recognised vocational teaching qualification, or who are training for such a qualification, will meet the training condition. We do not believe it is necessary or desirable that ULRs should be obliged to obtain formal qualifications. We have deliberately avoided being too prescriptive in defining the training condition. We did not want to discourage individuals from volunteering to become ULRs by putting obstacles in their way, and we do not think it is appropriate to treat all individuals as if they were the same, which they clearly are not. We could exclude highly suitable people, discouraging those who never achieved any qualification and who would be intimidated at the prospect of having to undertake such a formal step. Some of the most effective ULRs are those who come to learning late or who have, or have had, basic skill needs themselves. They can lead by example. They are unlikely to he encouraged to become ULRs if they have to achieve formal qualifications in order to be recognised.
  In the New Year's Honours List this year, one such ULR, Tommy Dawkins from the Ceramics and Allied Trades Union, was honoured. He was encouraged to become a ULR after admitting to and dealing with his own illiteracy. It is inconceivable that he would have done so had he been expected to pass exams or undertake a vocational qualification. So we do not want a prescriptive definition of "sufficient training".
  Amendment No. 217 adds extra wording to subsection (11). It provides a definition of a learning representative for the purposes of the new section. The amendment would add to this definition by requiring that a learning representative should be a person who is "qualified". The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may think that this is consequential to Amendment No. 212. I have already explained why the requirement for a formal qualification is not acceptable, but there is no need to make a consequential amendment in subsection (11). There is already a requirement in subsection (3) that a ULR must meet the training condition in order to qualify for time off entitlements. The amendments are not only unnecessary but, I am afraid, they could be quite damaging.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Before the Minister sits down, I seek some clarification. I must confess that I did not know what ULRs were. Clause 43 contains new Section 168A, which is entitled:
  "Time off for union learning representatives".
  Subsection (2)(a) of that new section refers to ULRs,
  "carrying on any of the following activities … analysing learning or training needs … providing information and advice about learning or training matters … arranging learning or training, and … promoting the value of learning or training".
  You would need to have some training to be able to do that. You would need some qualification to be able to analyse.
  I raise a second point about the Minister's response to my noble friend. It seems that you can have as much time off as you want provided that it is not excessive. Who will define "excessive"? It does not seem that the employer would define it.
  The other point that struck me is that there is no limit on the number of ULRs. Four or five members of staff at not a very big location could all become ULRs. The Minister says that my noble friend's amendment is too prescriptive but I do not believe that the Bill is prescriptive enough.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am asked to answer three points. First, is it desirable for union learning representatives to have training qualifications? To have training is certainly desirable; that is provided for and we expect them to have training in doing their job. There will have to be a wide range of training for different purposes. Those who are encouraging their colleagues to undertake basic skills training will want that particular kind of training. Those who are looking for other kinds of training that are relevant to the workplace will have different training. We agree about training but it does not follow from that—I hope I gave enough examples to show this—that they must have formal qualifications.
  The second question concerned the definition of "excessive". I do not think that you can define that. It is in nobody's interests to take extra time off to do work that is not necessary or not valuable. It has never been a serious problem in industry, so far as I know, that there is no definition of what is excessive for shop stewards or health and safety representatives. They do different jobs in different places and you cannot be prescriptive about it. The same is true of numbers. My answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was that there should not be a restriction on the number of union representatives but there should be an ultimate constraint on the number of hours taken off, which is quite different. There the restriction of not being excessive does apply.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I want to make a few points. I will let the Minister know now that I intend to withdraw the amendment, but before I do so there are a few points that I want to make and I shall read
  CWH 498
  very carefully what has been said. Twice the noble Lord, Lord Lea, happened to say that the competition has improved—I think they were the words he used.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: Competitiveness.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: He said that competitiveness improved. I think the Minister talked about many of these things being very successful and have improved results and so on and so forth. If that is so, why it is that we still have so few union learning representatives on a voluntary basis? Companies want to do well and if they find that a neighbouring company which has one of these systems in place is becoming more competitive, is doing better, is having better results, they may hasten to get involved.
  The Minister started by saying that I had said I am not in for union bashing, and unless I am very much mistaken, a note came up from behind recalling what I said. Without the Minister knowing that I was going to say that, he had it at his fingertips. That is even more of a bravura performance.
  Finally, before I withdraw the amendment, the fact remains that one does not know what is going to happen when the Bill becomes law and companies have to impose it. The Minister indicated that the Government did not want it to be too prescriptive; they do not like the idea of the word "reasonable"; and they do not like the fact that the employer has to be content and happy as well. They are not prepared to put any limit on the number of union learning representatives, and they are only going to ensure that the hours are not excessive. They are not prepared to say what is excessive.
  I say to the Minister that I am happy to withdraw my amendment, but I think he should look again at some of the measures and see whether there is a way that they can ensure that they will definitely work when the Bill becomes law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 211 to 220 not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 221:
  Page 48, line 10, after "order" insert "made by statutory instrument"
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 221 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223.
  Amendments No. 221 and 222 deal with the order-making power in Clause 43. They make this order-making power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Subsection (2) of the new Section 168A defines the range of union learning representative functions However, it is possible that, with experience, these activities might change and evolve. They may well develop in ways which are outside the purposes of union learning representatives as defined by subsection (2). For example, it is possible that ULRs might become more involved in organising childcare

