Sitting of 18 April 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
MR. SPEAKER[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LAND AT PALACE AVENUE, KENSINGTON (ACQUISITION OF FREEHOLD) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (By ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Modulation Proposals
    Mr. Michael Jack: What economic appraisal her Department has made of the effect on UK agriculture of the modulation proposals contained in Sir Donald Curry's recent report. [R] [46509]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): In discussion with stakeholders, others in Government, and the devolved Administrations, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering the implications of the Policy Commission's proposals on modulation very carefully.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given the importance that Sir Donald Curry attached to modulation as a way of reforming UK agriculture, will the right hon. Lady commission some work to enable us to determine, for example, who the winners and losers are in the modulation stakes? Could she also help us by identifying the types of environmental goods that she thinks might be bought? Sir Donald tells us that there are many gains to be had in terms of the restructuring of UK agriculture and our rural development prospects by that means, but many UK farmers will be fearful that if we go the whole hog down his route, they will be trading in an uncompetitive situation, compared with their European rivals.
    Margaret Beckett: We are doing the kind of work that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. Let me explain further to him and the House; with his experience, I am sure that he
    682
    will understand. It depends on the exact nature of the schemes that are introduced who the winners and losers are and what the pattern is. Although he rightly says that the Policy Commission recommended that we consider modulation, we should bear it in mind that to a degree, that was the commission's fallback position. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the commission when I say that. It recommended that there should be a shift in the way that funding for the common agricultural policy is used; that if we were unable to obtain that shift as a result of more fundamental reform, we ought to consider using modulation more extensively; and that perhaps we should consider using modulation more than we propose at present, even in the run-up to change and reform. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right that these are serious issues, and the points that he raises are exactly the ones that we need to examine.
    As to how the funding might be used, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the whole point is that we would wish to change the purposes for which the funding could be used and make the scheme less bureaucratic. That would involve support for rural areas in different ways, as well as possible environmental projects.
    Paddy Tipping: Although my right hon. Friend is right that our major target must be CAP reform, it may be some way away. Given that, is it her policy to increase modulation from the 4.5 per cent. target by 2006 to a higher percentage? If so, what hope has she of receiving extra resources to enable her to fund that?
    Margaret Beckett: I always live in hope. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As part of the work to which I referred, we are considering carefully, as the Policy Commission recommended we should, whether there would be merit in increasing the percentage of modulation to which we are committed. We have concerns about the limitations on what can be done and the bureaucracy involved in people applying to schemes at present. That is partly why the rate of modulation to which we aspire was set at that level. That was regarded as practical, but we are considering afresh the advice of the Policy Commission.
    Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State is rightly cautious about going down the proposed route. Does she recognise the dangers of erecting a surrogate green CAP, which would be even harder to reform than the present one, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a great deal more powerful than the National Farmers Union? Does she recognise that ill-defined public goods and complex schemes requiring intensive manpower and womanpower to monitor and yielding very little to farmers would not represent a significant reform or benefit? If we do go down that route, will she consider requiring farmers to group together to apply for the schemes, perhaps to encourage at last some collective working among British farmers, the absence of which is one of their great problems?
    Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I do not think that anyone on the Labour Benches—and probably on the Conservative Benches—would disagree that we must be careful if we are successful in getting reform not to replace the current CAP with a scheme that is equally burdensome and

    683
    difficult. We all share that point of view. I also take his point about ways in which we might seek to use any change to encourage more co-operation in the farming community—another of the Policy Commission's many recommendations.
    Mr. David Drew: I should like to carry on in the same vein as the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Surely in the aftermath of Curry, there is a great deal to be said about increasing co-operative working—an issue about which I asked my right hon. Friend during questions some weeks ago. Is there any better place to start than in the dairy industry, which clearly has significant problems regarding the scale of certain enterprises? The benefits of economies of scale can be achieved only by more co-operative working, which can be achieved in its own right only with encouragement. Will she talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that we look again at some of the structures in that industry that have not been helped by interference in the past?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about an issue that I know is of considerable concern. I have had many conversations not only with representatives of the NFU, but with individuals in the farming community, and I am aware that his concern is widely shared. The House will be aware that many of the Policy Commission's recommendations were not for the Government, let alone my Department. One of the recommendations is that we encourage the farming community to work much more co-operatively, in whatever sphere it may be.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is interesting to note how much more cautious the Secretary of State is now being on the question of modulation, which was the main thrust of Sir Don Curry's argument in his important report. Is this new tone of caution the reason why there was no mention in yesterday's Budget statement of modulation or the additional funding for which Sir Don called? Will she explain why the Budget offered not a shred of comfort for hard-pressed rural businesses, contained nothing to bolster economic activity in the countryside and promised only higher taxes? What comfort can she give that rural regeneration remains a top Government priority, and what does she propose to do now to rescue her credibility?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman said that I was now displaying greater caution, but I always display caution; he must have noticed that by now. I therefore reject entirely the charge that I was reckless on this issue in the past—especially if the Treasury is listening.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that there was no mention of modulation in the Budget, but I think that he and everybody else would have been very surprised if there had been, not least because, as Sir Don Curry and I made plain when the Policy Commission reported to the Government—indeed, we have continually done so ever since; I recall Sir Don doing so on "Farming Today" only a few days ago—the resources that are available are a matter for the spending review. That is not a matter for the Budget, except in terms of the very broad fiscal
    684
    envelope for the whole Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor explicitly said yesterday that decisions in the spending review had yet to be made.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the Budget contained nothing to bolster economic activity in rural areas. He cannot have been listening yesterday, otherwise he would have noticed the plethora of initiatives directed at assisting and supporting small businesses. Those initiatives are obviously of great value to businesses in rural areas. As to his final remarks about how I can retrieve my credibility, I do not think that they come well from somebody who does not seem to know the difference between the Budget and the spending review.
    Mr. Speaker: Chris Mullin. Not here.

    Animal Production
    John Thurso: If it is her policy to support animal production in remote areas; and if she will make a statement. [46511]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Livestock farming makes an important contribution to the economy of many remote areas, and the Government strongly support EU policies intended to encourage farming in those areas.
    John Thurso: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the remarks of Sir John Marsh, chairman of the independent review group on veterinary medicines, who suggested that stock rearing in remote areas was economically unjustifiable? In the light of those remarks, what assurance can he give my constituents, for whom stock rearing is economically and socially very important, of the Government's intention to continue to support that area of endeavour? Furthermore, what is his view on the prejudice expressed by Sir John in his capacity as chairman of that review group?
    Mr. Morley: I have not read the remarks by Sir John, so I cannot comment on them. I can speak only for the Government, and we have repeatedly made it clear that we recognise the social and economic benefits of upland livestock farming. Grazing regimes are an important part of conservation programmes and conservation management. Serious issues are involved in the economics of upland grazing, but we are prepared to address them. We have put together several support programmes and packages. Moreover, we are consulting on the sheep envelope and the way in which we can use additional money and the flexibility that it provides to deal with some of the problems of remote livestock areas. They are very important and we as a Government will continue to support them.
    Mr. Adrian Flook: Many people in most, if not all, rural areas will be deeply concerned about views expressed in a report by the Countryside Agency, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02", which I briefly mentioned yesterday. To remind the House, it says:
    "Rural proofing is the process by which impact of policy on rural areas is evaluated."

    685
    Of the 11 Departments that have been asked to get involved in rural proofing, DEFRA has the worst record. When will it do more, and do it more quickly?
    Mr. Morley: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he may be misinterpreting what the report said about DEFRA. Ewen Cameron himself speaks highly of what DEFRA is doing and its rural programmes. I remind hon. Members that it was the Government who established the concept of a rural advocate and rural proofing. The whole idea of the job of a rural advocate is that if he thinks that the Government are not doing enough on rural proofing, he must point that out. We will take that charge seriously and respond to it.
    Mr. Speaker: Claire Curtis-Thomas. Not here.

    New Forest National Park
    Mr. Christopher Chope: What representations have been received from local authorities in response to the New Forest national park designation order. [46513]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Eight local authorities have submitted representations in relation to the New Forest National Park (Designation) Order 2002. Seven of them raised objections to the boundary, to the proposed administrative arrangements, or to both.
    Mr. Chope: In the light of that response, can the Minister confirm that there will be a public inquiry, as the Countryside Agency promised that there would be if concerns were expressed by local authorities? Can he further confirm that that public inquiry's terms of reference will cover not only the issues relating to the boundary, but the controversy surrounding the proposed special administrative arrangements?
    Alun Michael: It is not for the Countryside Agency to take decisions about a public inquiry; it is required by the legislation. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 requires that an objection made by a local authority that is not withdrawn will cause a local inquiry to be held. I shall make an announcement about a public inquiry as soon as all the objections to the designated order have been received and fully considered. That is the time at which the detail of the hon. Gentleman's question should be dealt with.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Irrespective of whether the New Forest is designated as a national park, when one approaches the area on many of the major trunk roads one is immediately struck by the number of brown tourist information signs. That is not only relevant to the New Forest, but has a read-across to other parts of the country, including the county of Devon. Rural proofing was mentioned a moment ago. Will the Minister confirm that the Highways Agency does not intend to reduce the number of brown tourist information signs in the New Forest or anywhere else, as we are hearing on our local television stations?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Lady should address her question to the relevant Minister, because it is a pretty long stretch from the question that we are dealing with.
    686
    National park status recognises the national level of importance of certain areas in terms of landscape, biodiversity and cultural heritage, as well as recreational resource. Those are the sorts of features that encourage people to go to those areas, and our policy is to try to ensure that they get the information that they need in order to find those local attractions. The way in which the national parks authorities are engaging with the regeneration of those areas is extremely encouraging.

    Climate Change
    Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on UK-US discussions about climate change. [46514]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): It is clearly important that we continue to maintain a constructive dialogue with the US on climate change. To that end, I held discussions on the subject with senior representatives of the Administration during my visit to Washington last week. In addition to ministerial discussions, UK officials are in regular contact with their US counterparts.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but does she not agree that the UK has worked hand in hand with the US in the international coalition to fight terrorism and it is now time for the US to work hand in hand with the UK, the EU and other communities to combat an equally important international threat to the global environment? Does she further agree that the UK's position is somewhat weakened by an increase in its CO2 emissions for the second successive year?
    Margaret Beckett: First, I agree that it is important to continue to work in co-operation with the US; we endeavour to do that. The hon. Gentleman may know that there is a high-level group in the European Union that maintains a dialogue with the US.
    People perhaps overlook the fact that President Bush's announcement in February about US domestic action related to the first Kyoto period, which ends in 2012. In the not-too-distant future, we shall need to discuss internationally what we all do when that period expires. We anticipate that discussions about the detail of further steps will begin as early as 2005. The US has decided recently that it will take action, and although it is perhaps not as stringent as we would like, we should welcome it. It is making investment available, and we also welcome that. We must encourage further moves in the right direction.
    Malcolm Bruce: May I express my frustration at the absence of the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas)? It means that other hon. Members and I were denied the opportunity to ask questions. It is disappointing when hon. Members table questions and do not turn up.
    However, I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was here to press the Secretary of State not to follow the US Administration's view that trading emissions, rather than trading reinforced by regulation, is primarily the way in

    687
    which to resolve the problem of carbon dioxide. Trading, backed by the abolition of regulation, will damage, not improve the environment.
    The Secretary of State launched the trading emissions scheme in the United Kingdom. Will she acknowledge that it has had an early start, which has cost a lot of taxpayers' money, that we have some way to go to prove that trading emissions will help the environment, and that they cannot do that without effective regulation?
    Margaret Beckett: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for an effective balance and that we must use a range of instruments and approaches to tackle the serious problems. He correctly said that we recently launched our voluntary emissions trading scheme. Indeed, I am going to ascertain how it is working when I leave the House today. From the hon. Gentleman's comments I detected a slight note of criticism that the scheme was not a good idea.
    Malcolm Bruce: The UK scheme is simply not proven.
    Margaret Beckett: Well, I am glad if I misunderstood him, because it is good to have that on the record. The Kyoto protocol provides for such mechanisms and we believe that they have merit, although I fully accept that they are only part of a balanced approach.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we have provided taxpayers' money as an incentive to encourage people to trade. We have done that because we believe that it could provide a substantial first-mover advantage in the long term. That also applies to other matters. We are considering an aspect of handling climate change that could provide a market of billions of pounds in the future. It is a valuable step for Britain to have the first-mover advantage and to build up experience in co-operation with business.
    I hope that I may be forgiven if I take the opportunity to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to which I neglected to respond. He is right that there has been a small increase in our CO2 emissions. We must watch that, but overall, we believe that Britain is on the right course.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hope that the right hon. Lady will do more than watch the rise in CO2 emissions; I hope that she will seek to reduce them. Does she acknowledge that it is agreed on both sides of the Atlantic that tropical rain forests play a critical role in balancing the climate? In the light of that, will she confirm the Prime Minister's statement last week that all the timber supplied for the refurbishment work in the Cabinet Office was from certified sustainable sources?
    Margaret Beckett: That was certainly the contract that was placed, so far as I am aware. I know that allegations have been made, and, obviously, people are looking to see whether that contract was properly fulfilled. It was certainly the case that the Government abided by our approach, and our policy, that such timber must be supplied for all Government use.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Jim Knight: What actions her Department has taken to ensure an even geographical distribution of trial sites for genetically modified crops. [46515]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have appointed an independent scientific steering committee to oversee the farm-scale evaluation programme of GM trials. It is content that the overall distribution of trial sites is in line with the aims of the research. It has confirmed that the distribution should reflect the geographic range over which the particular crop is grown in order, specifically, to represent the range of different management regimes that are used for the crop in the UK.
    Jim Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I apologise for not being here for the beginning of questions, Mr. Speaker.
    I understand why the Government have negotiated these trials with the industry, and I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has talked about the need for improved consultation on the trials, which will be ending shortly anyway. A farmer on the edge of my constituency is particularly keen to help the Government with these trials, but the results of the consultation that we have had locally suggest that my constituents do not want them in their backyard. Why do we consistently seem to have these trials in Dorset despite my right hon. Friend's commitment to their even geographic distribution?
    Mr. Meacher: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that a number of sites in the parish of Bincombe in his constituency are involved in the current spring sowing round. I repeat that the spread of research sites aims to represent the range of management practice that is applied to crops within its geographic distribution. It is perfectly true that there is a cluster of several sites in Dorset, but that does not preclude the general principle. I must make the point, which I think my hon. Friend understands, that the sites are not chosen by the Government. The industry body SCIMAC—the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—identifies the pool of candidate farms. The research bodies then select those that are most appropriate, in accordance with criteria set down by the independent scientific steering committee. That is the basis on which the selection has been made, but I take note of my hon. Friend's concerns, and they will certainly be taken into account in future.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister was careful in that reply to his hon. Friend, because he knows that this is an issue of great public concern. I acknowledge his statement that a scientific body is examining the matter, but the Government must, nevertheless, have a view on it. Will the Minister tell us why the separation distances between trial sites for GM crops are smaller in the UK than in other European countries? How can GM and non-GM crops co-exist while maintaining consumer

    689
    and farmer choice? Given the public concern over GM crops, does he believe that there will be a substantial market for them? That is a key issue for us all.
    Mr. Meacher: Separation distances were determined in negotiation with the industry to ensure that in every case, wherever possible, the amount of cross-contamination is below the 1 per cent. threshold. That threshold is reflected in the marketing arrangements that have been agreed in the European Union, and the separation distances have been fixed to reflect that. I am not aware of any differences between us and the EU. The main plant in the farm-scale evaluation trials is oilseed rape and, for ordinary, non-hybrid oilseed rape, the EU still proposes the 200 m separation distance that we use in the UK.
    We are examining the issue of co-existence. We have not had the results of the farm-scale evaluation trials, which we will not get until the summer of next year. We are considering contingency plans, whatever the results may be. That examination is in its early stages, so I cannot answer the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which is a fair one, but the issue is certainly on our agenda.
    Whether there will be a long-term market is a matter for consumers, not for the Government. The Government are neither for nor against GM crops. It is for consumers to decide whether they want to eat GM food.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on the basis of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission's report "Crops on Trial", the Government will not be able to rely on the results of the test trials to make a decision on commercialisation? Can he guarantee that there will be a proper public debate at the end of those trials, which will include the right to say no to the commercialisation of GM crops in this country?
    Mr. Meacher: Our policy is as scientifically based as it can be. We believe in sound science and its application. We need to listen to our scientific bodies, such as the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs and others, but we realise that it is important to take account of public opinion. We have asked the AEBC to advise us on how we can ensure that there is a wider public debate on this issue as the farm-scale evaluations come to an end. I only wish that it had been possible to have such a debate at a much earlier stage. There are such deeply polarised positions on this issue that it is difficult to conduct a genuine debate. We need such a debate, and the Government want to have one. We shall do our best to ensure that it is proper, balanced and fair.

    Refrigerator Recycling
    Mr. David Rendel: What steps her Department is taking to assist local authorities with the recycling of refrigerators. [46517]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): We have announced a payment of £6 million to local authorities to cover their costs from January 2002 to March 2002. An
    690
    announcement will be made very shortly regarding funding to cover local authority costs in the current financial year.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Secretary of State aware that on 31 January the Minister for the Environment answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), in which he said that since late 1999 his Department had made frequent requests to the European Commission for formal clarification that insulating foam was covered by the regulation. He said:
    "We did not get a formal reply until June 2001. We were badly let down by the Commission".—[Official Report, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 414.]
    In the light of the comments that he made on Monday to the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in which he apparently more or less retracted that statement, will the right hon. Lady ask him to apologise for his earlier answer not only to the House, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, to the European Commissioner and to all the local authorities who are now left with a bill of up to £40 million—not just £6 million—as a result of the mistakes made by her Department?
    Margaret Beckett: Absolute rubbish. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the memorandum that my right hon. Friend and our officials prepared for the Select Committee. If he does so, he will find that all his questions are fully answered. My right hon. Friend tempered the high-flown language that he had used, but it is perfectly clear, as the memorandum to the Select Committee made plain, that there is a great deal of continual dialogue between the United Kingdom and the Commission and others, and that, not least at the request of the business community and local authorities, clarification continues to be sought. I do not believe for a second that my right hon. Friend owes anyone an apology. He and the Department have been most assiduous in trying to get the right result.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State familiar with the European WEEE directive—the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive? As amended, it will extend its provisions to cover not just fridges but microwave ovens, stereo equipment, hoovers and all domestic white consumer goods. Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is causing great concern in the farming community? Many such items are dumped on farmland, and local authorities then charge the farmers for their removal. What does the Department propose to do about this?
    Margaret Beckett: We are looking closely at the directive's implications, how it can be handled, and how its purpose can be fulfilled in the United Kingdom. But I remind the hon. Lady—who, as a former Member of the European Parliament, will appreciate the distinction—that it is a directive, and that that provides some flexibility in regard to its implementation. The measure relating to fridges is a regulation, which gives no discretion: those are rules, which must be rigidly applied.

    691
    We are studying the new directive to see how we can best deal with people's concerns. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising a further important point.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I was surprised by the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I have read the evidence that the Minister for the Environment gave to the Select Committee, and it is clear that until this week the Minister blamed the European Commission for the fridge fiasco. In evidence that he gave three days ago, he effectively retracted that accusation, instead blaming everyone but himself. I understand, however, that the industry and officials from more than one Department warned him of the consequences of signing the directive, and that he chose to ignore them.
    My question is this: is that true? If it is not true, who is to blame? Does the Secretary of State accept ministerial responsibility for a monumental Government blunder that was not just predictable but predicted?
    Margaret Beckett: I am not aware of the slightest shred of evidence for what the hon. Gentleman has said. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was advised not to agree to the directive on those grounds; nor is there any evidence for anything else that the hon. Gentleman has said.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he had read my right hon. Friend's evidence, but it is clear to me that he has not understood it.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If she will make a statement on the forthcoming review of the common fisheries policy. [46518]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The review is an important opportunity for the European Union to correct the faults of a policy which, as the Commission has acknowledged, has to a significant degree failed to fulfil its objectives.
    We will argue for a policy that is environmentally and economically sustainable, offers stakeholders greater involvement in management decisions, commands their support, and offers them a viable long-term future.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the Minister says, the 10-year term for the common fisheries policy is about to expire. As far as I am aware, there is no shred of evidence that it has had any real effect on the conservation of fish stocks. May I suggest, in a spirit of helpfulness, that now is the time to argue for the repatriation of fishing policy to nation states? If the Minister acts, perhaps we shall be able to conserve some of the British fishing industry while there is still time.
    Mr. Morley: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman means by repatriation to member states. Is he suggesting that we draw a line down the North sea and say, "Fish must not cross this line. You can follow certain
    692
    rules on this side of the line, but not on the other side"? That would be ludicrous. We must have a European fisheries management policy.
    There are weaknesses in the CFP, everyone realises that, but we are pleased that the Commission's Green Paper recognises the points being made by us in the United Kingdom and by our industry, and it is issues of this kind for which we shall be arguing.
    Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that my hon. Friend considered the contribution from the very inland hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) to be important and timely, but is he aware that my constituents want to know what the Government and the European Union are thinking of doing in order to cultivate and train future fishermen, and to bring about the circumstances which we hope will result from reform of the fisheries policy?
    Mr. Morley: The European Union, through structural funds, recognises that it is legitimate for member states to use funds to support a range of training initiatives. We are doing that in the United Kingdom, for example by providing free safety training for all fishermen. I am glad to announce that, tomorrow, at the fisheries exhibition in Glasgow, I will launch a new apprenticeship scheme designed to provide training for new entrants to the fishing industry. We believe that, despite the problems of management, the industry has a good long-term future. We need to consider how to attract crew and ensure that people have a professional, safe and long-term future in what could be a very good industry for this country.
    Andrew George: Does the Minister agree that, although fish may not be that bright, we know that they are just about intelligent enough not to have hang-ups about their nationality? Seriously, does he agree that we should be concerned about the delay in the announcement of the route map for the review of the common fisheries policy? The fundamental reason why the policy has failed is over-centralisation. The main concern for the industry in this country is that any regional advisory committees that are set up should not be merely talking shops but should have real teeth and a real say in how policy is delivered in the fishing regions.
    Mr. Morley: I agree. One of the problems of the common fisheries policy is that it has been too centralised, inflexible and bureaucratic. That is why we warmly welcome the proposals in the Green Paper and the indications that the Commission intends to propose regional management structures. How those will work will be a matter for discussion and debate, and it is likely to be an evolving, stepping-stone process, but we believe that it is right to involve the industry in decision making in that way, as well as having a more regional, flexible approach, recognising the whole range of different priorities in the fishing industry in Europe, and indeed in our own country.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a strong feeling in this country that the fishing industries in many other European countries have survived the current common fisheries policy in better shape than our own. I ask him again to consider setting up a Government-industry taskforce, so that we can work

    693
    more closely with the fishing industry in a structured way, to work out, following the review process, how we may best survive what replaces the current common fisheries policy. We know that the Government cannot conjure up more fish in the sea, but I believe that we could work more closely with the industry and develop a plan for the future. We did it for the oil and gas industry—can we not do it for fishing?
    Mr. Morley: I am glad to report that, yesterday, at the high-level fisheries meeting, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we had a presentation from the Fish Industry Forum on a strategy for the fishing industry. It was an excellent presentation and we agreed to hold meetings with the forum to develop its ideas in a joint working party, which certainly answers my hon. Friend's sensible proposals.
    David Burnside: As a student of history, I am sure that the Minister will agree that records that have now become public show that the Heath Government's negotiations with the European Union, then the Common Market, were among the most incompetent and damaging negotiations on behalf of any industry in the United Kingdom. Those records are well worth reading. Will he give a commitment that this country will not sign up to a new fisheries policy that the industry predicts will lead to further decommissioning of British fishing vessels, which are essential to our economy, especially in ports such as Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, and others all around the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm that the hon. Gentleman is right, in that the records show that the fishing industry was sacrificed as part of a wider negotiating priority at that time, under a Conservative Government. I do not think that the Conservatives would dispute that.
    Decommissioning is but one approach to dealing with effort control and management. I concede the point that decommissioning is a double-edged sword. It has benefits for the industry in making remaining vessels more viable, but I am very sensitive to its impact on regional ports. I cannot guarantee that there will never again be decommissioning, because that depends on circumstances, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I understand his points, which are serious, and that they will be taken into account.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Community has stated that
    "rooting out all discrimination, whether based on nationality, race or religion, is one of the basic objectives of the European Union."
    Does this not mean that within the new proposals, which I understand will now be considered by the College of Commissioners on 24 April, access to the living marine resource within Community waters shall be equal for all Community vessels, as set out in the basic principles of Community law?
    Mr. Morley: They are part of the Community law which Britain was signed up to by the Conservative Government. However, before we start on the scare stories for the fishing industry, we should remember that the important factors are access to quota and relative stability. Enlargement of the European Union does not
    694
    give new or existing member states the right to unlimited fishing in our waters because fishing is governed by the level of stability and access to quota which we do not intend to have changed or disrupted.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm my understanding that the only country in western Europe successfully to maintain its fishing stocks is Norway and that it is significant that, for obvious reasons, Norway is not part of the common fisheries policy? Would it not therefore be sensible for the European Union, and maritime member states such as Britain, to look to what Norway has done to conserve stocks? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that it is possible that some of the fish that we are catching in the North sea were unwise enough to swim out of Norwegian waters?
    Mr. Morley: Of course there are lessons to learn from other countries. We have discussions with Norway and Iceland about their fisheries management. However, their circumstances are different from ours as they are much more of a single-species fishery, which is easier to manage than a multi-species fishery such as ours in the North sea. I should also say that their fisheries management is not always perfect and that Norway has had problems in the past in relation to overfishing. The Norwegian position in the recent negotiations on deep water stocks was quite disgraceful; it was unsustainable and not worthy of a country that has always set high standards of conservation.

    North Sea
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: If she will make a statement on the outcome of the fifth international conference on the protection of the North sea. [46520]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I represented the UK at the fifth North sea conference in Bergen, Norway, on 20 and 21 March. The outcome was an agreed declaration for further action to protect a whole range of aspects of the marine environment. I have placed copies of the declaration, together with copies of the report on progress made since the fourth North sea conference, in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I should like to welcome the progress made at the conference. As my right hon. Friend is aware, one of the issues that was covered was the problem of the dumping of ballast water by shipping in the North sea which has major and damaging consequences for native species in the oceans and seas around Britain. What steps does he intend taking to implement the recommendations of the conference in respect of the dumping of ballast water?
    Mr. Meacher: I recognise that this is a significant problem. I also attended the sixth conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity in The Hague yesterday. I am glad to report to the House that we agreed a set of principles for international control of invasive alien species, many of which are inadvertently transferred through ships' ballast water. The UK has a major role

    695
    in the International Maritime Organisation to develop the convention to control the transfer of harmful species in ballast water. The work is ongoing and very important. Chinese mitten crabs, which have been very destructive of species in estuaries and almost certainly came to this country from ballast water, are a good example. The results from the meeting in The Hague will have a major role for the UK in preventing this from happening in future.

    Foot and Mouth Disease
    Paul Flynn: What her latest calculation is of the total sum overpaid to farmers, valuers, slaughtermen and farm cleansers during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [46521]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have identified £9.4 million of overpayment, of which £8.2 million has been recovered so far. In addition, the NAO and EU are undertaking audits of our expenditure and we await their findings.
    Paul Flynn: Has my hon. Friend studied the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the case of Mr. Joseph Bowden, who attempted to defraud his Department of nearly £500,000? The Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned that that case was discovered virtually by accident. Mechanisms to discover such cases in the future will not be in place until 2004. Given that subsidies and compensation for farmers cost the country £5.25 billion last year—equivalent to £700 for every family in the land—should not the best mechanisms be put in place to detect all fraud, especially as most of those who are paying for such subsidies work in industries that receive not a single penny in compensation or subsidy when they themselves are in trouble?
    Mr. Morley: It is right that, wherever public funds are used, controls are necessary to ensure that fraudulent claims are not made. The points that my hon. Friend raises relate to two issues, the first of which is the recent foot and mouth outbreak. I can assure him that we are still disputing several claims. Forensic accountants are examining the number of claims being made to the Department in respect of contractors and compensation for animals. We will not pay those claims unless they are backed up by proper invoices, and are based on a justified valuation. On the management of subsidies in general, we are investing in new technology and new procedures to ensure that the public interest is protected, and that any claims have a legal basis within the common agricultural policy.
    Michael Fabricant: Is not the real concern to ensure that no similar outbreak of foot and mouth occurs in future? What steps is the Under-Secretary taking to ensure that contaminated meat is not imported into the United Kingdom, given that the number of Customs officers has still not been increased? When will he finally agree to the pleas from farmers and others—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far outwith the range of the original question.

    Food Imports
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What plans she has to overhaul the regulations governing food imports. [46523]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): A wide range of legislation governs all aspects of food imports. In particular, regulations dealing with veterinary checks on imports of animal products from third countries are being amended to bring them up to date and fully into line with European rules. They will soon give enforcement officers the power to search personal baggage for illegal imports of meat and other animal products.
    I have also raised with the European Commission the need to tighten and clarify rules on personal imports. In addition, we have produced an action plan that details the further measures that we are putting in place to combat illegal imports entering the country.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) was doing his best to pinch my lines. Under the rules of the House, I am required to draw attention to my farming interests.
    I thank the Minister for that most helpful reply. As he knows, in the past five years this country and the agriculture industry in general have suffered the devastating epidemics of swine vesicular disease and foot and mouth disease, both of which are thought to be caused by illegal food imports. The matter is therefore very urgent, and although he said that he is discussing it with the European Union, can he say when the outcomes of those discussions are likely to be implemented, and will he publish all the details of those discussions? In the light of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, will he liaise with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to ensure that more inspectors are provided, and that they police illegal food imports into this country more rigorously?
    Mr. Morley: All these issues are in the public domain, and in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State participated in a meeting with interested parties concerning the steps that we need to take now and in future. I should emphasise that immediate steps, such as talking to airlines, are being taken. In some African countries, airlines that fly to the UK question passengers about what they are carrying and remind them about the rules that are in place. Posters are being put up, and increased powers are being given to our enforcement agencies at points of entry.
    All these issues are important and we take them seriously, but I should point out that border control forms only one part of disease control. We must also give equal consideration to aspects such as animal movements and biosecurity.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: On the question of border control, I can tell the Minister that 15 years ago my constituency had 25 Customs and Excise officers on Shetland and 18 on Orkney. This year, we have three on Shetland to cover both island groups. That situation is replicated throughout the country and that is

    697
    what leaves us vulnerable to illegal meat imports. In the context of the loss to the economy from the foot and mouth outbreak last year, does he not agree that cuts in the number of Customs officers are false economies?
    Mr. Morley: Of course that needs to be taken into account and the costs of foot and mouth were catastrophic. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his question needs to be put to the Treasury Ministers, who are responsible for Customs officers. It is not a matter for my Department. However, we have commissioned a risk assessment to help us to allocate additional resources, if a case is made for them. We need to know where the risks are in terms of points of entry, and which areas we need to concentrate on and perhaps provide with more resources. Those points are being taken into account.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Alan Simpson: What measures are in place to ensure that crops involved in GM field/farm trials are prevented from entering the animal feed chain; and how these measures are enforced. [46524]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Material from the farm-scale trials is either incorporated into soil or goes to landfill. For the oilseed rape and beet crops, that is a statutory rule enforced by our GM inspectorate. The maize in the farm-scale trials is not subject to the same requirement, but the industry has agreed that it will not be used for food or feed.
    Alan Simpson: When I tabled the question, it was an attempt to discover whether we had adequate mechanisms in place to ensure non-contamination of the food chain and effective penalties to deal with transgressions. I was slightly concerned by the latter part of the Minister's answer, because I have been supplied with details of specific ways in which parts of the GM crop trials have been allowed into the animal feed chain. I know that the Minister takes contamination issues as seriously as I do, and in a previous answer he made the point that ultimately it is for consumers to decide whether they wish to consume GM products. If I can provide him with details of GM crops being fed into the animal feed chain, will he assure me that those responsible will be prosecuted, rather than fobbed off with assurances from an industry that does not enforce the standards to which the Government claim we are committed?
    Mr. Meacher: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. If he will give me details, I will follow them up and if an offence has been committed we will certainly prosecute. I am aware of two examples. In one it was alleged that cows were grazed on GM maize stubble at a farm-scale evaluation site in Dorset. We checked that report and the farmer confirmed that it did not happen. The other example was when some maize from the trials was used in a cattle feeding study at Reading university. During the study and for the period thereafter no milk from the animals concerned was allowed to enter the food chain and the animals were not used to produce meat for human consumption. My hon. Friend may have been referring to one of those examples, but if he has other evidence I will certainly follow it up.