  CWH 499
  arrangements for workers who are undergoing training, and that activity is not caught by subsection (2)(a)(iii) of new Section 168A.
  We would want to be able to respond if the ULR's job evolved in an unforeseen direction in the future. Hence, subsection (6) of the clause provides an order-making power to vary the purposes for which a ULR is entitled to time off. This order-making power is currently subject to the negative resolution procedure. We now think that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply to orders made under this power. This should ensure an adequate level of scrutiny. Amendment No. 223 has been tabled to ensure that the issuing of a code of practice under Clause 43 is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Clause 43 provides for codes of practice on reasonable time off and sufficient training to be produced by either ACAS or the Secretary of State. If the codes are issued by the Secretary of State, they would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, that is not necessarily the case if they are issued by ACAS.
  ACAS already produces a code of practice which provides guidance on the existing time off rights for shop stewards. This code has worked well and reduced the scope for disagreement. It is probable that ACAS would produce the corresponding code on the time off for ULRs. ACAS could meet this remit by producing a single code covering time off rights for both shop stewards and ULRs or a completely separate code just for ULRs. In the latter case, the code would be subject to the negative resolution procedure and therefore not debated.
  As I have said, the guidance on sufficient training can be produced by either ACAS or the Secretary of State. If the code of practice were to be introduced by ACAS, it would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  We think that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate these codes. Amendment No. 233 ensures that, if ACAS produces one or both of the codes, the issuing of the codes would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will not be in the least surprised when I say that I welcome these amendments. We were very keen, as I mentioned at Second Reading, that many of the orders should not be by the negative resolution procedure but by the affirmative resolution procedure. I am delighted that the Government have agreed.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 222 and 223:
  Page 48, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
  "( ) No order may be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.""
  CWH 500
  Page 48, line 18, at end insert—
  "( ) For section 200(3) there is substituted—
  "(3) A Code containing practical guidance

  (a) on the time off to be permitted to a trade union learning representative in accordance with section 168A (time off for training and carrying out functions as a learning representative),

  (b) on the training that is sufficient to enable a trade union learning representative to carry on the activities mentioned in section 168A(2) (activities for which time off is to be permitted), or

  (c) on any of the matters referred to in section 199(2),

  shall not be issued unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; and if it is so approved, ACAS shall issue the Code in the form of the draft.""
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 223A:
  After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
  "TIME OFF FOR STUDY
  (1) A qualifying employee may apply to his employer for time off during his working hours for study if—

  (a) the study is relevant to the work he is doing and promotes his understanding of and value in that work,

  (b) his purpose in applying for time off is to enable him to prepare and sit examinations which lead to a qualification of a level which satisfies conditions laid down by the Secretary of State, and

  (c) the employee has undertaken sufficient study in his own time to satisfy those supervising his studies that he would benefit from time off for further study and use that time to good effect.

  (2) An application under this section must—

  (a) state that it is such an application,

  (b) specify the amount of time off required and the dates on which it is proposed it begin and end,

  (c) explain what effect, if any, the employee thinks his taking this time off would have on his employer and how, in his opinion, any such effect could be dealt with, and

  (d) explain how the employee meets in respect of the study time required the conditions laid down in subsection (1).

  (3) An application under this section must be made at least three months before the proposed time off is due to take effect.
  (4) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision about—

  (a) the form of applications under this section, and

  (b) the level of qualification to which subsection (1)(b) applies.

  (5) If an employee has made an application under this section, he may not make a further application under this section to the same employer before the end of a period of twenty four months beginning with the date on which the previous application was made.
  (6) For the purpose of this section an employee is—

  (a) a qualifying employee if he—

  (i) satisfies such conditions as to the duration of employment as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations, and

  (ii) is not an agency worker;

  CWH 501

  (b) an agency worker if he is supplied by a person ("the agent") to do work for another ("the principal") under a contract or other arrangement made between the agent and the principal."

  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 223A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 223B to 223F.
  A little earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, talked about Clause 43, relating to union learning representatives. There has been an attempt to improve the benchmark through quite an ingenious system. I hope that I have presented here a rather ingenious way of extending the proposals put forward in the Bill a little further.
  The issue picked up one that I raised at Second Reading; that is, statutory time off for study. The issue underlying this is one we have already touched on with union learning representatives; namely, the whole question of the relatively low level of skills in the British workforce. In particular, there is the low level of skills among those with what are known as Level II and Level III skills—Level II skills being equivalent to five GCSEs at A to C grades, and Level III being the equivalent of A-level.
  The lack of skills in the British workforce has been the centre of many reports for the past century or century and a half. If we look back just over the past 10 years, the competitiveness reports produced by the previous government referred constantly to the problems of a skills gap. Since that time, we have seen both in the Budget and in the Pre-Budget reports the problems of productivity and skills gaps referred to frequently.
  I was inspired to put forward this amendment by the statement in last year's Budget that the current voluntary approach has not secured increased participation in the workforce in terms of training.
  The problem of the free rider has long perplexed British industry in this sense. It is far too easy for firms to poach other people and not to pay the costs of training. There are attempts to overcome the problem of poaching. The levy grant system that was used for many industrial training boards was dismantled, as we know, during the 1980s and the early 1990s. As I said, the voluntary system, as the Government themselves have concluded, has not worked.
  In the Pre-Budget Report of November 2001, the Government went somewhat further in terms of suggesting a number of pilot schemes and ways in which the situation could be improved. This reflected a report from their own Performance and Innovation Unit. Perhaps I may quote one short paragraph from the Pre-Budget Report:
  "The Government is already looking at possible fiscal measures to improve UK skills. The PIU set out a range of options to overcome barriers to training, one of which is a statutory right to time off for training and development. The Government is considering the suggestion as one of the possible ways of taking forward the commitment made in Budget 2001 and will carry out a full regulatory impact assessment and wide consultation on the development and implementation of any new policy".
  I have sought to help the Government by tabling this new clause in this Employment Bill. They could now carry this suggestion forward and need not
  CWH 502
  legislate further on it because we have provided them with an opportunity in this legislation. It is a hybrid It falls on the one hand on the provision relating to union learning representatives and takes from this particular clause the notion of having statutory time off. However, it also uses later aspects of the Bill, in Clause 47 onwards, which relate to time off or flexible working arrangements. Here the issue is that there shall be a right to ask for flexible working arrangements and a duty on the employer to consider the request but not necessarily to accord such arrangements. This is precisely the mix that I have put into these provisions.
  I apologise for the length of the new clause, as proposed in Amendment No. 223A. It states, first, that there shall be a right to ask for time off for study; but a limit is nevertheless placed on that. It is necessary to show that such study is relevant to the work that tree employee does. Secondly, it states that the study should lead to a qualification of a level that satisfies the requirements laid down by the Secretary of State. At present, the Secretary of State, or at least the Pre-Budget report, is very concerned about people obtaining Level II qualifications. I would hope that, over time, this could be increased to Level Ill qualifications, but the provision allows the Secretary of State to lay down the level of qualification that shall be sought, that the employee is capable of benefiting from such time off, and that he or she will make good use of it.
  Subsection (2) again limits the degree to which the situation can be exploited. The application must specify the amount of time off required and the dates on which it is proposed to begin and to end, and it should explain what effect, if any, the employee thinks it will have on the employer and how, in his opinion, that effect could be dealt with. The application must also explain how the employee meets, in respect of study time, the required conditions laid down in subsection (1). Thus, there are limitations on what can be done.
  Under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may lay regulations relating to the form of application and the level of qualification. Under subsection (5), an employee can make an application only once in every 24 months, so it will not be time off for ever. Subsection (6) defines "a qualifying employee" and specifies when an agency worker qualifies under the provisions.
  Subsequent provisions are taken from the flexible time off provisions and are essentially an appeals mechanism. I apologise for the length of the amendment. I had words with the Clerk to see whether it might be possible to use the wording already in the Bill rather than repeat it, but he informed me that I was necessary for us to repeat it at considerable length and this is why it has taken up so many pages in this group of amendments. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 223A. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: Because we have discussed this previously, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, will not be surprised that I am not supporting these amendments. The atmosphere is so very nice this afternoon that I do