    Hunting With Dogs
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If she intends to publish a consultation paper setting out her proposals to amend the law on hunting with dogs. [46525]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I am pleased to confirm that I have written to all Members of this House and of another place, and to a wide range of interest groups, seeking comments and evidence on practical issues related to hunting, as set out in my statement to the House on 21 March. A copy of the letter is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Prentice: I have read the excellent letter penned by my right hon. Friend, but it does not constitute a consultation document. Can he cite any previous example of the Government consulting on forthcoming legislation without publishing a consultation document first?
    Alun Michael: As legislation is prepared, people have a variety of occasions to contribute to the process. In my statement on 21 March, I made very clear the principles on which legislation will be prepared, as a result of the six months of discussion and drafting. That will involve considering both aspects of cruelty and practical issues for the countryside, such as pest control, wildlife management and conservation. The process will depend on the contributions that are made and the way in which organisations wish to engage in discussion on those issues. I look forward to hearing from people who have a constructive contribution to make to the debate in the next few weeks.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be:
MONDAY 22 APRIL—Continuation of the Budget debate, in which the theme for the day will be enterprise and opportunity for all.
TUESDAY 23 APPIL.—Conclusion of the Budget debate, in which the theme for the day will be health.
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. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that there is an all-party consensus. Second Reading of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will follow. That will be followed by consideration of a Lords consequential amendment to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords].
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.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 30 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY l MAY—Second Reading of a Bill making the necessary legislative changes to national insurance following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THURSDAY 2 MAY—There will be a debate on Wales in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' I am grateful for the approbation of the House.
FRIDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
I should also like to inform the House that business in Westminster Hall for May will be:
THURSDAY 2 MAY—A debate on women and information technology.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—A debate on the report from the Trade and Industry Committee on the end of life vehicles directive.
THURSDAY 16 MAY—A debate on the report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on empty homes.
THURSDAY 23 MAY—A debate on the role of the United Nations.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 1 May, there will be a debate relating to the promotion of the use of biofuels in road transport in European Standing Committee A.
[Wednesday 1 May 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 15500/01, Promotion of the use of biofuels in road transport; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xix, HC 152-xxii, (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us that notification of the business. Will he please find Government time in the very near future for a debate on the future of agriculture? It is a very long time since we have had such a debate. Since the very damaging effects of foot and mouth, given that there was nothing in the Budget for agriculture or rural communities, and as it would appear that the countryside is in general revolt, I would have thought it was in the interests of the Government, and certainly of the House as a whole, that we had a full day's debate on the future of agriculture in order that we can sort out those matters.
I was interested in the announcement of consideration on 1 May of a Bill on national insurance. I know that I May used to have a political significance, of which the Government obviously do not want to remind us, but perhaps it is an appropriate day to debate such a Bill. As the Bill obviously has major tax and policy implications, will have an effect on both individuals and businesses and we will surely need a considerable amount of time in order properly to consider it, and in essence, reality and substance it is a taxation Bill, will it or at least its substantial aspects be dealt with on the Floor of the House? Will the Leader of the House guarantee adequate time in Committee, either on the Floor of the House or Upstairs, for all its implications to be considered?
National insurance increases of the kind the Chancellor mentioned yesterday represent a major policy and directional shift by the Government. I hope that we can have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the House will be able properly to consider them in all their aspects.
On the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, the Leader of the House will know that, under consistent pressure, the Government have been forced to notify the Bill to the authorities of the European Union. It was only as late as 28 March that notification was finally made, as is required by a number of EU directives. Member states are obliged to notify Bills that have an impact on the internal market.
The purpose of notification is to provide an opportunity for the Commission and other member states to comment if they consider that the proposed legislation has the potential to create a technical barrier to trade. Given that, and given that it is also a requirement that any resultant substantial changes to legislation must be allowed for, can the Leader of the House tell me whether he believes we can embark on the Bill's Second Reading during the notification period or, more important, on its Committee and Report stages. I know that this is one of the obvious benefits of our membership of the European Union, but it strikes me that there are considerable implications for the procedures of this House and the timing of legislation, not least this Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can advise us how far he believes the Government can take this Bill during the period of notification, which may indeed be extended beyond the initial three-month period starting from 28 March.

701
Finally, I remind the House of the sensational developments that occurred in this place on 15 April when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said to Mr. Deputy Speaker at col. 420:
"Can I ask you to reconsider the procedure for private Bills to prevent this abuse of the House by the Prime Minister?"
He went on to say in column 421:
"I believe that the process has been corrupted and tainted by the Prime Minister's intervention."
Later in column 421 he referred to communications between the City corporation and the Prime Minister, and asked in column 422 whether we could
"therefore clarify and investigate the relationship between the City corporation and No. 10".
The hon. Gentleman finally repeated his belief in column 422 that
"the process has been corrupted as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention".—[Official Report, 15 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 420–22.]
In my 19 years in this House I do not think that I have ever heard a Government Back Bencher accuse his Prime Minister of corruption, of abuse and of tainting the procedures of the House. These are very serious allegations. Given that the Prime Minister is the custodian of the ministerial code of conduct, who will implement and police that code of conduct in the context of these very serious allegations? It is a matter for the House, and something to which we are therefore obliged to return. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow time urgently and soon for the House to go into these very serious allegations, and possibly for the Prime Minister to appear so that he can answer them.
Mr. Cook: Let me seek to respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised; I will save until the end the serious issue of substance in respect of the forthcoming national insurance Bill.
On agriculture and the countryside, I am well aware of the feeling in a number of quarters in the House that it would be valuable to have a debate on the countryside. I am not resistant to that, but it has to join the many other things that we have to consider. However, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was rather unfair about spending on the countryside as farming and rural businesses have received substantial support in the wake of the foot and mouth outbreak.
On the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that an issue is being pursued in Brussels that conforms with the regulations there. It is being pursued in parallel with the legislation here, and I would greatly regret it if the House decided to suspend proceedings on the Bill. It is a very important health measure that will literally save lives, and it has substantial support on both sides of the Chamber. I therefore hope that we can proceed in parallel with the discussions in Brussels. I am confident that my colleagues there will put up a robust case and that those in Brussels will agree with us. The Bill is not a barrier to trade but it is a barrier to cancer and therefore deserves the support of all Members.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Tell them to get stuffed.
Mr. Cook: I thought that I had just done so, but in a rather more parliamentary way.
702
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that he was going to name him in his question. I note that my hon. Friend is not here. Given the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman quoted him, it would have been fair to give my hon. Friend advance notice. In mitigation, however, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be intensely flattered to have been quoted at such length by the Opposition.
On the issue of substance, I think that the right hon. Gentleman rather overdid the synthetic rage. The City of London (Ward Elections) Bill has come before the House on many occasions and has been debated exhaustively. I thought that it was supported by the Conservatives, but I may have misunderstood the Opposition's relationship with the City of London. I am sure that people in the City will read the right hon. Gentleman's observations with interest.
Technically, of course, any business motion is tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. The motion to dispose of the Bill was a collective decision of Government as, although it is a private Bill, it has been before the House many times. I assumed that the motion would have been welcomed by those Conservative Members who support the Bill. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's indignation is especially synthetic because, whereas the motion was to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, proceedings on the Bill got nowhere near 10 o'clock but had been concluded by 8 o'clock.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue of substance in connection with the national insurance Bill. He reminded the House that 1 May is a date of deep significance. It is the anniversary of the historic landslide with which the Labour party pushed the Conservative party into opposition. It is the date from which we were able to address the previous Conservative Government's under-investment in the health service. We are proud that, over the course of two Parliaments since 1 May 1997, we will have doubled the investment in the national health service that we inherited. The national insurance Bill is important in enabling us to do that, and for that reason will be supported by all Labour constituents, and by most Conservative constituents.
Linda Gilroy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have been following with interest details in the press of what is happening with ntl and ITV Digital. My hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for Battersea (Martin Linton) and others met my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness this morning. We discussed the implications for competitiveness, the digital action plan, and for hundreds of jobs in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady is not getting us off to a good start. We do not want statements; we must have questions. A great many hon. Members wish to speak, and I appeal to them to be very concise.
Linda Gilroy: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree to an early debate on this very important topic, which is at a critical stage?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and by many hon. Members about the

703
current crisis in digital TV. It is very important that we take forward our commitment to digital TV, as we intend to do. We must make sure that we absorb the lessons from this matter and see whether we can mitigate its impact. My hon. Friend asks for a debate on the matter. Earlier, I announced a debate on women and information technology, which will take place in Westminster Hall. I am sure that many points relevant to digital TV can be raised in the context of that debate.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Will he be able to find time for a debate on education? That is especially important, given that the Chancellor produced only a minimal amount of money for education in yesterday's Budget statement, and that there will be a national announcement on class sizes next week. My own local authority, Stockport, still receives £830 per child less than neighbouring Manchester. I know that the hon. Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) are in the Chamber and that they share my view about the need for a debate.
Will the Leader of the House also find time for a debate on House of Lords reform? A remarkable silence seems to have fallen on that matter, which has led to rising fears of a split in Government thinking on what is a very important matter.
Will the Leader of the House also arrange for a debate on the state funding of political parties? A wide range of views appears to be emerging from the Cabinet, and some clarification of the Government's approach would be helpful. It might also help to clarify the Conservatives' approach. They have recently sent out an invitation to a
"Gold level briefing…£500 Membership…exclusive Policy Renewal Programme events, attended by…Shadow Cabinet Ministers."
Those kind of gimmicks might no longer be needed.
Mr. Cook: Perhaps I can suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might usefully reread the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement yesterday. He will find, at column 588 of Hansard, a strong commitment from this Government to investment in education. The Chancellor clearly stated that not only did we increase the share of the national income going into education in the last Parliament, but we fully intend to raise it again in the course of this Parliament. Next to health, education is a priority for this Government's investment in public spending and we are proud of that record.
On Lords reform, the hon. Gentleman made the preposterous suggestion that there was a split within the Government on this question. As he is interested in progress on this matter, however, I advise him and the House that, this morning, I believe, the Lord Chancellor has given an interim response to the Select Committee. Of course, many of the major questions that must be addressed are those that we are considering in the period of reflection following the consultation. I assure the House that, as soon as we have reached a conclusion on this matter, I shall bring it to the House in the expectation of support. I hope that the unity that will then be shown in the House will reflect the harmony and unity within the Government on this question.
704
I am slightly surprised, however, that the hon. Gentleman should express concern about different views within the Government on state funding. We have made it clear, and the Prime Minister has made it clear, that we would welcome a public debate on the matter, and it is very important that members of the Cabinet should be free to take part in that public debate without necessarily first adopting a collective line and then seeking to impose that collective line on the party, on Parliament and on the public. I said the other day, and I am happy to read it into the record, that in 1974 I stood on the commitment of my party to introduce state funding. I believe that it would have been better had we acted on it then. Political parties are an important part of the parliamentary process. One cannot have a parliamentary democracy without healthy political parties. It is very important that we identify the least unacceptable way of making sure that they are healthily funded.
Andrew Bennett: Could we have a debate early next week on the future of the London underground before the contract for that is signed? Is the Leader of the House aware of the very considerable concern in the Select Committee that the Chancellor or one of his Ministers is not prepared to come before the Select Committee to justify the policy that he is pushing through, which would be disastrous for the London underground?
Mr. Cook: I have, of course, seen the Select Committee report, and it is on a matter on which we have had exchanges in the House previously. My position remains the same as when we last had an exchange on this point. Treasury Ministers are willing to come before any Select Committee provided that it is on matters within the remit of the Treasury. That is why a Treasury Minister has appeared before the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee to consider matters in relation to the landfill tax, for instance, and has appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on a similar tax and duty issue. It was a very important principle of ministerial accountability that those Ministers with responsibility for transport or local government, for example, should appear before the Select Committee and give evidence and answer questions on those matters. It is very important that we preserve that principle of ministerial accountability because all Select Committees would be undermined if it were broken.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House find time today to look at the case of Paul Drayson, who is the chief executive officer of PowderJect. One moment he gives £50,000 to the Labour party and, lo and behold, the next moment his company gets a £32 million order from the Department of Health for smallpox vaccine. That contract was not put out to open tender. Surely we should consider this matter. Is not a pattern of sleaze emerging in which we are seeing cash for favours? Can we have a debate on this, please?
Mr. Cook: First, PowderJect won that contract because it is one of five companies that bid for it, and it put in the best tender. That is why it got the contract; there is no other reason. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to have an honest and open debate on this question, there is one simple way in which the Conservative party can help.

705
We have changed the law so that company donations are recorded and open, and everybody knows what companies have made donations to the Labour party over the past five years. Nobody knows, except the Conservative party, who made donations to the Conservatives in the last five years of the Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to pursue the issue, why does he not take it up with his own party and get it to publish—it has the information—all the data on who gave it donations in the last five years of the Conservative Government?
Dr. Brian Iddon: Events in the middle east have dominated the world headlines in the past few weeks, but another equally serious dispute has been raging in the state of Gujarat. The official figures for the number of dead there are 900, but the real figure is likely to exceed 2,000. As serious allegations have been made against the state government and, indeed, against the national Government, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to he made in the House so that those hon. Members with many people in their constituencies with relatives and friends in the region can be made aware of the true facts?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a grave issue that is of deep concern to many communities in Britain because of the strong ties between our country and the sub-continent. I have followed with deep concern the mounting death toll and will look with interest at recent reports. I cannot promise him a statement, but I shall certainly draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and will invite him to write to my hon. Friend.
Sir Michael Spicer: With reference to the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave me last week saying that he stands ready to amend the data protection legislation so that Members of Parliament will be able to represent their constituents more adequately, will he tell us the Lord Chancellor's view on the matter?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that we are in discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department, which has Ministers in this House. There is no division between us about the fact that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Whether it needs to be addressed by legislation or by other means is a matter for exploration, but I am fully seized of the Alice in Wonderland results that some Members have experienced when pursuing constituency cases. The problem needs to be resolved.
Fiona Mactaggart: I was pleased to hear that a response has been published today to the Select Committee report. However, we have been told that it is merely an interim response, so can we have a statement on how the debate on the future of the reformed second Chamber will be conducted and on when we will have some decisions from the Government?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that this issue will be ventilated repeatedly in the Chamber, and I look forward with anticipation and delight to answering my hon. Friend's oral question in 10 days' time. However, I cannot promise a statement until we have carried out our reflection and come to a considered view. In the meantime, we have
706
given what I fully acknowledge is a holding response to the Select Committee. I hope that, in the fulness of time, we will be able to respond more fully to the major points that it raises. I welcome its report. It showed that it is possible to find a centre of gravity around which reformers can unite. I hope that we can find such a point in Parliament.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on the issue of a debate on agriculture. We have just received the most damning report from the Countryside Agency about rural proofing across Departments, an initiative that this Government introduced. However, when I put a question about brown tourism signs to the Minister for Rural Affairs during DEFRA questions, he referred me to another Minister altogether. He suggested that I had asked the wrong person and did not seem to appreciate that DEFRA has the lead on this matter. If Ministers do not realise that, a debate on the Floor of the House may help them along the way.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that that was quite the most convincing case that I have heard for a full day's debate in the House. I do not agree with the hon. Lady's characterisation of the Countryside Agency's report, but it certainly found areas in which further progress needs to be made. It was, of course, a report on the first year of what is a three-year strategy.
I repeat to her and to the House that I understand the real interest in the House in countryside issues. I shall certainly keep in mind the possibility of a debate on such matters should the opportunity arise. I will not disguise from the House, however, the fact that, as the Session progresses, we shall have a lot of business to get through.
John Cryer: Following the question from the Liberal Democrats' spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), may I ask my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate on the future funding of political parties? The idea that state funding of political parties could be introduced is something that some of us oppose on principle. I pay my subs to the Labour party, and I do not want to pay them to any other party. The idea that my taxes could go towards funding that lot over there or even to those nice, cuddly Liberal Democrats is anathema and sticks in my craw. Could we have a debate or perhaps at least a statement on the issue?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that if he were to contemplate paying subscriptions to any other party, he would have severe difficulty receiving the Labour Whip in the House. Of course I understand his reluctance to subsidise other parties, but I put it to him that it is very important that we find a way in which political parties can be funded—not excessively, but appropriately—and in a way that is accepted as legitimate and proper. My hon. Friend has to ask himself whether he regards the Conservative party's present way of funding as necessarily legitimate and proper and, if not, whether he is prepared to contemplate other ways in which we might go about the possibly distasteful but necessary task of funding the Conservative party.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the Leader of the House was in his place yesterday afternoon, he will