  CWH 503
  not want to put a word in that somehow upsets that atmosphere, but I know that the noble Baroness will not mind my making a couple of points.
  The amendments propose a whole new concept of time off for study leave. This is added to paternity leave, maternity leave and adoption leave, to say nothing about time off for domestic emergencies which came up under the previous Employment Relations Act. The new subsections, whose general provisions follow earlier ones in the Bill relating to fixed-term working, do not specify how much time off an employee may demand. The noble Baroness pointed out that employees must specify the amount of time but did not say what that time would be. That is different from specifying the amount of time off required. It may be more than would be acceptable to an employer, given all those other leave provisions.
  Even though Amendment No. 223B(1)(b)(ii) means that the employer can refuse to grant an application on the ground of the detrimental effects on his business, there is no ceiling on the amount of time off that an employee may seek under Amendment No. 223B(2)(c), and, in theory, he could ask for the time needed to obtain a degree. There is no limit on the number of employees who might be entitled to do this. Some companies might be hard put to find any employee left working in the factory, office or wherever if all the employees were getting all this time off for all these different reasons.
  How would the employer know that the employee was actually studying? Could the employer demand to see what progress the employee was making? In other words, how many exams taken pursuant to Amendment No. 223A(1)(b) may an employee fail before his employer could turn round and say, "That is enough, I need you back in the workplace"?
  This amendment would place an intolerable burden on all employers, large and small. I believe that it could and would result in a company becoming uncompetitive.
  I can only come back to where I started. Under the new regulations—I am not commenting on whether they are bad or otherwise—employees will be entitled to paternity leave, maternity leave, adoption leave and, as I said, to domestic leave for emergencies. All those are accepted and exist now, but the idea of granting unlimited study leave, without specifying a time limit or maximum number of employees, would be a retrograde step and would cause great hardship to employers.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Razzall: Before the Minister responds, could I intervene for a moment in relation to the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has made?
  First, I acknowledge that the climate of the Committee this afternoon is certainly somewhat different from what it has been; our debates are certainly shorter. The point that the noble Baroness made was a travesty of what my noble friend Lady Sharp indicated. My noble friend bent over backwards
  CWH 504
  to indicate that she had drafted the amendment in such a way that none of the perils of which the noble Baroness was speaking would apply. There are all sorts of safeguards built into her proposal, but the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, simply ignored them and suggested that that approach was adding yet another burden on British industry.
  My second point is that, as we have debated the Bill in Committee, it has become clear that, although we on this side support much of the Bill, we have expressed reservations about quite a lot of it. Nevertheless, we support the overarching theme of the Bill, and in particular the idea that British industry has moved on from the world that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, described. We as a society, the Government as a government and we as political parties—and those of us who struggle to earn our living—are living in a world in which we encourage members of staff and employees to improve their training, knowledge and skills. Not only does society benefit; the employer also benefits. To suggest that a person's right to apply to have time off to study imposes an unnecessary burden on employers, and bearing in mind in particular the safeguards that the noble Baroness described, is to mis-describe what my noble friend Lady Sharp wishes to do. More particularly, it harks back to a world that no longer exists and which will never again exist.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Before the Minister replies, I see the safeguards in paragraphs (i) to (ix) in subsection (1)(b) of Amendment No. 223B, but the fact remains that huge facilities are currently available for people to study in evening classes. There are all sorts of colleges and I see "Enrol now" signs in all the places that I pass through on my way home. I would have thought that, if employees really want to better themselves and increase their skills, that is the line to take. Giving study leave to other employees creates problems within the workforce among those who have their heads down, are working away through a normal working day and see others "swanning off'. I know that that is not the right term because they are going to do additional study. However, there is a problem within the workforce not only for the employer, who is trying to organise the pattern of work, but also for the peer group from which that employee comes because the arrangement would set up a problem between employees.
  I believe that we should reconsider the proposal. If people want to acquire better skills, more learning or whatever, they should do so in their own time. Perhaps the employer, who wants to encourage an increase in their skills, could offer to contribute to their costs or award an additional bonus. However, going off in the middle of the day on a fairly regular basis is really not on.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I add to the comments of my noble friend. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, thought I was being unfair to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. That was not my intention. I took note of her exceptions and said that, although Amendment No. 223B means that the employer can refuse to agree on the grounds of