707
clearly recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) asked the Prime Minister whether he thought it right that six Parliamentary Private Secretaries, including his own, had voted against the Government's policy on specialist schools on Tuesday. The Prime Minister replied:
"No, I believe that the position of the Government was right."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 573.]
In the light of that and the fact that none of those PPSs have even resigned or been sacked, as would have been the case previously, can we have an urgent debate on the ministerial code and collective ministerial responsibility?
Mr. Cook: Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right and the Government's policy is right, and the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to demur on either of those propositions. However, it is fair to recall that the Division on that occasion was on a private Member's motion, about which other private Members decided on their own way to vote. We can possibly get a little too pi, simultaneously demanding that Governments should be open minded and permit open debates and that they should crack down, like Torquemada, on anyone who steps out of line, even on a private Member's motion. If we could restore a sense of proportion, it would help everyone.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious allegations in the media regarding Dungavel immigration detention centre? If he is, will he consider, because of the seriousness of the situation there, whether the Home Secretary should make a statement to the House about those conditions to ensure that people understand that they are not as reported in the press, as that would give some comfort to my constituents who have raised the issue with me?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises that issue from a legitimate and proper perspective. I have seen some of the reports in the Scottish press, as he will be aware, and I am interested to hear that they do not necessarily reflect the correct and full picture, as is so often the case. That matter was raised at business questions last Thursday, since when we have approached the Home Secretary to draw his attention to it. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are also drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Colin Breed: The Leader of the House may be aware of reports emanating from Jenin this morning that survivors are being pulled from the rubble of demolished houses, but will he arrange for an urgent statement on that issue next week and, perhaps in the meantime, consider offering the services of organisations, such as Rapid UK, which are used to going into disaster areas, such as earthquake zones, to assist in bringing out people who have been buried in certain situations?
Mr. Cook: The House had a full day's debate on the middle east only this week, and it was absolutely right and proper that we made that day of debate available to the House. We shall, of course, continue to keep the
708
situation under review and, if there is a case for a further statement or allowing the House to discuss that matter, we are open to taking that forward.
On the substantive issue, I am sure that the House will share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the evidence that is emerging of the humanitarian crisis in Jenin. It is vital that the Israeli Government facilitate the access of humanitarian and aid organisations to help those, especially the civilians, who appear to have been involved in the suffering during the military incursion into Jenin. I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman at present on whether Britain could offer more specific aid or help, but I will draw his observations to the relevant Secretary of State's attention.
Helen Jones: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can find time to debate the working of the NHS Appointments Commission—in particular, the singular, apparent reluctance of the commission to appoint people from our more health-deprived areas to sit on health bodies? When I discussed the appointments to the Warrington primary care trust with the north-west appointments commissioner recently, he was able to tell me that only the best people are appointed, but not why the best people apparently come from a very small geographical area of Warrington. Does my right hon. Friend think that there is something in the water; or is there something wrong with the commission's appointment procedures? Can we have an opportunity to debate that issue?
Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that since we came to office, we have made sure that all appointments follow a clear standard procedure—[Interruption.] Indeed, as all the evidence shows, people have been appointed on merit. That is quite different from many of the appointments made under the Conservative Government. I recall that the chairman of the Conservative Association in my constituency became the chairman of my health trust. Against that background, I cannot comment on the particular local case to which my hon. Friend referred, but I shall obviously make sure that her concern and comments are brought to the attention of the Department of Health.
Since we introduced the new system, trusts and primary care trusts have on their boards people who are much more broadly representative of their communities than was the case in the system that we inherited. That is important because the NHS belongs to the people, and local NHS trusts must belong to the people as well.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As has been widely reported in the Channel Islands press and some parts of the British press, the Treasury is planning economic sanctions against Jersey if it does not sign the European code of conduct. Bearing in mind that a Treasury Minister told the Treasury Select Committee that the code was voluntary; that the only impact will be that money leaves the Channel Islands where it is well regulated to go to other places where it is not; and that the Channel Islands have no representative in the House of Commons, will the Government at least have a debate on the matter or issue a ministerial statement of

709
some sort? The Government have said nothing at all, despite the repeated stories, which are damaging to the Channel Islands.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I concur with the hon. Gentleman that the islands have no representative in the House; they appear to have a good affinity with Southend-on-Sea. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having time to represent people other than his own constituents. On the specific point at issue, it is important for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Southend-on-Sea that the Government of the United Kingdom are able to negotiate, debate and commit themselves in debates in Europe that make sure that we deliver on the commitments we make.
The withholding tax, which is at the root of the hon. Gentleman's argument, was a success of British diplomacy and saw off what might otherwise have been a new European tax. We made sure that such a tax was not introduced, and dealt with the problem by providing information. It is important that all territories for which the United Kingdom speaks in foreign affairs are committed to the agreements that we make, and that embraces the Channel Islands as well.
Jim Knight: During business questions on 7 March, I asked my right hon. Friend for a debate on the membership of Select Committees, because I was concerned about the continued inclusion in departmental Select Committees of Opposition Front Benchers. My right hon. Friend referred me to a Liaison Committee meeting that had taken place that morning. I dug out the Report of Session of that meeting, point 35 of which states:
"At present some official Opposition spokesmen or Whips are serving on committees. We are strongly opposed to this in principle."
Given that that situation has been ignored by the Opposition, who are abusing the independence of Select Committees, I repeat my request to my right hon. Friend for a debate on this important issue.
Mr. Forth: He is the Chairman of one.
Mr. Cook: Indeed, but the Liaison Committee did not object to that; its comments referred specifically to the official Opposition. Whatever my sins, I am not a member of the official Opposition. I think that the right hon. Member will confirm that.
On the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), I urge him to try to be a little more understanding of the problems of the Opposition; they are the smallest official Opposition for 30 years and, frankly, I doubt whether they could fill those posts without occasionally raiding their Front Bench. The Liaison Committee has expressed a bona fide concern, and I can tell my hon. Friend that there will be a debate on Select Committees and their membership next month, when we introduce the Standing Orders arising from the recent report of the Modernisation Committee. It will be relevant and in order for my hon. Friend to make his points in that debate.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the Leader of the House is in such a helpful and jovial mood
710
today, will he consider holding an urgent debate on the arrogant disdain of Ministers for Back Benchers, in view of the fact that it has taken almost six months—five months and five days—for the Health Minister to respond to a letter that I wrote to him? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that is a record, and would he advise us to set up yet another waiting list for replies from Health Ministers to our letters?
Mr. Cook: I always try to be helpful to the House, and perhaps I am in a particularly jovial mood today after such an excellent Budget statement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I regret it if the hon. Gentleman has been kept waiting for correspondence and I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We try to make sure that we achieve replies to hon. Members, both in written correspondence and in parliamentary questions, as quickly as possible. Some Departments are under particular pressure and some questions raise particularly difficult issues that require some time to resolve. I shall certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I reinforce calls for an early and specific debate on the future of digital broadcasting in the UK? The difficulties faced by ntl and ITV show that there appear to be problems with two out of the three platforms for digital TV. That raises serious competition issues and has implications for the Government's plans to switch off the analogue signal. In addition, 900 jobs are threatened in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency in west Wales.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. It is important that we should reflect that the recent collapse of digital TV from the ITV stable has implications going well beyond the well-publicised concerns about the football teams. My hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be opening the Budget debate on Monday, so she may wish to contribute to the debate to make sure that the issue that she raises is fully ventilated. I can assure her that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry are following the matter closely.
Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House will be aware of the crisis in the automotive industry. We have seen the closure of the Ford car assembly plant at Dagenham and the closure of Vauxhall at Luton. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only has there been a problem because of blockages in the channel tunnel, but that the new tax on jobs—the employers' contribution of 1 per cent.,—will cause an even greater crisis in labour-intensive industries such as the automotive industry? Can we have an urgent debate on the future of the automotive industry, in the west midlands in particular and the UK in general, and the veracity and honesty of the Government in putting a tax on jobs instead of a tax on national insurance or, rather, a tax on income tax?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech on enterprise and manufacturing industry, he has an early opportunity to do so on Monday. I cannot do

711
better than refer him to Monday's forthcoming debate. If he takes part in that debate, I hope that he will answer the question to which we will be seeking an answer from every Conservative Member: given that we are increasing the national insurance contribution to make sure that we can double the spending on the national health service, will the Conservatives tell us whether they will match that increase and sustain it? If they are not in favour of the measures necessary to achieve that increase for the health service, are they telling us that they want more charges for the health service or less spending on the health service?
Paul Flynn: As these business questions have shown, there is an urgent need for a debate on state funding to demonstrate that the Labour party is the only party in the House that does not enjoy any part of the £20 million of state funding that will be paid in Short money in this Parliament. Is it not right that if there is to be transparency in all donations to political parties, it should stretch back over the past 25 years, so that we can demonstrate the contrast between the fantasies about sleaze in the present Government invented by the piffle artists on the Opposition Benches, and the real corruption that existed in the 1980s and 1990s, when it was said that some Conservative Members had their noses so deeply in the trough that all that was visible of them were the soles of their Gucci shoes?
Mr. Cook: I cannot improve on that.
Pete Wishart: While I am delighted that my Welsh colleagues have managed to secure yet another full day's debate on the Floor of the House to discuss Welsh issues, may I ask what we in Scotland have done to offend or upset the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends? When can we expect a full day's debate on the Floor of the House on Scottish issues? Perhaps I can belatedly remind him that there will also be no local elections in Scotland on 2 May.
Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Scotland has done nothing to offend me. Were it to do so, I am sure that he would be the first hon. Member to draw it to the attention of the House. I think that he is being slightly curmudgeonly. As he said, we welcome our Welsh colleagues' opportunity for a full day's debate. I remind him that we took action, in which I took a particular interest as Leader of the House, to ensure that the nationalist parties had an Opposition Supply day. If I remember rightly, his party had half of that day.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Events this week in Italy have served to highlight once again serious divisions on the economic philosophy of the European Union. On one side, there are those who want privatisation, extreme liberalisation, an attack on workers' rights and a weakening of welfare states, while on the other there are people such as our own Chancellor—he made this clear yesterday—who want to improve social protection, and those in our trade union movement who want to improve workers rights. Will my right hon. Friend make a day available for a further debate on the future economic direction of Europe?
Mr. Cook: I have just got into trouble for not having a day's debate on Scottish politics, so I would hesitate to
712
offer a day's debate on Italian politics, although like my hon. Friend I noticed the massive number of people who took to the streets to express their commitment to ensuring a secure future for themselves at work. Of course, we have taken very powerful measures to ensure that the prospects of people at work are improved. In particular, we have taken measures ensuring that many more people are at work than when we came to office—1.5 million in total—and that we have the lowest unemployment that either his or my constituents can remember in a generation.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman now kindly agree to a debate in Government time next week on the vexed question of rail freight passing through the channel tunnel? The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee last week and said that the French would put up a fence to prevent asylum seekers from storming the tunnel, as they have again done this week. However, the trains' failure to materialise is affecting constituency companies such as Potters of Melmerby as well as English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, and is costing £500,000 a day. Can we now please have an urgent debate?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the assiduity with which she has raised this issue. I have raised her concerns with my colleagues at the appropriate Departments. We have obtained commitments from both the French authorities and SNCF that security would improve, and efforts have been made in that regard. We are not there yet, but we will continue to try.
I remind the hon. Lady that we have so far made good progress on tackling the arrival of those who are the source of the insecurity. The number of clandestines and people without proper documentation who are arriving has dropped sharply. We will continue to do all we can on our side, and to press the French authorities to do all they can on their side.
Kevin Brennan: I welcome the fact that the Government have today sent their interim response to the Select Committee on Public Administration on its report on the House of Lords. Will he give an assurance that there will be an opportunity for a debate once the Committee has had a chance to consider the Government's interim response and make its comments?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I am under no illusion that this issue will go away. There will be many opportunities for the House to return to it in future, including in two weeks' time when I answer oral questions. The Government will continue to make progress on the issue, so as to ensure that we will be in a position to examine it at some length at a future stage in this Session.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will know that the Government will face probable defeat in another place today on the Export Control Bill, when my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon moves with cross-party support an amendment that seeks to defend academic freedom. If the Government are to persist in their policy of trying to constrain

713
academic freedom, can we have an early statement from the Department for Education and Skills about the likely effect on Britain's universities, how they will continue to attract international students, and the effect on our research base?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman creates a worry and a risk on stilts in relation to a modest aspect of the Export Control Bill. I am proud that we are introducing such a Bill; it is much needed and is based on a commitment that we made and are now carrying through. I am pleased to tell him that we are seeking to introduce amendments that will take care of concerns about academic freedom that we think are rather exaggerated, although we know that they are widely held.
Mr. George Osborne: May I press the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), who is no longer in his place? If there is to be a debate on the state funding of political parties, as the Leader of the House says, surely that should include a debate in this Chamber. Given that he says that there is no collective Government position on the matter, will members of the Cabinet be able to speak in the debate, so that the Home Secretary can tell us why he thinks that it is inevitable, the Transport Secretary can explain how he is examining other countries' systems and the Leader of the House can take us on a trip down memory lane about his various political views?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asks for a free debate. I should be tempted to have such a debate—having first reached agreement with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—if the many right hon. and hon. Members who were Conservative Cabinet members in the past would take part and tell us exactly where they got funding from and which companies gave them donations.

NHS Plan
1.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the next steps on the NHS plan. I am today laying before Parliament a Command Paper setting out those next steps, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
The NHS plan that we published in July 2000 set out a 10-year programme to rebuild and renew the health service in our country. It diagnosed the NHS problem as follows. The principles of the NHS are right—on this side of the House we believe in an NHS that is free at the point of use, funded from general taxation, and based on need, not ability to pay. But today's NHS is the product of decades of underinvestment. It is also the product of a failure to reform. Staff—the greatest asset that the health service has—work flat out in a system which still too much resembles that of the 1940s. The NHS plan set out a 10-year programme of investment and reform based on clear national standards, more devolution of resources, greater flexibility for staff and more choice for patients.
With the economy stabilised and the public finances sorted out, the 2000 spending review was able to give the NHS the largest ever real-terms increases in resources. Two years later, anyone who says that there are no problems in the NHS has clearly got it wrong, but those who say there has been no progress have also got it wrong. Yes, there is a long way to go—it is a 10-year plan—but those who point to an NHS black hole should in fact be pointing to dozens more hospitals, hundreds more beds, thousands more doctors, tens of thousands more nurses—and a better health service as a result.
In July 2000, we acknowledged that three years of sustained funding was not enough. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had already said in January 2000 that we needed to match European Union levels of spending. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put NHS finances on a sustained footing, not for three years, but for five. Years of failure to invest in the past are now being replaced with years of investment for the future. Today, I can tell the House what that investment will give us: 35,000 more nurses, 15,000 more doctors, 40 new hospitals and 500 primary care centres. As investment grows, so the capacity of the NHS will grow.
Investment in the NHS must, however, be accompanied by changes in the way in which the NHS works. Ours is not an unconditional offer. Without those reforms, we will not get the best use of the money for the taxpayer and we will not get the improvements in service for the patient. Where we have had the courage to invest, we must now have the courage to reform. Our formula is simple: investment plus reform equals results.
First, building on the national standards already in the NHS plan, we will strengthen the system of inspection and audit to improve accountability to patients and the public. Where more resources are going in, people have the right to know what they are getting out. We will therefore legislate to establish a new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to inspect and to raise standards in health care across our country. We are clear that we need higher standards in NHS hospitals and also in private hospitals.

715
The commission will assess the performance of every part of the NHS so that the public can see that every extra pound in the NHS buys something better for patients and gets something more for taxpayers. Similar arrangements will be made for social care. We will discuss the details of both with the National Assembly for Wales.
The new commission will be independent of both the NHS and Government, and more independent than the current fragmented system. It will report annually to Parliament, not Ministers, on the state of the NHS, its performance and, most important, the use to which it has put the extra resources. The Government should not be judge and jury of the NHS. The commission will be the judge, the British people the jury.
Secondly, we can go further in extending devolution in the NHS, building on what has been achieved. The health service should not and cannot be run from Whitehall. The NHS is delivered in hundreds of different communities by more than 1 million staff. The relationships are between the local patient and the local doctor; the local community and the local hospital. However, those relationships will not work properly until central control is replaced by local accountability. After 50 years, the time has come when the sound of bedpans being dropped in Tredegar should reverberate only in Tredegar.
With national standards and inspection in place, power, resources and responsibilities must now move to the NHS front line. When we came to office, GPs controlled only 15 per cent. of the total NHS budget. Today, primary care trusts, with GPs and nurses in the lead, already control half the budget. In only two years, they will control three quarters of it. Just as the new commission will report nationally, so primary care trusts will need to report locally on how NHS resources have been spent.
The best primary care trusts, like the best NHS hospitals, should enjoy greater freedoms and more rewards. We will therefore establish new foundation hospitals and foundation primary care trusts, which will be fully part of the NHS, but with more freedoms than they have now. They will have more powers, including a right to borrow, to expand their services for patients.
Thirdly, further to the new powers that we have given nurses and others, we will radically alter the way in which staff work and introduce a new system of financial incentives throughout the health service. We will put in place new contracts of employment, not only for nurses and other staff, but for GPs and, yes, for hospital consultants, too. Our objective is to liberate the potential of all members of staff, rewarding those who do most in the NHS and, crucially, improve productivity throughout the health service.
New incentives for individual members of staff will be matched by a new system of financial incentives for NHS organisations. The hospitals that can treat more patients will earn more money. Traditional incentives work in the opposite direction. Indeed, the poorest performers often get the most financial help.
We will therefore introduce a new system for money to flow around the health service, ending perverse incentives and paying hospitals by results. The incentive will be to treat more patients more quickly, and to higher standards.
Fourthly, patient choice will drive the system. Starting with those with the most serious clinical conditions, patients will have a greater choice about when and where
716
they are treated. From this summer, patients who have been waiting six months for a heart operation will be able to choose a hospital, public or private, which has the capacity to offer quicker treatment. This level of investment means that we can grow NHS capacity as fast as it is possible to do so.
I can also say today that it is our intention to draw into this country additional overseas capacity so that we can further expand NHS services to NHS patients. As capacity expands, so choice will grow. Within three years, all patients, with their GPs, will be able to book hospital appointments at a time and a place that is convenient to them. The reforms that we are making will mark an irreversible shift from the 1940s take-it-or-leave-it, top-down service. Hospitals will no longer choose patients; patients will choose hospitals.
Reductions in waiting times to get into hospital must, of course, be accompanied by cuts in waiting times to get out. Older people are the generation that built the health service, and they have supported it all their lives. This generation owes that generation a guarantee of dignity and security in old age. Bed blocking denies both.
Mr. John Bercow: Ah!
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman ought to get a grip.
In recent months, the extra resources that we have made available have reduced the numbers of elderly patients whose discharge from hospital has been delayed. I am grateful for the help that local councils have given us in addressing this problem. Here, however, the long-term solution is not just investment, it is reform. I can tell the House today that, to bridge the gap between health and social care, we intend to legislate, as they have done in Sweden and other European countries, to give local councils responsibility—from their 6 per cent. extra real-terms increases—for the cost of beds needlessly blocked in hospitals.
Councils will need to use those resources to ensure that older people are able to leave hospital when their treatment is completed. If councils reduce the current level of bed blocking so that older people are able to leave hospital safely when they are well, they will have the freedom to use those resources to invest in extra services. If bed blocking goes up, councils will incur the cost of keeping older people in hospital unnecessarily. There will be similar incentives to prevent hospitals from seeking to discharge patients prematurely. In this way, we will provide local councils with the investment and the incentives to improve care for older people.
Taken together, the NHS plan and the next steps announced today amount to the most radical and fundamental reform programme inside the NHS since 1948. I want to pay tribute to the staff of the national health service—not just the nurses, doctors and consultants, but all the staff in the different medical disciplines, the ancillary staff, the secretaries, the receptionists, the porters and the cleaners. They represent the very best of British public service and I believe that, as a nation and as a Parliament, we should he proud of the work that they do. I know and understand the enormous pressure that they are under as the NHS plans to make these big changes. But I know, too, that they share this basic goal: to rebuild the national health service around the needs of its patients.

717
This programme of investment and reform will mean that each year, every year, waiting times will fall. Last year, the maximum wait for a hospital operation was 18 months. Today it is 15 months. By this time next year, it will fall to 12 months. By 2005, it will be six months, and by 2008, it will have been reduced to three months. By then, the average waiting time for a hospital operation will be just six weeks. It is our aim that people will no longer have to face the dilemma of having to wait for treatment or having to pay for it.
As a party and as a Government, we are committed to providing opportunities to all in our society and not just to some, so there will be more effort to prevent ill health, as well as treating it. Twenty-five thousand lives a year can be saved by the investment we can now make in preventing and treating heart disease alone.
The balance of services will shift, with more patients being seen in primary and community settings, not just in hospitals. Social services will have resources to extend by one third rehabilitation care for older people. Councils will be able to increase fees to stabilise the care home market and secure more care home beds. More investment will mean more old people will have the choice of care in their own homes rather than in care homes.
Yesterday's Budget and today's reforms mean that the NHS plan will be delivered.
I want to make two further points. First, it is a 10-year plan, as we said in July 2000. By the time of the next election, there will be real and significant improvements. However, that cannot happen overnight. It takes seven years at least to train a doctor and up to 15 years to train a consultant. Expectations will be high—I understand that—but they also need to be reasonable, and people need to understand that a 10-year plan is exactly what it says. It will take time to be delivered in full. At least now, public and patients will be able to see improvements made stage by stage, independently of Government, audited, monitored and inspected.
Secondly, there is consensus in the country on one thing: Britain needs to spend more on health care. There is no mystery about why there are no waiting lists in Germany. It has spent more, and has done so for years.
We can debate endlessly the system of finance, but one thing is beyond debate: the level of finance has to be raised. Once that is accepted, the choice is not between a system funded out of general taxation, which results in higher national insurance, and some other system that comes for free. Importing the German system of social insurance would cost the equivalent of an extra £1,000 per worker per year, and the French system would cost £1,500 per worker per year.
Labour Members believe in the NHS in our heads as well as our hearts. We believe it to be the best and fairest system of providing true health insurance, because it is based on the scale of the person's need, not the size of their wallet. It is the best insurance policy in the world.
It is now for those who want to see the NHS not reformed but abandoned, and who routinely call it Stalinist, to say honestly what their alternative is, what it would cost and how much families and pensioners would have to pay for it.
Yesterday we made a choice, and we ask the British people to make the same choice. We are proud of the NHS and of the people working in it. We are giving it the
718
money that it deserves. We are making the changes it needs. Investment plus reform equals results. We will be happy to be judged on them.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. He is right: there is a measure of consensus in the House. We all agree that more money should be spent on health in the United Kingdom. We believe that health care should be available to all irrespective of their means. The Secretary of State's statement must be judged against the criterion set down by the Chancellor yesterday, when he said that the scale of long-term investment would be matched by the scale of long-term reform. Have we had today anything like the indication of long-term reform that comes anywhere close to the increase in funding announced by the Chancellor? Indeed, the Secretary of State's words mark quite a shift in the Government's position. He said in his statement:
"Without those reforms, we will not get the best use of the money for the taxpayer".
However, the Chancellor told The Sun in November:
"I'm going to insist any additional resources must be matched by reforms so that we get the best value for money. There is not to be one penny more until we get the changes."
We believe that reform is needed, but we are not willing to give the Government a blank cheque—especially after a statement such as this, high on waffle and low on detail. I should like the Secretary of State—yes, he can get his pen ready—to give us some numbers, and some of the details of what the plans actually mean.
First, let me ask about national insurance. What will the changes announced yesterday cost the NHS as an employer, and what will be the additional cost in taxes to a consultant, a senior house officer and a ward sister on average salaries?
Where will the new auditors come from to deal with the Secretary of State's new auditing system? Please let them not be the Prime Minister's cronies in Andersen! How many are envisaged, and how much will it all cost? Who will appoint the new auditors? Will they be free to set their own budgets? The last thing we need is a new set of bureaucrats. Perhaps the most important question is this: will the auditors be able to audit private hospitals? That is especially important when NHS patients are being treated in such hospitals. Will we see the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission merge with the National Audit Office, or any potential mixture involving the three bodies? [Interruption.] I see that the Government Chief Whip is up to her usual intellectual standard today, although that is not saying much.
When it comes to the question of devolved power, the Secretary of State is pulling a confidence trick. He talks of more money being available on the front line, but he does not say that there are so many strings attached that those on the front line are not free to choose how to spend it. Last week I visited the chairman of a primary care group, who told me that of the extra £13 million made available last year only £55,000 was discretionary money that he could choose how to use.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can give us one or two more details about devolved power. He talks of devolved bodies being able to borrow. Where will they be able to borrow from? Will they be able to borrow from

719
the markets? Will the borrowing happen with or without an underwriting by the Government, and how will this affect PSBR calculations?
The Secretary of State said that there would be
"New incentives for individual members of staff".
What sort of individual financial incentives will those be, how much—typically—will they be worth, and at what level will they be negotiated?
I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State talk of money following the patient: I had thought that that was one of the phrases new Labour had banned. At least he is returning to some of the right ideas. But what exactly does he mean by "importing additional overseas capacity"? Who is being imported and from where, and how will the process be funded?
Perhaps the most appalling part of the statement related to bed blocking. For more than three years, the Government were warned about the consequences of their policy of running down care homes in the community. They were warned that when they lost beds in the community they would block beds in the NHS, and that they would see an increase in the number of cancelled operations and a rise in waiting lists as well as inappropriate care. What is the Secretary of State going to do now? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The Opposition spokesman must be given a fair hearing. We cannot have repeated sedentary interventions.
Dr. Fox: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of the sedentary interventions were better than what we have heard from the Government Front Bench.
The Government are shifting the blame, which they always do. The blame for bed blocking now lies with local government, rather than with those who created the problem—central Government. The financial burden and the penalties will be transferred to local government: in other words, council tax payers will be fined for the Government's incompetence in terms of their care homes policy. That is a terrible indictment of this Government.
We seek detailed answers to those questions, because several things have become clear over the past 24 hours: that the Government now believe that one of the ways of helping recruitment and retention is to tax NHS staff more; that the Government have now returned to tax and spend: and that the third way and new Labour are gone.
When the Government came to power, they said no internal market, no money following the patient and no GP fundholding. Having broken their promises on taxes, they have now gone back to many of the reforms that they said in opposition they would never tolerate. They are admitting that they wasted five years for all those who use and work in the health service. They were wrong and we were right. The one word missing from today's statement was "Sorry".
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman either misunderstood or has not read our proposal on the new independent audit regime. In fact, it will mean less rather than more bureaucracy. We will put together the current arrangements, with the Commission for Health
720
Improvement, the value for money work of the Audit Commission and the private health care work of the National Care Standards Commission, in one single new body. That will make for less confusion and bureaucracy in the national health service, with clearer accountability to the public.
The hon. Gentleman did not say one word about matching extra investment either in the national health service or in social services. It is a bit rich for him to bleat about bed blocking and problems in care homes—which exist—and not to commit his party to matching the extra resources that we are allocating to social services.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about borrowing, we will put in place a new prudential borrowing regime, along the lines of the one that we are considering for local authorities. The details are in the document.
On importing staff, we envisage bringing in spare capacity from abroad—from Europe. The hon. Gentleman is very keen on his travels in Europe. Normally, the purpose of travel is to arrive at a destination. This must be the only instance of travel narrowing the mind. His mind is made up. The challenge for him is threefold: will he match our extra investment, match the extra sources of that investment and match the reforms that we have outlined? The answer for all three is no.
The public will see that, rather than wanting to reform the national health service, the Tories want to abandon it. The hon. Gentleman gave the game away when, in his secret speech in Harrogate, he said that the Tories' strategy was first to talk down the national health service, and then to run it down, as a prelude to their real agenda of selling it off. That is not the right choice for the British people.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the reforms that he outlined, but those who will be paying the extra taxes will want a copper-bottomed guarantee that their money will be spent wisely. They will want improvements to be made, and quickly. Will he assure me and the people outside who will pay the extra taxes that this massive investment will find its way to front-line services and not be lost in more red tape and bureaucracy?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important and telling point. It is important that people who work in the national health service and the managers who are responsible for delivering care understand that the extra resources do not come for nothing—this is not an unconditional offer. The days have gone when public spending worked on the something-for-nothing rule. We are offering something for something and we expect big changes and improvements, but we do not expect them overnight. No magic wand can be waved and no silver bullet can be fired, but people have a right to expect a steady improvement year by year, as capacity grows and the NHS plan is implemented over 10 years, providing more staff, more beds, more buildings, new hospitals and new ways of working backed by the reforms that I have announced today.
When people put more money into the national health service they have a right to expect more out of it. That is why the new arrangements for audit and inspection, which are not supported by the Opposition, and the new obligations on primary care trusts are being brought into

721
being as quickly as possible. Some will require legislation and some will not, but in my view it is important that taxpayers see that extra resources deliver real results for patients.
Dr. Evan Harris: On the rise in tax, including a not so brave 1 per cent. on top earners such as the Secretary of State—and the Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are leaving the Chamber to count their money—to give the NHS the funding boost for which we have been calling for years, we would like to resist the temptation to say, "I told you so", but we cannot. Nor can the people who have died while waiting, the patients who suffered poor care during years of underfunding and the elderly who are stuck in hospital and who will still have to sell their homes to pay for the personal care that they thought they would get on the NHS.
The funding is welcome, but it would be more welcome if the Secretary of State apologised for his five years of the 23 years of underfunding and the two income tax cuts, for which the Conservatives also voted, because without them we could be halfway through a 10-year programme of NHS investment rather than at the start.
If the Secretary of State is serious about reform, why does he not consider truly decentralising decision making to publicly and democratically accountable local decision-making bodies instead of simply decentralising the blame and centralising the praise?
On the new financial incentives for hospital performance and the distortions, if the Secretary of State really thinks that doctors and nurses will treat patients better if he stuffs their mouths with gold, he simply does not understand the motivation of public sector health care workers. Does he really think so little of doctors and nurses? If he believes that these new people's foundation, grant-maintained hospitals that give financial incentives for admitting, discharging, operating and not operating, and the creation of an accountant's paradise, will produce no clinical distortions and improve clinical care, he misunderstands doctors and nurses in the health service. He is moving from stethoscope to spreadsheet, and that will damage patient care.
On social services, it appears that the Secretary of State, like Conservative Front Benchers, has just discovered social services underfunding and bed blocking. He has announced that he will suddenly get a grip. Does he not understand that the 1.2 per cent. real growth between 1999 and 2001, as set out in the Wanless report, was grossly inadequate, as was the real-terms cut in social services funding in the previous two years? Is he about to insist that local councils not only punish council tax payers, but cut services to the mentally ill, the vulnerable young and the disabled to avoid his fine? The real-terms increase in funding is only 3.5 per cent. now, rising to 6 per cent. this year. That is around £200 million, which is grossly inadequate for the amount of underfunding in health services.
Finally, can he assure people in Oxfordshire facing £9 million in social services cuts in the fifth year of a Labour Government that they will not have to face more cuts this year? Unless he can make that commitment and unless he apologises, people will not believe that he is serious and the Government will appear even more arrogant than they have to date.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have left the House, and I now know why they did so. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be very cautious about raising national social services funding issues, given that the Liberal Democrats are cutting such funding at a local level. Indeed, as I have told him before—he has failed to answer this charge—the biggest complaint that I heard on my recent visits to Liverpool and Sheffield was the cutting by Liberal Democrats of social services expenditure for the elderly, the disabled, people with mental health problems and vulnerable children; yet the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to complain about a 6 per cent. increase in social services investment.
The problem with the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats is that they always want more money but never want change. He must recognise what everybody else recognises: if we are to get the best from the resources and improve services for patients, investment and change must go together. It is about time that he learned that lesson.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very important matter and many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. May we please have shorter questions, and perhaps shorter answers?
Tony Wright: On any test, this is a defining moment for the health service, and I congratulate the Government on what they are doing. People simply have to make up their minds: do they want to rebuild the health service, or not?
The Secretary of State talked about giving a guarantee to heart patients who face a wait of more than six months, and about introducing a true insurance approach to the health service. Under such an approach, people pay in and they know what they will get out. In talking about making step changes and step improvements to bring down waiting times, can we not tell people that that is a commitment? Can we not say, "A commission will ensure that we do that, and we will give real patient guarantees, so that we know what you have paid in, and you know what you will get out"?
Mr. Milburn: On my hon. Friend's first point, the decisions relating to the Budget and the reforms were of course important. The simple observation—I hope that it is widely shared—is that if people want world-class health care, it has to be paid for somehow. The issue is not whether we pay for it but, I suppose, how. The argument and debate about that will continue in the weeks, and perhaps years, to come. When people examine the issues carefully—as we have done, and as the British Medical Association did in 2000—they will conclude, not on the ground of destabilising the current system, but on the grounds of principle and of values, that the national health service is the right way forward for the country. However, we must ensure that we grow the capacity, and I am afraid that we must make some big changes.
We want to grow the capacity in stages. The biggest capacity constraint is the shortage of qualified staff, be they doctors, nurses, scientists or therapists. We must be