  CWH 505
  detrimental effects—I used one of the examples involving the employer's business—there is no actual ceiling on the time. My noble friend rightly said that people can attend evening classes and many of them do so hut, if we are going to have the right to time off during the day—apart from every other right—there has to be some indication of how that would be controlled. Could someone go off for a degree? How would you know what was being studied?
  I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that this was rather a long amendment and that she had been to the Clerk's office to try to sort that out. I have no doubt that, if the proposal found favour, the situation could somehow be controlled. Perhaps there would be a limit or an arrangement by which the employer would know that the person was actually studying. The noble Baroness said that she was helped with the amendment. I am not criticising her but I point out that it contains a great many loopholes.
  Lord Razzall: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I shall use one brief example to demonstrate that what my noble friend is trying to achieve has not been understood by the Conservative Benches. I refer to subsection (1)(a) of Amendment No. 223A. That states that, as a first principle, in order for a qualifying employee to have the right to apply to his employer for time off during working hours for study, the study has to be,
  "relevant to the work he is doing",
  and it has to promote,
  "his understanding of and value in that work".
  That is not the same as somebody going to evening classes to learn Latin. There has to be significant benefit to the employer. That must be understood in relation to the amendment. One does not have to agree with it—the noble Baroness obviously does not—but the arguments against it should at least be devoted to what my noble friend said.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Quite right. Before the Minister replies, I would like to add to my noble friend's comments by saying that it was suggested that an employee might go and do a degree. The answer is no, because the qualification has to be specified by the Secretary of State. The big problem is that of low-level qualifications—Level II and Level III. We do not find people at that level taking themselves off to evening classes. They attend evening classes to obtain qualification at a higher level, but it is particularly at this level that there is a lack of willingness. On the one hand, we need to try to persuade them to go off take qualifications, but on the other hand there is the issue of giving them some time off. This is not an "open sesame" to time off; there are all kinds of limitations in this regard. The noble Baroness and I discussed this before this afternoon's sitting and I know that she and her party do not agree with our approach. I understand their position but I do not agree with it.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I had better jump in at this point before we repeat this morning's lengthy considerations of these issues.
  CWH 506
  I would like to deal with all these amendments together because they share a common aim; namely, to introduce an entirely new element into the Bill —that of providing a universal right for employees to take time off for training or study. I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment. Indeed, I totally accept the argument about the importance of training to achieving greater productivity. The noble Baroness has argued on a number of occasions that t he real problem—the major problem—is with intermediate and lower-level skills. There is a severe shortage in this country in that regard. However, this; is not the right time to introduce such measures.
  As the noble Baroness said, the Chancellor announced, in his Pre-Budget Report last November, £40 million to test the notion of subsidies for certain types of training, linked to opportunities for employees to take time for study and some compensation for employers who release employees for those activities. That is an immensely complex issue with substantial repercussions for industry and commerce in this country. The length of the amendments that were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is testimony to the complexity of the issue.
  The Learning and Skills Council is now just beginning to pilot some activity to design and test out how such a proposal might work in practice and what its implications for employers might be. We intend to evaluate this activity before reaching any conclusions on the merits of employee rights to time off for training.
  In the event that the evaluation shows that to be a reasonable way forward, substantial work will be required to assess the impact of any regulation on business and the economy and to consult with those who are likely to be affected before any regulation can be considered.
  I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for attempting to help by putting forward these amendments but they are premature, for the reasor s that I have stated.
  I hope the shortness of this reply is not thought to be any reflection on what is an enormously important subject, but I believe the position of the Government can be very simply stated. This is something we have a great deal of sympathy for, but we believe that more work needs to be done on this, and that these amendments are therefore premature. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw them.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that he thinks this amendment is premature; I thought it was very nice that we were able to path the way with legislation before the pilots were completed, and then if the pilots were successful, we could use the legislation.
  I am glad that he has sympathy with the sentiments here. The issues are important and I very much look forward to seeing legislation when it does come forward. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendtnents Nos. 223B to 223F not moved.]
  Clause 45 [Fixed-term work]:
  Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 224:
  Page 48. line 28, leave out "employees" and insert "workers"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 224 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 225 to 230, and to Amendment No. 234, all amendments in the name of myself and my noble friend that have been grouped together.
  Generally speaking, on this side of the Committee we thoroughly welcome Clause 45, and I believe that is also the position of the TUC.
  Clause 45 of the Bill creates the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations implementing the EU fixed-term work directive. As the directive has to be implemented in the UK by July 2002, the Government have, as I understand it, started the final round of consultation on the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. Indeed, we made reference to that when we were talking about the Bill at Second Reading.
  The aim of the directive and the regulations appears to be two-fold: to prevent workers on fixed-term contracts from being treated less favourably than comparable workers in permanent work; and to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.
  As I have said, generally speaking we welcome the regulations but we are concerned about the term used in the Bill. As we understand it, the Bill limits the rights to those who legally qualify as employees. The TUC has consistently argued that the Government are legally required to extend the new rights for those employed on fixed-term contracts to wider categories of workers than those who are simply legally qualified as employees. I understand that legal advice has been sought on this issue, and counsel has advised that Clause 45 of the current Employment Bill does not fully give effect to the UK's obligations under the fixed-term work directive and the framework directive.
  I understand the directive applies to all employment relationships not just to employees. That would mean that it would cover workers on what used to be called "the lump" on building sites, who employers liked to regard as self-employed. They are of course in an employment relationship, and they would perhaps not be covered by Clause 45.
  Also, the regulations would appear to exclude agency workers, apprentices and employees whose fixed employment, training or work experience is funded either wholly or mainly by the European Social Fund. I understand that the regulations also exclude individuals employed on the new deal subsidised employment option.
  The Bill provides for many of the requirements to be brought in by regulation. It is not possible to deal with what the regulations say in detail here because that is a matter for consultation, no doubt with the appropriate organisations. Nevertheless, I believe the use of the
  CWH 508
  term "employees" presents a rather strong restriction, and certainly limits the cover of what we believe is a very good exception of the Bill to those legally regarded as employees. The Government do not seem to know where they stand on this because I see that page 30 of the Explanatory Notes refers to employees in Clause 110 and then goes on to state:
  "being less favourably treated than comparable full-time workers".
  So they use the term "workers" as well as the term "employees". I think it would make things very much clearer for everybody concerned if the term used throughout the Bill were "worker". In Amendment No. 234, we have set out what we mean by "worker" so that there is no doubt at all what is meant by the term. I hope the Government will agree that this is a sensible proposition. It has been widely canvassed throughout the trade union movement—not just the TUC but a number of unions have written to me on this particular issue. It is quite important. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Before we listen to a long debate about this, can I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, whether there should really be an Amendment No. 224A, because on page 48, line 30 the term "employee" appears. Should not that be "worker", too, otherwise we are going to fall into the same trap?
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Certainly, yes.
  Lord Razzall: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 235 and 236. On the list that was circulated today—apart from the triumph of hope over expectation indicating that we are now meeting on Thursday, 11th March—there is also a mistake in the grouping here in that I think a hyphen is omitted between Amendments Nos. 234 and 236. I think it is intended that I am moving Amendments Nos. 235 and 236, which raise the same point as that indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
  In the absence of our two academic experts this afternoon, for the completion of Hansard so that they can read it, it is probably important to get into Hansard the reasons why those of us who are moving this amendment do not feel that the legal advice that the Minister has received is correct. I have no doubt he is going to tell us because in another place the argument was used that the definition here complies with the European directive, and I would like to record why we believe that advice is incorrect. I fear that it is necessary to become slightly technical on this.
  The purpose of the amendments tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Sharman are intended to solve the problem by defining "worker" and "employee" with the meaning given by Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There are many different ways of doing that; we have chosen to do that, and we believe that amendment would include satisfactorily fixed-term workers who would not otherwise be categorised as employees.