723
straight and honest with people: it will take time to grow capacity. It is no use the Opposition yelling about a 10-year plan. Yes, it is a 10-year plan, and it will take time to get there. As we improve services and cut waiting times, the offer that we can make to individual patients will of course improve. However, it is important that people understand that an enormous pot of money is now going into the national health service, but that it will be released in stages. We have to ensure that the NHS works for patients, and we will improve the services that they use progressively, rather than overnight.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Secretary of State has put great store by his improved audit arrangements, but who will set the criteria by which success will be judged? Will the auditors set it, or will he set it? In his statement, he also mentioned improvements in waiting times, but not for the first consultant appointment. What will he do to reduce targets for that?
Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, as a Treasury Minister in a previous Conservative Government, that the Audit Commission works very independently. It has done a first-class job and its integrity and independence must be maintained at all costs in the new system. It decides what value-for-money studies it wishes to undertake and, similarly, the new commission will decide which studies it wishes to undertake. There are two forms of standard setting, including the new national service frameworks for cancer, coronary heart disease and mental health, which are drawn up between the Government, the NHS, clinicians who work in the NHS and patients who use it.
On the subject of out-patient appointments, I did mention the cuts in waiting times for in-patient treatment that are taking place. Getting the waiting times for out-patients down has been a long haul, but they are now down below the level that we inherited. As we grow the capacity, put the extra resources in and—crucially—make the reforms, we will continue to bring waiting times down so that by 2005 no one will wait more than three months for an out-patient appointment either.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Bolton has welcomed the considerable amounts of money that we have received for our health service and our social services department, but a problem remains. In 1997, we were 6 per cent. away from target funding. A letter that I received this week from the Under-Secretary revealed that the new primary care trust began its work 6.02 per cent. away from target funding, so the situation has not improved. I seek assurances for my constituents from my right hon. Friend that in the next five years the real inequalities that exist in areas such as mine will be addressed once and for all.
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend will be aware that a review of the way in which we distribute resources is being conducted, both in local government and in the NHS. As I have said before, I cannot give an absolute assurance for Bolton, but I recognise that the area has its fair share of problems, with high levels of morbidity and
724
deep health inequalities. Our new formula for distributing growing NHS resources is designed to address such problems.
Mr. David Curry: Will the Minister cast his mind back some five years, when the Labour Government introduced a whole new inspectorate system for local government called best value? That immense gendarmerie is now so complicated and complex that his Government are saying that they must start to dismantle it. What assurances can he give us that the inspectorate that he has announced today will not be such an enormous consumer of management time that it will divert people from the task of looking after patients? Does he realise that he has now announced a sort of amalgam of nationalised and local responsibility, so that nobody will any longer have the faintest idea of where the buck stops? Can he decide whether he or the people who know about it are running the NHS?
Mr. Milburn: For once, the right hon. Gentleman is remarkably confused on the issue. Normally, he is a beacon of light in a sea of darkness on the Opposition Benches. The position is clear. We will not have three bodies inspecting and regulating health care in our country. Instead, one body will inspect and regulate health care to common national standards, whether in the public or private sector, in primary care or in hospital-based care. Nobody, with the best will in the world—even someone with the right hon. Gentleman's creative accounting mind—can possibly make that add up to more bureaucracy when it will mean less bureaucracy.
The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we must get the right balance of national standards in a national health service, because the last thing that we want to do is to return to the position that the Government inherited in 1997, when there was a lottery of care for cancer services and drugs. We have put that right. What we have recognised, as I have been able to announce today, is that services have to be delivered locally. We need greater freedoms and more rewards for the best. We must step in where there are problems, but we must step back where there is progress.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Barnsley has exactly the same problem as Bolton: we are moving further and further away from our target funding, and that means a £6 million shortfall, which the primary care trust must address. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the independent audit, but will it be empowered to compare health authorities throughout the country in order to show exactly where value for money is delivered, so that in areas such as Bolton and Barnsley, which administer their funding very well, we can benefit from the extra resources going into the service?
Mr. Milburn: The straightforward answer to that question is yes. That is precisely what it will be doing, so that people both locally and nationally, and particularly in this House, have an opportunity to judge how well different health services are doing in different parts of the country. That is a welcome step forward and a recognition that the national health service belongs not to me or even to the people who work in it, but to the British public, who have a right to know how well it is doing.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State is well aware that health matters have been devolved

725
to Northern Ireland and Scotland. Can I have an assurance that the increase in health service funding will be allocated at the same level in Northern Ireland? I have to raise the issue because this is a national health service, and over the years Scotland, Northern Ireland and England have shared the situation, providing doctors, nurses and specialists.
I want also to press the Secretary of State on whether he is absolutely sure that there will be less bureaucracy under the independent inspection—or will fewer people do the job, which has not been done well in the past, and we will continue to suffer? The British people are the jury. They have been long-suffering, but are beginning to turn and become more demanding. They will still be demanding if we do not deliver.
Mr. Milburn: It is not really my responsibility to comment on issues either to do with Northern Ireland or to do with finance in Northern Ireland. However, my understanding of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday is that the funding increases are not just for England but for other parts of the United Kingdom.
Inspection and ensuring that we have the right number of people in place is more than anything else a matter for the new independent commission; that will not so much be a matter for me. It must decide on the level of resources and the number of staff needed in order to do the work that it needs to do, which is about improving standards and accounting for where public money is spent.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend confident that he will have the full co-operation of the royal colleges and the British Medical Association in his effort to reduce waiting lists? He will be aware that those mighty vested interests have in the past been part of the problem rather than the solution. Is it true that the consultants are demanding a 29 per cent. wage increase in return for their co-operation? If it is, will he politely tell them that that is not on?
Mr. Milburn: I do not know about the specific figures but, clearly, negotiations are taking place with the BMA about the future of the consultant contract. There will no doubt be different points of view. It is important that people recognise that, although these are large increases in NHS investment, they must go to the right place so that we can improve services and, of course, motivate staff. As my hon. Friend will recognise, we require some profound changes—not just increases in the number of staff but changes in their working practices. We cannot have ancient, traditional demarcations among those working in the NHS standing in the way of improved patient care.
Mrs. Angela Browning: What is it about the Audit Commission that makes it insufficiently independent or professional to continue to monitor the outcomes of this Government's policy? Why is the Secretary of State dropping the Audit Commission in favour of a body that will be both judge and jury, setting targets and monitoring outcomes?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady has not listened to what I have said; fair enough. Perhaps she can read my statement. I shall briefly explain. The commission will be more independent not less. At the moment, I appoint
726
people to the Audit Commission. She might think that that is a perfectly reasonable, independent system; I do not. In future, the people appointed to the Audit Commission—the commissioners—will be appointed independently from me. What is more, the commissioners will appoint the new chief inspector, who will have overall responsibility for ensuring that standards and accountability work in the NHS.
Mr. Chris Pond: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, not least, I suspect, because one of the new hospitals that he mentioned is likely to be the community hospital in Gravesend? He will be aware that, despite quite substantial increases in resources, we have had considerable problems with social services in Kent. Will he give us an assurance that the annual report to Parliament on delivery in health services will include local authorities that, given the extra resources that they will be receiving, are failing to deliver effectively on social services?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is incumbent on all parts of the public services—particularly if extra investment is going into them, as it is into social and health care—to account for how money is spent and, indeed, for how standards are improving. As I said in my statement, just as we will have a new independent commission to ensure that standards are high and performance in the NHS is improving, so we will have a new independent commission for social services—effectively bringing together the social services inspectorate, which is currently part of the Department of Health, and the National Care Standards Commission. Once again, the new commission that will deal with social care inspection will be more, rather than less, independent than current arrangements.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Just how will the increases in national insurance contributions and taxation help the NHS in the Thames valley, where due to very high housing costs, we are suffering a desperate shortage of staff and difficulty in recruiting doctors, nurses and all forms of health professionals? Surely such increases will make matters much worse.
Mr. Milburn: All of that was taken into account in discussions on the Budget and the spending review. People are talking about £200 million for the NHS in increased national insurance contributions. To put that into perspective, it is worth remembering that the NHS will be getting an extra £5 billion. The question for the Conservative party is whether it backs that level of investment—yes or no? It is a very simple question.
Dr. Desmond Turner: I too congratulate the Secretary of State on his bold measures. I am particularly glad about the extra resources for social services because, as I am sure he will be aware, one factor that contributes to bed blocking, especially in my part of the world, is a lack of capacity in the private and nursing care home market. Will he consider encouraging where necessary public reprovision of long-term care beds?
Mr. Milburn: In the end, those decisions are best taken not by me, but locally. It will be a matter—[Interruption.]

727
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) says no, but he is the one who continues to argue that the NHS, social services and local government are too centralised. Then, he rails against our saying that decisions are best taken locally. It is for social services and the health service to decide how best to spend the resources. There are many models of providing health and social care. Indeed, it would be good if there were more joint ventures between the public and private sectors precisely so that we could reap the benefits of both, and that way improve patient care.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the extra doctors and nurses who he has trumpeted this morning will not be recruited either directly by the health service or indirectly through private agencies from developing countries that need them much more than we do?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, we are very clear that we will not be doing that.
Ms Dari Taylor: In warmly welcoming the statement, I ask my right hon. Friend how successful innovatory practices are being communicated, as there are many in existence. I bring to his attention the Medical Assessment Unit at the James Cook hospital in Middlesbrough. It is in the process of putting together a multidisciplinary, rapid reaction force—if Members will excuse the use of Ministry of Defence language—with outreach nurses and social services. It is effectively discharging 40 per cent. of patients who would otherwise have remained in hospital. This is an excellent piece of innovatory medicine—other hospitals are discharging only 10 per cent. of such patients. How are these good practices being communicated?
Mr. Milburn: First, throughout the health service and social services, as in my hon. Friend's area, there are many examples of innovation, reform, modernisation—call it what we will. The Conservative party would like to pretend that reform has not taken hold when in fact it has taken hold in all aspects of the health service. The way in which we ensure that we learn from best practice is straightforward. First, we now have a modernisation agency that can help people to improve their services. In that way, we take good practices out of the ghetto and spread them to all so that they are not just for the benefit of the few.
Secondly, it is important to get in place the right incentives. I believe profoundly that we cannot simply tell people to change but must provide the incentive for them to change. The truth is that there has never been a system using the right incentives in the national health service and perhaps in social services too. By changing the way in which money flows around the system, we are trying to put the right incentives in place so that those who do best get most money and those who do less well have an incentive to improve.
Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State makes much of this independent inspectorate reporting to Parliament. Can he guarantee that when it does report to Parliament, there will be an opportunity,
728
in Government time, to debate that report on the Floor of the House every year? Can he explain to my constituents how it will improve the morale of people who work in the national health service if their take-home pay is cut by national insurance increases?
Mr. Milburn: On the first issue, that is not a matter for me. I am trying to get rid of powers, not take them on. The Leader of the House deals with such issues. On national insurance contributions, I think that doctors, nurses, therapists, scientists and everyone who works in the national health service recognise that if we want world-class health care, we have to pay for it. The choice that we have made is to put the investment into the national health service. The choice for the hon. Gentleman, with respect, is whether he will match those extra resources.
Mrs. Joan Humble: I applaud the additional investment, especially in social services, and the announcement of additional resources to care for elderly people. That will certainly be welcomed by residents of Lancashire care homes and elderly people supported in the community. Will my right hon. Friend also discuss with local authorities the need to invest in children's services? There are increasing numbers of children at risk who need support and this is an opportunity to offer them that support.
Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am very aware of the pressures in Lancashire, which she has raised with me in the past. We have taken fully into account the problems and pressures that social services face not just in providing better elderly care services but in improving children's care services. I hope that there is an opportunity for social services to plan ahead with confidence for the medium term with a very generous settlement over three years that allows some of these problems to be addressed in a stage-by-stage way. I also hope that social services will recognise that the best way forward for children's care and elderly care is for the health service and social services to work more co-operatively together.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr. Stuart Emslie, a risk control expert in his Department, that the NHS loses between 16 per cent. and 20 per cent. of its budget each year through fraud and mismanagement? If he does not agree, will he tell us the correct figure?
Mr. Milburn: No, because he did not say that. The figures that the Conservative party bandy about include the costs to the national health service of staff who are off sick. I know that the NHS is a good service, but not even we have been able to solve problems universally of staff sickness for all our staff.
Jonathan Shaw: Although the chief inspector will be independently appointed, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one criterion for appointment might be not having been a chief inspector of any other public service?
I know of my right hon. Friend's commitment to mental health services. Waiting for treatment, either in hospital or in the community, can be debilitating for people with a mental illness and their families. Mental health is a

729
primary problem in trying to resolve the issue of rough sleepers. Will my right hon. Friend make a commitment that the additional funding will be aimed at mental health services as well as all the other health services?
Mr. Milburn: It is very important that mental health services get their fare share of the additional resources. It is also very important, in my view, that we keep a clear eye on the key priorities for the national health service, not just to get waiting times down but to improve outcomes from cancer and coronary heart disease and to improve elderly care and mental health services. I say to my hon. Friend, in the spirit of friendship and also candour, that if we try to do everything at once, we will achieve nothing at all. It is very important that we keep focused on the issues that count.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Before the Secretary of State imposes this new level of audit and inspection, will he undertake to read last night's Reith lecture on the subject? Will he tell my constituents why they should have any confidence in his NHS plan when he has shown himself prepared to corrupt the administration of government, compromise the health care of my constituents and the welfare of health workers in my constituency in order to promote the political interests of the Labour party?
Mr. Milburn: Frankly, those comments are beneath even the hon. Gentleman.
Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hundreds of cancer patients in Grimsby and Cleethorpes have to pay £5 to cross the Humber bridge to gain access to treatment in Hull hospitals? Will anything be done, using the extra funding, to make
730
journeys to hospital much easier for those people? I am finding it hard to convince them that the NHS is based on need, not ability to pay.
Mr. Milburn: I was not aware of the problem that my hon. Friend raises. Again, such decisions are best taken locally rather than nationally. There will be scope, more freedom and, of course, extra resources, for local health services to decide what their priorities are. However, people in the health service must understand that the extra resources do not come easy; there are strings attached. Most importantly, the health service must understand that every penny of extra investment must be properly accounted for. I do not provide the extra investment, the taxpayers do, and they must have a good deal, just like patients.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I could not agree more with the Secretary of State when he says that the NHS cannot be run by Whitehall. He will be aware of the significant staff recruitment problems that exist in parts of the country. Can he clarify what new flexibility he is prepared to give to foundation hospitals and whether those hospitals will be able to pay in accordance with local labour market conditions as opposed to being constrained by national wage bargaining?
Mr. Milburn: As far as the foundation hospitals and pay systems are concerned, I think that the hon. Lady is aware that we are negotiating with the various trade unions a new system of pay called "Agenda for Change" for the national health service. It will seek to combine a national framework of pay with local flexibility. Foundations hospitals will be able to use those local flexibilities to give appropriate rewards to NHS staff.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is important that we move on to the next business. However, we will be returning to debate this subject on Tuesday of next week.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 April].
  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.

    (2) Subject to paragraph (3) below, this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

    (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

    (c) for any relief, other than a relief that—

    (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

    (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

    (3) Paragraph (2) above does not exclude the making of amendments with respect to value added tax providing for relief on the acquisition from another member State of any goods in relation to which, if they were imported from a place outside the member States, relief would be given by an order under section 37 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

    Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  2.19 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: May I begin by declaring the interests that appear in the Register of Members' Interests?
  Yesterday's Budget was the first since the Government's general election victory only 10 months ago. Pundits were critical of the quality of that campaign, but something clear and important was at the centre of the political debate. Time and again, Ministers and Labour politicians were asked what would happen when the end of their planning period for public expenditure, 2003–04, was reached. It was suggested that there would have to be either a reduction in the rate of growth of public spending, or a further round of tax increases if the Government carried on increasing public spending.
  Time and again, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister went out of their way to deny that there would need to be further tax increases in the middle of the Government's second term to finance a further increase in public spending. For example, the Prime Minister was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on "Newsnight" about the guarantee not to abolish the national insurance ceiling. Paxman said:
  "I am merely asking why you could give this guarantee last time, but you can't give it this time, and whether any reasonable person wouldn't suppose that you therefore propose to increase national insurance contributions."
  732
  The Prime Minister replied, "They shouldn't". That was on 22 May 2001, less than a year ago. In the same campaign, the Prime Minister wrote in the Daily Express:
  "We are not going to clobber people on higher incomes…We have not the slightest intention of hammering people on £30,000 and £35,000 and the higher income brackets."
  Yesterday, however, in the first Budget since those election promises were made, the Chancellor came to the House and broke the assurances that he and other Labour party members gave during the election campaign. The Chancellor took the first opportunity that arose, in his first Budget after the election, to trample on the promises that he had made to help get himself elected.
  There was no apology, nor any humility. In fact, Labour Back-Bench Members cheered the tax increases even more loudly than they had cheered the promises made to secure their election in the first place.
  Even more shocking than the cynicism with which those pledges were broken is the scale of the increase in the tax take. In the final year of the Conservative Government, the tax take was approximately £270 billion. Next year, it will be £407 billion. At the end of the Chancellor's planning period, it will be £520 billion. That is an enormous increase in the total amount of tax taken over the lifetimes of the two Labour Governments since 1997. We are entitled to ask—as we will throughout the debate—how the taxes are being increased, who will bear the burden, and what will be given by the Government in return.
  At the heart of the tax increases announced yesterday is the dramatic rise in national insurance contributions. For employees and employers, the combined rate will be a very heavy 23.8 per cent. However, the Chancellor was up to his old tricks yesterday. He referred to the national insurance increases, and to a set of measures designed to help the environment and provide specific assistance for business. We have examined the way in which he presented the changes.
  I entirely support the Government's aim of helping the environment. The Chancellor yesterday produced a set of measures to that end, and chapter 7 of the Red Book is entitled "Protecting the Environment". The measures add up to slightly less than £100 million. Some of the measures in the table to which the Chancellor referred in his Budget are marked with an asterisk, showing that their cost is "negligible".
  The Chancellor gave his attention to environmental measures with a combined impact of less than £100 million, and devoted fewer words to the proposed rise in national increase insurance contributions, worth £7.5 billion. Those proposals include the abolition, in practice, of the upper earnings limit. The Chancellor will now collect additional national insurance contributions at the rate of 1 per cent. from people's total income, including any income above the old upper earnings limit.
  National insurance now has a very odd structure, and one that no rational person would be able to defend. There are personal allowances, and rates for employers of 12.8 per cent. and for employees of 11 per cent. The latter rate has now been raised by 1 per cent., but what is to stop the Chancellor raising that figure again, by 1.5 per cent. or 2 per cent., in the future? The right hon. Gentleman has created a new revenue raiser that he will be able to use whenever he wants to raise taxes still higher.

  733
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or the Chancellor will assure the House that the extra 1 per cent. added to employees' national insurance contributions will not be raised again in the future. If no such assurance is given, we will know what the Chancellor's future stealth tax is going to be. Whatever promises he makes on value added tax or personal income tax, the Chancellor will be able to return to that extra 1 per cent. on employees' national insurance contributions. Gradually—and it may take a few years—he will achieve what John Smith tried to do 10 years ago. The upper earnings limit will be abolished. Over time, the full rate of national insurance contributions will apply to the total of employees' incomes. This is the start of the process.
  James Purnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I should be happy to give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who was a policy adviser before he became an MP, will say whether he thinks the Government should give the assurance that there will be no further increases in national insurance contributions.
  James Purnell: As someone once said, we ask the questions in this matter.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wants to go back 10 years, but he advised the previous, Conservative Government between 1979 and 1992. In that period, the income of people in the lowest 10 per cent. fell in absolute terms by 17 per cent. He has said that he does not recognise those figures, as the Hansard record shows. However, the same figures were accepted by Nicholas Timmins, who I believe is a great friend of the hon. Gentleman's. The source of the figures is the Office for National Statistics, so they are official Government statistics. The hon. Gentleman claims to be on the side of the poor. Will he apologise—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not begin to make a speech.
  Mr. Willetts: I hope to turn to the Government's record on poverty later in my speech. I still do not recognise the figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I want to know where the extra revenues indicated by the extraordinary figures for the increase in the tax take are being spent. The Chancellor's Budget statement focused on the national health service. This morning, I asked the House of Commons Library to supply the figures for spending on health and benefits in 1996–97, the final year in office of the previous Conservative Government. The Red Book shows that health spending will amount to £72.1 billion next year. I also asked the Library what the total of spending on benefits and tax credits will be next year. Many of those credits ought to be counted as benefits expenditure. A lot of them used to be so counted, but they have been miraculously redefined by this Government.
  I see that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who asked about poverty, has left the Chamber. It is regrettable that he has not stayed to hear my answer.
  734
  Adding together the tax credits and the social security budget, one discovers that the total increase in spending on social security and tax credits between 1996–97 and 2003–04 is bigger than the increase in health spending.
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): In cash terms.
  Mr. Willetts: I am comparing cash spent on health in 1996–97 with that to be spent in 2003–04, and cash spent on benefits in 1996–97 with cash to be spent on benefits and tax credits in 2003–04. It is an entirely consistent comparison. What it shows is that the extra money—the biggest single increase—is not for health or education but for the Chancellor's personal preoccupation—tax credits—added back in to the social security budget. All those promises that we were going to save money on welfare to put the extra money into health and education have been broken, too. A big increase in welfare expenditure has been redefined and redescribed as tax credits.
  Mr. Darling: I shall happily plead guilty to spending more on pensioners and more on children. Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that, as a result of getting more people into work, we are spending about £5 billion a year less on the dole than was spent when he was advising the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Willetts: I am considering the total budget for social security and credits. I have observed that it is striking how, under this Government, the big increases in expenditure, for example, are in other areas of benefits. We welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen, but I am considering the total budget for expenditure on social security and credits. That is what has gone up—it has gone up by more than health and by more than education.
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures—I know that, in these debates, he cannot wait to bury his head in the figures, a fact about which I am happy in many ways—will he not accept that expenditure has gone up because we have deliberately increased expenditure on pensions and on support for families with children? If we had not done that, the rate of spending on social security would be falling compared with that under his Government. We are spending more because we have chosen to do so on children and pensions—spending which he and the Conservative party have vehemently opposed.
  Mr. Willetts: All I can say is that the Government's original claim was that they would save money on social security to put more into health and education. We are now being told, "It's all right. Yes, we are spending a lot more on social security and credits but we've chosen to do it."
  I now want to consider whether the extra increase in expenditure on social security and credits has been effective in terms of the objective that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State set themselves—the attack on child poverty. The Chancellor will recall not just the commitment that he gave to tackling child poverty—an entirely admirable objective—but his claim during the election campaign, repeated in the Labour manifesto, that the Government had reduced the number of children who

  735
  were in poverty by 1 million. Let me quote the manifesto on which the Government were elected, which masqueraded as an accurate historical statement:
  "over 1 million children have been taken out of poverty."
  That is what the electors were told at the last election. However, I am afraid that, even buried in the Chancellor's Red Book yesterday, there was evidence that they have simply failed to deliver what was presented in the manifesto as a matter of historical fact. I shall quote from the discussion of child poverty on page 90 of the Red Book:
  "By 2000–01 the number of children in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income"—
  the measure of poverty that the Government used—
  "had fallen by 0.3 million compared with 1998–99 and by 0.5 million compared with 1996–97".
  There was thus no 1 million reduction in the number of children in poverty on the Government's preferred measure. The Budget showed that the performance was half that, at best. The Chancellor has shown in his own Red Book that the assertions that he made during the election campaign on the Government's record on child poverty were simply not correct.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman first accept that, as we have raised the level of incomes, the median income has also gone up? We have therefore set ourselves a higher target to jump over than was ever in existence under his Government. Will he return to the question that he did not answer previously: is it not true that, during the time he was giving advice to the Conservative Government, the bottom 10 per cent. of the population's incomes fell, in real terms, by 17 per cent.? Will he therefore apologise for the advice that he gave?
  Mr. Willetts: As I said, I do not recognise the figure of 17 per cent. When I look at the Government's figures for households on below-average incomes, I see a pattern of the number of children in poverty, on various measures, rising in some periods and falling in others. In fact, if one compares the Government's record on child poverty not with 1996–97 but with a few years earlier, one finds that the Government have carefully chosen their base year—they chose a point when child poverty had gone up; child poverty was lower two years earlier. For all the huffing and puffing and extra expenditure, all they have done is to take the rate of child poverty back to what it was in 1994–95.
  I therefore question whether the policy decisions that have been taken, supposedly with the justification of reducing child poverty, have achieved the results that were claimed for them on the Government's preferred indicator. The consultation document on poverty that the Government have just released—I have not yet had the opportunity to study it, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to discuss it further—is an attempt to redefine the target. When they fail to achieve the target, they redefine it. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State and the Chancellor that they will continue to be judged by the measure of child poverty that they used when they first set the target. That was 60 per cent. of median income, which was clearly the measure that they
  736
  first used when they said that they were going to take I million children out of poverty during their first term, and that they were eventually going to eliminate child poverty. If, after four years, they have failed to achieve that target, it is not acceptable simply to announce that they are going to change the target. That is not good enough. I look forward to hearing an assurance from the Secretary of State that that is not the case.
  Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not recognise the figures for the increase in child poverty under his Government. What figures does he recognise?
  Mr. Willetts: I recall, as I quoted them, the latest figures on the number of children in households on below-average incomes, on the measure of 60 per cent. below median income. I also recall a Social Security Committee report—I do not see the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his place—that considered what had happened to the real value of benefits to people on the lowest incomes. That report showed that it had increased significantly during our period in office.
  I would happily have a longer historical debate, but I want to challenge the Government on why they have not met the target that they thought they had met. It is not just that they have failed to meet it, full stop—I am genuinely sure that the Chancellor was not trying to mislead us when he said, during the election campaign, that 1 million children had been taken out of poverty. When he said that in the election campaign and put it in the manifesto, he thought that it was true. Why did he think it was true, then, when it is clearly not true, now, on his own figures? The explanation is very important. Instead of putting all this effort into redefining the target, he ought to be thinking about why what he thought had happened has not happened.
  The reason for this failure is take-up. The modelling and the evidence that the Chancellor was using, to which he refers again in his Red Book, assumes that his benefits and his new tax credits were going to enjoy 100 per cent. take-up. We all see the marvellous captions and graphs that the Treasury puts into its Red Books—some of which appear in the newspapers and on the television—showing how much better off a family will be in various circumstances. Those illustrations assume that everybody receives those benefits and credits, but they do not. They do not do so because the Chancellor has made the system so complicated, and has changed it so frequently, that we face a catastrophically low level of take-up of his pet tax credits. That is why he thought that he had taken I million children out of poverty when, in fact, he had not; he had taken only half a million out of poverty.
  I once asked the Paymaster General—I am sorry that she is not here—a simple question:
  "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families … are eligible for (i) the working families tax credit and (ii) the child care tax credit."—[Official Report, 15 November 2001; Vol. 374. c. 842W.]
  I did not get an answer about eligibility at all—I got an answer about the number of families in receipt of the working families tax credit. The Treasury will not answer questions about take-up or about the gap between the number of people who are eligible and the number who receive the benefit.

  737
  I am pleased to see that both the Chancellor and the Secretary of State are present, because I must tell the Chancellor that the Department for Work and Pensions provides much better information and explicitly investigates take-up of means-tested benefits in a way that the Treasury refuses to do. One of the problems is that, as the Chancellor gradually takes over these benefits, the level of public information, which enables us to assess take-up, declines. In fact, the only material that we have is a Department for Work and Pensions research report that suggested that take-up of the working families tax credit is running at an average of 62 per cent. among all eligible families. That is 10 per cent. lower than the take-up of the old family credit. It is running at an incredibly low 31 per cent. among eligible dual-earner couples, and at 49 per cent. among all eligible couples. In other words, fewer than half the couples eligible for the working families tax credit actually receive it. That is why the Chancellor thought that he had taken I million children out of poverty when he had not.
  The gap in the Chancellor's strategy is that he has nothing to say about how he will increase take-up, apart from spending ever more money on the advertising budget. However, the real problem is not that the advertising budget is too low but the complexity and confusion for which he is responsible. He has imposed on families an incredibly complicated set of changes that go right back to 1999. That is when he proudly announced the working families tax credit—I now quote the normally sober pages of the Financial Times—assisted by
  "Dennis the Menace, Postman Pat and a Womble."
  After he had launched the working families tax credit, he took them back to the Treasury and asked them to help him to design the next credit—and the next one.
  Between 1999 and 2003, we will have had the following: the abolition of family credit, the introduction of the working families tax credit, the introduction of the child care tax credit, the abolition of the married couples allowance, the introduction of an employment credit, the introduction of the children's tax credit, the introduction of a baby tax credit, the abolition of the working families tax credit, the abolition of the children's tax credit, the abolition of the baby tax credit, the introduction of a child tax credit, the abolition of the employment credit and the introduction of a working tax credit. That is what the Chancellor will have done between 1999 and 2003. It averages out as a new tax credit for families every six months.
  Helen Southworth: That is good, supporting families.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Lady says that it is good, but how many of her constituents can find their way through the system that the Chancellor has created? That is why he has the problem of low take-up.
  Further complexity was buried in the Red Book published yesterday. We thought that the changes would happen in April 2003, but that is no longer the case. Instead, the planned start is April 2003, and I hope that Treasury Ministers will give us a bit more detail about how the system is supposed to work. However, the child tax credit is no longer being introduced in one stage in 2003. Instead, we will have a process of migration whereby some people move on to the child tax credit in
  738
  October 2003 and others do not move on to it until April 2004. The Chancellor will be running two systems in 2003–04.
  At one point, the pension credit was supposed to be introduced in April 2003, but that will now happen in October 2003. The Child Support Agency was supposed to be introducing its reforms in April of this year—before that, it was supposed to be at the end of 2001—but those changes have been deferred with no new date given.
  I do not know why the Government drove information technology experts abroad with IR35, because they will need them to introduce all the changes. The danger is that, between 2002 and 2004, we shall have nothing less than a total shambles as the Government try to introduce all the new schemes. The pension credit will be on the old computer and then it will be on a new one. We do not have a date for the Child Support Agency changes and the child tax credit will he phased in over three stages. Our constituents and poor people are expected to find their way through the system so that they can enjoy the increases in their incomes that Ministers have boasted about. The danger is that people will not be able to find their way through the maze that Ministers have created. That is the problem with their record.
  Mr. Connarty: I can give the hon. Gentleman a figure. Some 1,881 families in my constituency will receive the increase in the working families tax credit that is coming in. He seemed to be suggesting—although he appeared to lose his way—that failures resulted from people's failure to take up the credit. However, he and his colleagues need to do what I am trying to do. Everyone who needs advice from me or from local authorities should be able to receive it so that they can fill in the forms correctly and take up the tax credits to which they are entitled. Will he assure me that he will campaign among his colleagues so that they will provide similar advice, thereby ensuring that their constituents receive the credits that the Chancellor is offering them? Or will the hon. Gentleman leave people in poverty because it suits his political ends?
  Mr. Willetts: Of course I want people to receive the benefits to which they are legally entitled. I urge people to take up the working families tax credit. When that is abolished, as it will be in less than a year, and reappears in a different form, I will urge them to take that up as well. I will even put in a bit of effort to try to explain the Chancellor's changes. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do something in return, however. Will he table a parliamentary question that does not just ask how many of his constituents receive the working families tax credit but asks how many are eligible for it? Will he then come back and tell the House what he thinks about the take-up of that credit? We can then have a serious debate about the problem that I am trying to draw to the attention of the House.
  The Chancellor has created a structure that is so complicated that we have a problem with take-up. If it were just a disaster for the welfare and social security system, we might be able to write it off as a tragic mistake. However, the same problem appears in a completely different area of policy that is the Chancellor's other great preoccupation. He is almost as interested in productivity as he is in creating new tax credits.
  Lynne Jones: I do not know whether this will surprise the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with his concerns about