  CWH 509
  The difficulty that the Government's lawyers have not satisfactorily dealt with is this. The directive that puts into effect the framework agreement on fixed-term workers was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Clause 2 of that agreement provides that it should apply to,
  "fixed term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreement or practice in each member state".
  Clause 3 of the framework agreement defines a fixed-term worker as,
  "a person having an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event".
  It does not seem to those of us who have looked at this rnatter—I include the very helpful comments made by the Law Society—that the way in which the Government have drafted the Bill covers the words that I paused on in either Clause 2 or Clause 3 of the agreement. It does not explain why the words in Clause 2 of the agreement,
  "or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreement or practice in each Member State",
  or in Clause 3,
  "or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker",
  are dealt with in the way that the Government are defining "employee".
  I have gone on at some length because, as I indicated, it is important in the absence of our academic experts that Hansard reflects the argument correctly. However, I shall add one aside. When debating this clause in another place, the Minister noted that the directive specifically included agency workers. Two issues arise in relation to that. The implication must be that if the directive did not specifically exclude agency workers, they would have been covered by it. By the same logic, therefore, it must be the case that other workers who are not agency workers and not specifically excluded from the directive must be covered by it. Therefore, from these Benches I commend the amendment. We believe that the Government's legal advice is wrong on this matter. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, indicated why she considered it to be wrong. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise briefly to support noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. It has been explained why we believe that the term "employee" is not adequate in this context. I wish to reassure the Minister that we do not argue this terminology only nationally; indeed, in the past, we have from the TUC point of view argued it internationally. In particular, in relation to the part-time workers' directive in discussions in which I took
  CWH 510
  part in Brussels, we made the point very firmly that the term "worker" represents a much wider concept than "employee".
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Members of tae Committee have tabled two slightly different groups of amendments, both questioning the scope of the power in Clause 45 in relation to fixed-term work. One amendment seeks to extend the power to a broader group of workers using the new definition of "worker". The other seems to question whether the powers on fixed-term work contained in Clauses 45 and 46 should apply to all workers in line with the part-time workers' regulations. I shall address both amendments together.
  I shall explain in a moment why we have decided that the fixed-term regulations should apply to employees. First, perhaps I may address the new definition of "workers" proposed by the first group of amendments. The amendment seeks to extend the power in Clause 45 so that it covers a broad category of working people. The definition proposed would introduce an entirely novel meaning of "worker" into employment law. That would risk causing confusion, particularly since more recently introduced rights that apply to a category called "workers", including the part-time regulations and the right to be accompanied, use the definition of "worker" in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
  This is probably the most important point in the amendment. We are now conducting a review of' employment status. As part of that review, later this spring we intend to publish a discussion document on employment status, following consultation With stakeholders. The review will look at the coverage of certain employment rights. It therefore seems inappropriate to introduce this further new definition to employment law at this juncture.
  We considered and rejected the idea that the clause should have required the Secretary of State to make regulations covering all fixed-term workers. We take the view that in making provision about employees, we are fully implementing the European Community Fixed-Term Work Directive. The directive does not, require us to cover workers other than employees. As the noble Lord mentioned, the directive requires us to legislate in respect of,
  "fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by national law and/or practice".
  It is clear from these words that this is not a case where there is a single, Community-wide meaning of. "worker"; the UK can choose its own definition provided it is defensible. We take the view, both on underlying legal principles and precedent from the UK's existing employment legislation (including implementation of other directives), that it is within the UK's discretion to implement in relation to employees only. In so doing, we would not only be replicating the coverage of most domestic UK employment rights but also protecting those most likely to have the length of their working relationship determined by reference to time.

  CWH 511
  In our view, both the part-time and fixed-term directives required us to cover only employees. However, we extended the part-time legislation to all workers, since this was seen as a special case. In particular, the overwhelming majority of part-time workers are women, so there is substantial overlap with existing sex discrimination legislation which has a wide scope.
  The Explanatory Notes are correct in that when referring to fixed-term we use "employees" and when referring to part-time we use "workers". That is one of the issues that needs to be covered by the review we are doing as to whether this is sensible and consistent across the whole board. The wording in the fixed-term directive was also used in the parental leave directive. Regulations implementing that directive apply to employees only.
  Where workers have a casual employment relationship, it may be possible to identify short contracts of employment corresponding to periods of work. While they are working under these contracts, the workers concerned are employees. For example, agricultural casual workers are employed on a daily or hourly basis without any obligation on a worker or a hirer to work or provide work beyond that day or hour. They would probably be regarded as employees with fixed-term contracts corresponding to periods they have agreed to work.
  In summary, we have a review of employment status which is now beginning. When we have completed the review, we can see whether we are applying employment legislation fairly across the board in this respect. I hope this explanation of our thinking is helpful and I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am glad to learn that a review is proceeding and, presumably, we shall not have to wait too long for the result. I note what he says in relation to the directive; that is, that the UK can choose its own definition provided it is defensible. I wish to think about that before we reach Report stage to see whether there is some aspect or other that we should still pursue on Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 225 to 230 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 231:
  Page 49, line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) No regulation made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) shall exceed the requirements of Directive 99/70/EC or any amendment, modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 231, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 237. They are both identical and relate to the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to
  CWH 512
  Directive 99/70/EC, which in turn relates to fixed-term workers. Clause 46 relates to Northern Ireland and Clause 45 to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Subsection (4) to both Clauses 45 and 46 begins with the preamble,
  "for the purpose of implementing Council Directive 99/70/EC".
  In our dealings across the Dispatch Box and outside the Chamber the Minister has always done his best to be frank and open with me. That, however, I do not believe is characteristic of this Government as a whole. However, in the Explanatory Notes, in an uncharacteristic outburst of candour, the Government say,
  "the Government takes the view that, on account of its legal base, this directive does not apply to pay and pensions … and the Government intends to prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed term employees, in addition to implementing directive 1999/70/EC".
  I repeat the words,
  "in addition to implementing [the] directive".
  That aspiration is directly in contradiction to the phrase in both Clauses 45(4) and 46(4) which I read earlier,
  "for the purpose of implementing Council Directive 99/70/EC".
  The powers that the Government are seeking to make future regulations would enable them to go beyond—far beyond—what the directive requires. This is a classic example of something about which we have frequently complained; that is, the habit of the Government of gold-plating EC directives.
  It is bad enough that the directives of the EC frequently tend to be over-prescriptive, a phrase which the Government often use about the amendments that I propose. It is bad enough that the accumulative effect of these directives is to make the EU increasingly uncompetitive with the rest of the world, and is helping to fuel the unemployment in Germany and elsewhere. However, our Government, who when they were in Opposition described our thriving bureaucracy and strike-free economy as "the sweat shop of Europe", are now rushing headlong into pushing us down the competitive ladder. Anything that Brussels can do, Whitehall can do better.
  Elsewhere in the Bill, I am proposing an amendment which will ensure that with a minimum of regulation, the objective of ensuring fair play for fixed-term employees is achieved. That is all that is needed.
  The amendment to the two clauses simply ensures that the Government adhere to the EU guidelines, just like our European competitors, and do not go beyond them, because we are not obliged to do so. I beg to move.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 231 and 237. Amendment No. 237 is the same as Amendment No. 231, except that it applies to Clause 46 which enables fixed-term regulations to be made in Northern Ireland. The same arguments against Amendment No. 231 apply to Amendment No. 237.

  CWH 513
  The amendment would prevent the regulations under Clause 45 from imposing any obligations beyond those required by the EC fixed-term work directive. The amendment would therefore mean that the regulations made under the clause would allow employers to pay their fixed-term employees less than their permanent staff and give them less favourable pension rights just because they were on fixed-term contracts.
  In our view, the fixed-term directive does not require us—and we have made that clear—to prevent pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees. However, following a full public consultation last year on the implementation of the directive, we have evidence of pay disparities between fixed-term and permanent employees that I believe justifies taking power to do this.
  Other EU member states have already stopped or are expected soon to stop pay discrimination against fixed-term employees. We do not know of any member states which intend to exclude pay from the nondiscrimination requirements of their legislation when transposing the directive. We do not see why British fixed-term employees should be treated as second class. There is therefore no case here for saying that this will make British industry uncompetitive against other EU countries.
  When we come to implement the fixed term work directive, we intend, in light of the evidence of pay and pensions discrimination against fixed-term employees we received in the fixed-term public consultation, to prevent pay and pensions discrimination as well.
  When transposing the part-time work directive, we also decided to cover pay and pensions, despite our view that this was not a requirement of the directive. Fixed-term employees are in a similar position to part-time ones in that they work for the same employer as comparable, permanent or full-time employees, but have a different contractual arrangement. By making fixed-term work pay, we shall make this flexible form of work attractive to work seekers. Fixed-term employees have an important part to play in our labour market and they are entitled to a fair deal.
  Preventing pay and pensions discrimination will protect about 1.2 million fixed-term employees in Britain. Many employers do not discriminate against their fixed-term employees unless they have sound, objective reasons for doing so. Requiring equal treatment will help prevent these "good practice" employers from being undercut by unscrupulous competitors.
  Identifying the exact requirements of a directive is not always a simple matter. It would be difficult for the Government to transpose many directives, including this one, as precisely as this amendment requires, because of the degree of uncertainty that exists as to how they should be interpreted. The noble Baroness's amendment would force the Government to simply "copy out" the directive, so leaving businesses to interpret its requirements. This would transfer the risks of incorrect interpretation on to employers. The
  CWH 514
  Government do not want just to "copy our this directive and therefore need a degree of flexibility when transposing it.
  I hope that this explanation of our thinking and of the likely intentions of our European partners is informative and reassures the noble Baroness that we are not placing British business at a competitive disadvantage to other companies in Europe. When the time comes, she and her noble friends will have the opportunity to debate the regulations that we lay. I would ask her to withdraw these amendments.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: Perhaps I may raise one point which has not been dealt with sufficiently. This is one of a series of directives which derives from the social partners agreement and the Social Chapter, which the party opposite may not be as enthusiastic about as some. However, it is a procedure whereby ETLC—the British affiliates are the TUC and the CBI—are parry to a framework agreement. The framework agreements are generally quite short and are in extremely sharp contrast to, for example, the working time directive.
  One cannot have it both ways on an issue such as this. If one wants something that is negotiated, with that degree of extra commitment from the TUC and the CBI—the CBI would totally endorse what I am saying about this—one has a framework agreement because one can live with it. However, that raises the interesting question of more difficulty or flexibility c f transpositional interpretation. One cannot have it both ways.
  I hope that on due reflection at some stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will appreciate that bringing atypical workers—"atypical" is the word used for part-time, fixed-term, agency workers and so on—into more normal employment relationships, which over time will include pensions, training and so on, mean; that those workers, the flexible workforce of the future, will be accepted as part of the normal economy. In fact, it is not the case that we are losing our competitive position with the United States on this o- other matters. Looking at the productivity per hour, one sees that many European countries have caught up with and are ahead of the United States. They have shorter holidays, they work like dogs and they have a higher gross product. But that is a trade-off between leisure and individual income.
  The fact is that we in Europe are now able to give some status to all those workers, which has been a phenomenon in Europe more than in the United States in the past 10 years. That is why the flexible employment relationship, much vaunted in the future, will be underpinned by this range of framework directives.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: I simply say to the noble Lord that America is creating more jobs than are being created in Europe and has been doing so for many years. Germany is presently having a very bad time. I make that remark as an aside but it is a matter to bear in mind.

  CWH 515
  When I started this amendment, I quoted the preamble,
  "for the purpose of implementing Council Directive 99/70/EC".
  In fact the Government have gone beyond what was necessary for the purpose of implementation, as I said to the Minister. If one starts extending pension rights to fixed-term employees, what would be the minimum length of a fixed-term employment contract that would enable that employee to get involved in the company's pension plan or whatever it was, and to get the pension? How would that work? I think that it is quite a serious issue. At the moment, because of the problem that the Chancellor of the Exchequer became involved in with pension plans, many companies now are closing down their pension plans because they cannot afford to fulfil their undertakings under them. This provision goes beyond anything which is required, beyond anything that is happening in Europe and, I would submit, can only add to that particular problem.
  The Minister may or may not feel able to answer on that point now. However, I intend to withdraw the amendment, but will most certainly think again about it because I think that it has a lot of merit and I am worried about the consequences of doing what the noble Lord suggests in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 232:
  Page 49, line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) An employee on a fixed term contract shall not be deemed to be "treated less favourably" if he is receiving an adequate amount of money or money's worth in lieu of benefits received by permanent employees of the same employer which cannot reasonably and practicably be accorded to him."
  The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendment Nos. 232 and 238 together. The amendments are identical. They relate to Clauses 45 and 46 respectively, the latter of which relates to Northern Ireland while the former relates to the rest of the United Kingdom, rather like the two previous amendments.
  In speaking to my other amendments to these clauses, I referred to the European Council Directive 99/70/EC. As the Explanatory Notes state:
  "The … framework agreement is to apply the principle of nondiscrimination to those in fixed term employment … contracts or relationships."
  I do not think that I have quoted that particular one previously.
  As I have already pointed out, the Government are attempting to goldplate that directive. Subsection (2) in each of Clauses 45 and 46 sets out a definition of what may or may not be less fair treatment of fixed-term employees, and indeed who those employees may be. We find nothing intrinsically wrong with the definitions in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2).
  CWH 516
  However, there is absolutely nothing in the powers granted to the Secretary of State to limit the contents of the regulations, so that he can stipulate all sorts of benefits that must be included in the contract of a fixed-term employee. This would be whether they are practical and reasonable or not, or whether the employee on the fixed-term contract, in freely negotiating his terms, wants them or not.
  The Government have referred to pensions. There are cases where absolute identity between a fixed-term contract employee and a permanent employee is simply not practical. I touched on that on the previous amendment. The Government's objective of equal pension rights is a case in fault. Many pension schemes require a minimum length of membership before any benefits can accrue—sometimes as long as two years.
  If an employee is engaged on, say, a six-month contract—perhaps temporarily to act as a locum for an employee on maternity, paternity or adoption leave—the actual benefit that the temporary employee would receive would in any event be minimal. How is it practicable for an employee on a six-month contract to, say, set up a computer network, to be given two weeks' holiday out of that term?
  Government Ministers at the Dispatch Box opposite sometimes unjustifiably accuse me of being "over prescriptive". In this case, I am trying to avoid the necessity for the Secretary of State to be over prescriptive in the regulations that she is to make. I am trying, helpfully, to avoid the Secretary of State having to think up every possibility that could arise in contracts of employment, or to have to come back to Parliament when she discovers that there is something that she has left out, or some loophole she has left in.
  As we saw recently, pronouncements by the Government on the subject of the possibility of two-tier employees in the public service show that new Labour has a superstitious and irrational fear of two workers in the same employment being paid differently from each other. Perhaps that is the reason the Government are seeking to dot every "i" and cross every "t" in every contract, even with temporary employees.
  My very simple and short amendment makes things very easy for the Secretary of State. It permits employers and employees to come to their own arrangement about the terms of the contract. And it permits the only two parties who are involved to decide for themselves how much the absence of a pension, the lack of holiday time or the fact that a company car will not be provided is worth in terms of hard cash to be paid to the employee in lieu.
  The amendment anticipates and meets two possible objections. First, the amount of money, or money's worth, to be given to the employee must. of course, be adequate. What is adequate will depend upon the facts of the case and not upon rigid guidelines set out in a regulation. Secondly, the ability to substitute money, money's worth or benefits received by long-term

  CWH 517
  employees applies only when it is not reasonable and practical to grant the same benefits to the fixed-term employees. I beg to move.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 232 and 238. I believe that Amendment No. 238 is the same as Amendment No. 232, except that, again, it applies to Northern Ireland. Again, the arguments are similar in both cases.
  The noble Baroness's amendments seek to ensure that the regulations state that fixed-term employees are not to be considered to be "treated less favourably" if they receive an adequate amount of money or money's worth in lieu of benefits received by permanent employees of the same employer which cannot reasonably and practically be accorded to him or her. That would allow employers to take a "package" approach to the equal-treatment principle.
  We recognise that both employees and employers may choose to take a package approach to equal treatment. The draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, which have been placed in the House Library, provide for a package approach.
  The draft regulations state that an employer can treat fixed-term employees less favourably than comparable permanent employees where the treatment is objectively justified. Whether treatment is objectively justified will depend on all the circumstances of the case. However, the draft regulations provide in particular that less favourable treatment in relation to particular contractual terms will be justified where the fixed-term employee's overall package of terms and conditions is no less favourable than the comparable permanent employee's.
  Employers will therefore be able to balance a less favourable condition against a more favourable one, provided they ensure that a fixed-term employee's overall employment package is not less favourable than that of a comparable permanent employee. Our approach already offers flexibility because it does not require a package approach to be used in every case whether the employer wants to use it or not. We
  CWH 518
  consulted widely with employers and employees, some of whom prefer a package approach and some of whom do not. There will sometimes be a very good reason why a particular benefit is not given to a fixed-term member of staff; it would be time-consuming and irrelevant to make a tribunal consider every aspect of employees' employment packages in all cases.
  I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied that the draft regulations already allow a package approach to equal treatment and therefore will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: As I cannot divide the Committee, I shall certainly have to withdraw my amendment. However, I should tell the Minister that I am not happy to do so because I do not agree with what he has said. My amendment does not mean that the employee has less favourable terms. In fact, it states that he,
  "shall not be deemed to be 'treated less favourably'".
  If, instead, he received adequate money in lieu, he may well not want the pension. If he is on a very short-term contract, the pension may provide him with practically nothing at all. Thus, if he had extra money, he might well be better off. That is why it is a question of the matter being sorting out between the parties. Sometimes, insisting on including something that would be of no benefit to an employee is not helpful to the employee.
  However, despite the fact that I am not happy to withdraw the amendment, I am delighted to do so because it is the end of the evening's proceedings and we can finish our business of the day. It has been a very long day, and I am sure that the Minister has had an equally hard one. For me, in many respects, it is perhaps time to call it a day on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Perhaps I may suggest that this is a convenient moment to adjourn proceedings for today. A date and time for a further Committee day will be announced in due course.
  The Committee adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

  London Passport Office
  London Passport Office
  Racial Profiling
  Racial Profiling
  Mr Colin May
  Mr Colin May
  Police Complaints Authority: Audit
  Police Complaints Authority: Audit
  Yarl's Wood
  Yarl's Wood
  Immigration Service Operational Enforcement Manual
  Immigration Service Operational Enforcement Manual
  Terrorist Extradition Proceedings
  Terrorist Extradition Proceedings
  Asylum Seekers: Utility Bills
  Asylum Seekers: Utility Bills
  Criminal Justice System Annual Report
  Criminal Justice System Annual Report
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Government Departments: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Organic and Non-fossil Fuels: Duty
  Organic and Non-fossil Fuels: Duty
  Voluntary Sporting Clubs: Taxation
  Voluntary Sporting Clubs: Taxation
  Defence Budget: VAT
  Defence Budget: VAT
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Register of Friendly Societies
  Register of Friendly Societies
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  International Criminal Court
  International Criminal Court
  Cefn Croes
  Cefn Croes
  BSE Monitoring Scheme
  BSE Monitoring Scheme
  Kyoto Protocol
  Kyoto Protocol
  EU Ecolabel
  EU Ecolabel
  Timber Imports
  Timber Imports
  Scrapie
  Scrapie
  Building Regulations Approved Documents
  Building Regulations Approved Documents
  Airline Passengers
  Airline Passengers
  Building (Amendment) Regulations
  Building (Amendment) Regulations
  Local Authority Bus Controls
  Local Authority Bus Controls
  Dual Mandate: Proposed Changes
  Dual Mandate: Proposed Changes
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Pain Control Clinics
  Pain Control Clinics
  Primary Care Trusts
  Primary Care Trusts
  Health Targets
  Health Targets
  Overseas Broadcasting Organisations: Arabic-speaking Services
  Overseas Broadcasting Organisations: Arabic-speaking Services
  Northern Ireland: Crime Investigations
  Northern Ireland: Crime Investigations
  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Northern Ireland: Victim Support
  Privy Council Office: Heritage Assets
  Privy Council Office: Heritage Assets
  Privacy and Data-sharing
  Privacy and Data-sharing