  739
  the complexities of the tax credits. But he has not said what he would do to increase work incentives and to assist poor families. Does he agree that it would be better to put additional resources into substantially increasing child benefit and to claw the money back from better-off families through a progressive tax system?
  Mr. Willetts: Perhaps I might take this opportunity to say what I think the Chancellor should have done. He missed an opportunity when he came to office. He could have achieved everything that he wanted to achieve with the family credit. He did not need to go through four years of structural turbulence and change. All that he needed to do was put more money into the family credit.
  We argued all along that there was no evidence to support the view that it was important to deliver the in-work top-up through the payroll. We asked the Treasury about the mystical significance of paying benefits through the payroll, but it did not provide any empirical evidence to support its approach. No such evidence exists.
  In this Budget, in one respect at least, the Chancellor is following the advice that we offered him. He is returning to paying most family payments to the caring parent. He has abandoned the belief that that money needs to go through the payroll, but he has unfortunately created a new payroll benefit instead. The working tax credit, which will largely go to a different group of people, has been carefully designed so that it does not go to the people who tend to be poor. He has excluded the under-25s and they tend to have particularly low incomes. He has created a new payroll benefit, but most family payments will go back to being the benefits that they should have been all along. It is a pity that we have had to have this elaborate detour in the course of which many hundreds of thousands of people who are entitled to the tax credits have not been able to receive them.
  Lynne Jones: Although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the take-up of family credit was higher than for the working families tax credit, the evidence is that that occurred merely because the family credit was in existence for longer. His solution would still face the problem of inadequate take-up. For family credit, take-up was about 75 per cent.
  Mr. Willetts: The take-up of family credit was, indeed, rising, and I hope that the take-up of the tax credits will rise. The increase in the take-up of the family credit is another reason why the Chancellor's policy in 1999 was a mistake. He had something that was becoming widely understood, and the take-up of family credit was up to 91 per cent. However, instead of sticking with the credit, he believed in a year-zero fallacy. Labour Members believed that nothing had happened before 1997 unless it was terrible.
  The Chancellor could not bring himself to say that the incomes of people in low-paid jobs had already been boosted by family credit and that he wished to put more money into it. He had to pretend that there was no help for low-paid families before 1997, and that is why he had to have a new benefit with a new name so that he could write family credit out of history. That is part of what he did, and the losers are those who have suffered from the
  740
  catastrophic fall in take-up. I hope that the take-up of the Chancellor's new tax credits will rise. However, the chances of the take-up of the new working tax credit becoming high are pretty slim. Let us hope that he achieves a high level of take-up.
  I am trying to argue that the problem is not a one-off. I am arguing that exactly the same can be seen with productivity—the other thing with which the Chancellor is preoccupied. His record on productivity is exactly the same as with all his credits—endless initiatives, with the aim of improving the productivity of the British economy.
  As with the attempt to reduce child poverty, it would also be a very good thing if our economy's productivity were to increase. We would like productivity to improve, and in every Budget—this one is no exception—we see a long list of specific measures that are supposed to improve the productivity of the British economy. Meanwhile, what happens to its productivity? The answer is that it is somewhere around average and, if anything, its performance is declining compared with our historical record of the past few years.
  The Chancellor's measures to increase productivity are having no effect whatsoever on productivity. Given that we as a country spend rather more on information technology and have been at the head of its introduction—ahead of many countries in euroland—we would expect, other things being equal, our productivity performance to exceed theirs. In fact, our productivity performance is roughly similar to the European average, despite unusually high spending on IT, suggesting that we are significantly underperforming in all other respects. So we have exactly the same phenomenon—we have endless fiddling, tinkering interventions, with no impact on the thing that the Chancellor claims he is trying to address.
  The pattern with this Chancellor is that he is best at the things in which he is not interested. His biggest single triumph as Chancellor was to take his hands off monetary policy and give independence to the central bank. [Interruption.] Yes, we now recognise that that has been a great success. We support it and believe that it has significantly improved the conduct of British macroeconomic policy. The Chancellor's giving the conduct of monetary policy to an independent central bank has worked. Since then, however, he has put his restless intellectual energies and those of his Department into other objectives—productivity and the tax credits—and that is where he is failing to deliver. He is best at the things that he gives to others and worst at the things that he insists on fiddling with himself.
  Mr. Steve Webb: For the record, will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of which of the three main parties included the independence of the central bank in its 1997 manifesto?
  Mr. Willetts: I thought that there were only two main parties. I presume from the hon. Gentleman's leading question that perhaps the party that he represents advocated an independent central bank. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is in his place, and he will know that we had already made progress towards that policy before 1997. Nevertheless, it has been a great success, but if the Chancellor looks at his table on long-term interest rates, he will clearly see that those rates were already falling in the mid-1990s, as we gave greater operational independence to the Bank of England.

  741
  I will not cavil, however. We welcome the achievement of the independent central bank, but the Chancellor should not then have started to fiddle with other things instead. The more attention a policy gets, the less successful its delivery. That is the tragedy of his chancellorship. We would like the Chancellor or the Secretary of State to tell us about some of the other things about which they promised they would be radical, but on which the Budget was almost completely silent.
  What has happened to the savings gateway and the child trust fund? We were told that that was the transforming idea for this Parliament and that it would change the nature of the welfare state. Needless to say—this is typical of the Government—there are three pilot projects in obscure parts of the country, with a report due in two or three years. The Government got their headlines during the last election campaign by promising radical delivery of that policy, but absolutely nothing has happened.
  What about pensions? In the past few months, there has been a catastrophic decline in people's prospects of enjoying an income from their funded pensions when they retire, as one company scheme after another has closed to new members. That is a direct consequence of the decision that the Chancellor took in his 1997 Budget to impose a new tax on pension funds. What does he have to say about that in his Red Book? He says that
  "the Government is concerned that a number of employers have taken the opportunity to reduce their pension contributions."
  He can say that again.
  The prospect of millions more people being dependent on means-tested benefits in future as a result of the closure of their final salary pension schemes is the most important single change currently taking place that will affect the Department for Work and Pensions, so the Government's being concerned is really not good enough. I hope that the Secretary of State will attempt in his speech to say what the Government will do about that very serious problem.
  The Conservative party has been open-minded about the reform of health care. The Chancellor's Budget statement, the Red Book and today's statement make it clear that the Government have a closed mind. They do not believe that we can learn from the continent of Europe how to organise health care in future. I think that we can learn from Europe. The Budget represents a missed opportunity, and the reason why the Opposition will not support the Budget tax increases in the Divisions on Tuesday is very simple.
  The Chancellor looks to the continent of Europe when it comes to increasing the tax burden, regulating the labour market and imposing new burdens on business. In other words, he copies the worst aspects of the continental European model. However, when it comes to how health care systems are organised in continental Europe and how those systems ensure the mixed financing of health care, which clearly works and is a success story, he closes his mind and rules out options that can be developed by learning from how things are done on the continent. He has got things exactly the wrong way around. He should learn from the things on the continent that work, not from the things there that do not work. That is why we oppose the Budget.
  2.56 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): Talking of continental Europe, I understand that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is going to Germany tomorrow to address his sister party on the revival of conservatism. One cannot help but have a great deal of sympathy for the audience that he will address. I hope that what he has to say tomorrow will be rather more illuminating than what he had to say about the Budget this afternoon. I am sure that his audience will be absolutely fascinated by his critique of the wiring of the Child Support Agency computer system and by the fact that his mind has gone completely blank in relation to what happened to poverty 10 years ago, when he was advising the then Conservative Government.
  Had the man from Mars arrived in the Chamber this afternoon, he would have been forgiven for not believing that this is the first day of four-day Budget debate, not least because the shadow Chancellor is not even in the Chamber—let alone opening the debate, as used to be the case on such occasions. The shadow Secretary of State certainly could not be accused of concentrating on the big picture. He had precious little to say about health. In particular, he could not tell us whether the Conservative party proposed to match the increased funding that we announced yesterday. He could not tell us whether he believed that we should spend more or less on the fight against poverty and helping families with children. He had absolutely nothing to say on the economy—which, after all, ought to be central to any Budget debate.
  One of the key differences between this debate and the Budget debates that we used to have years ago is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out his Budget proposals yesterday from a position of almost unprecedented strength and stability in the British economy. Five years ago and in successive Budgets, we set a course for stability in the economy not just for one or two years, but for the long term. We took the necessary tough decisions right at the start of that Parliament, and we took more necessary decisions yesterday.
  It is interesting that the shadow Secretary of State gave us credit for one policy—giving independence to the Bank of England. As he rightly said, that has been one of the principal ingredients in building that long-term economic stability. The hon. Gentleman then had the gall to say that the Conservatives were secretly in favour of that policy and were working towards something that we always thought they opposed. That casts new light on what was going on in the Treasury when they were in government: they were making steady progress towards something that they said on every occasion they were against.
  Indeed, the only time that I ever heard Conservative politicians say that they were in favour of an independent Bank of England was when a Chancellor left office. When they made their resignation speeches, they said that they were in favour of something that they had always said they opposed. Perhaps that explains why 10 years ago to this very year, the Conservative Government presided over a catastrophic mess in the economy, which largely contributed to their defeat four years later.
  Sir Michael Spicer rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall now give way to somebody else to whom Labour Members owe a great deal, because he, too, contributed substantially to his party's defeat five years ago.
  Sir Michael Spicer: On the Monetary Policy Committee and the independence of the central bank, is it not the case that, if that has been a success, one reason is that the Government have been protected from their own Back Benchers when they have pressed the Government to break the inflation target? When I was on the Treasury Committee, we were constantly faced with Labour Members trying to get the Government to break the inflation target. Is it not right that the reason why the Government have not is that they are hiding behind the Monetary Policy Committee?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows a thing or two about the trouble that Back Benchers can cause their Government. If the last Prime Minister were here, he would have something to say about the hon. Gentleman; indeed, my recollection is that he had a very unparliamentary term for the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues.
  We gave the bank independence, which helped to produce stability, low interest rates and lower mortgage rates, but we have introduced other important policies. The latest figures show that 1.5 million more people are in employment, which is a significant achievement when the House remembers that in the mid-1980s more than 300,000 young people were on the dole for over a year; today's figure is about 4,500, which is a measure of how far we have travelled and the changes that we have made. It is not just about the monetary decisions we have made, but about the other decisions that the Chancellor has made.
  Yesterday, building on that strength and stability, the Chancellor outlined the three challenges facing us: encouraging enterprise; taking the next steps to end child poverty and providing more support for families with children, as well as making work pay; and building on our investment in public services, especially the health service, to which I shall return shortly.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I want to deal with the steps that we have taken over the past five years to achieve our goals, but before doing so, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) who, I recall, spent many happy years in the Treasury secretly working towards the independence of the Bank of England.
  Mr. Jack: May I refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory? The British economy has been growing for the past 10 years—five years under the Labour Government, and five under the Conservative Government. Yesterday, the present Government reaffirmed the 2.5 inflation target which we set and worked towards. We strengthened public finances, admittedly after a period of economic difficulty resulting from a cyclical downturn. Will the Secretary of State at least acknowledge that under the
  744
  chancellorship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the foundations for the strength of the British economy were put in place?
  Mr. Darling: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a great supporter and admirer of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), if not his predecessors. He referred to economic difficulties; they could also be characterised as two of the longest and deepest recessions of the last century. In the five years since we came to office there have been two economic downturns, the most recent caused by what happened in the United States last year. The key difference between Britain now and Britain in the past, not just under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, to be fair, but under Labour Governments as well, is that we could weather those downturns because we took steps to ensure that we have a fundamentally strong economy.
  I dare say that, later in our debate, the good professor will bleat about what we ought to have been done in the first two years of the last Parliament. However, because we made a difficult and tough decision to stick to the spending totals that we inherited, we were able to repay huge amounts of debt to put the economy in a much stronger position. That is the key difference between what we have done in the past five years under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the miserable rollercoaster regime of the last Government, of whom the right hon. Member for Fylde was a member.
  We established stability; building on it, we have been able to switch spending to our priorities. In addition, because we have cut debt and unemployment, we have been able to release resources to spend on public services and help families and pensioners, which simply did not happen in the past. It is worth remembering that as a result of the reduction in debt interest payments, we have released £8 billion and saved almost £5 billion in unemployment costs because we have been able to help more people into work. By cutting debt and unemployment, we have been able to tackle the backlog of under-investment that we inherited.
  All that has been going on for the past five years. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the way in which we can build on that work, setting out both the money that is now available for the next spending review period and, critically, plans to put more money into the health service, which everyone agrees is necessary.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: Before I deal with what we are doing to get people into work, I happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
  Mr. Connarty: My right hon. Friend may cover the point I wish to make when he talks about work. The Opposition gave money away to their friends when they privatised the utilities, but we took it back to create the new deal and put people back into work. They looked after the few, but we looked after the many, which is why we have the reward of so much employment while they had so much unemployment.
  Jonathan Shaw: But they were thinking about doing what we did.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East is right, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham

  745
  and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) is also right: we do not have the slightest doubt that the hon. Member for Havant will maintain that the Conservatives were secretly working towards a windfall tax on the utilities, but never got round to telling us that that was their policy.
  It is worth reflecting that the figures from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work show that the number of people in work has reached a new high of more than 28 million. Last month saw the third consecutive monthly fall in the number of people claiming unemployment benefit. I have never sought to make too much of one month or even a short run of favourable figures but, bearing in mind the dire predictions last autumn, particularly by the shadow Chancellor, whose judgment on this is as flawed as it is on other subjects, it is a significant achievement that, because of the strength of the economy, we have got more people into work.
  Despite that, however, we must do much more; many people are still not in work, but ought to be. A key step in the Budget is to make sure that we break down the barriers that prevent people from getting work; in particular, we must make work pay. The Budget will be remembered for a significant and major change in tax and benefit policy. For years, people have argued and campaigned for the integration of the tax and benefit system; we are starting that process with the working tax credit and the child tax credit, which the Chancellor announced yesterday. The Budget builds on the measures that we have already taken to make work pay; it supports children, whether their parents are in or out of work; it tackles child poverty; and it ensures, critically, that the tax and benefit system helps people when they most need it—for example, when they first start work or are looking after young children.
  It is important that the House realises the difference that the Budget makes; perhaps the few Opposition Members present can tell their colleagues about that difference, because it will be directly relevant when they come to knock on their constituents' doors in a few years' time. The working tax credit, which helps single earners with wages of up to £10,500 a year and couples with incomes of up to £14,000 a year, provides significant assistance in ensuring that people without children, as well as people with children, realise that getting into work will result in a big difference to the money in their pocket. As the Chancellor said yesterday, the child tax credit will help families with incomes of up to £58,000; it will make a real difference by reducing the amount that many individuals pay in tax and will help many people.
  Our central economic objective is to get more people into work, as that is the best way of getting people out of poverty and opening doors for them that would otherwise remain closed. As a result of the new deal and other measures we made work possible, but we still had to do more to make sure that we tackled a problem in the welfare system that we inherited—making sure that it is worth while to take up a job. Over the past five years, we have introduced measures such as the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, all of which were opposed by the Conservatives. It is pretty clear from what the hon. Member for Havant said that they are still against those measures, and will remain so.
  The Budget takes those measures a step further. It will make work pay significantly more than benefits and it extends the help already available to families with children to all single people and couples on low incomes.
  746
  From next April the working tax credit will provide extra help for people over the age of 25. For example, for a couple with no children it will pay at least £183 a week—that is £53 more than at present. For a single disabled person, it will pay £22 more than now. A lone parent working full-time will be guaranteed £237 a week, as well as help with child care, making work pay £70 more than income support.
  That will make a real difference—something that never happened in the 18 years during which the hon. Member for Havant supported the Government or advised them behind the scenes, no doubt working secretly towards a policy of giving more to people when they got into work. Perhaps I will go to Germany tomorrow to see what else he was working towards but not telling us.
  It is critical, as we have always said, that new rights are matched by new responsibilities. We announced previously that as we extend the new Jobcentre Plus network across the country, we will require everybody of working age on benefit to come in for work-focused interviews. There will be more conditions attached to the receipt of benefit, because we believe that it is only right that if we offer more assistance to get into work, people ought at the very least to know about it, and an increasing number of people will be required to do something actively to help themselves become independent. Last autumn I announced the new StepUp programme, which will start later this month in six areas and will be extended to 20 areas by the end of this year.
  We have found that where we require as a matter of course that people go on a two-week gateway in preparation for going on the new deal, there is a better chance of them getting into work, so we will extend that on a compulsory basis not just in central London, but to Manchester, Swansea and Dundee. It is extra help with more responsibility, and it works.
  We are also tackling a problem with which all hon. Members are familiar: older people who are continually drifting in and out of work. Because people cannot join the current new deal if they have been out of work for 18 months, many people miss out. Now, if they have been unemployed in any 18 of the past 36 months, they can join the new deal for the over-25s. Again, that is valued help and the evidence is that it works.
  Jim Knight: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the measure will also help seasonal workers? There are many in my constituency in the seaside towns of Swanage and Weymouth who go into employment during the summer when work is available in the tourism industry and then leave it in the winter. They fall out of many of the statistics and certainly out of eligibility for the new deal. Will the new measure make them eligible for such help?
  Mr. Darling: Those are precisely the people about whom we are concerned. Until now, because they came in and out of work, there was never a long enough period for us to help them. I cannot tell my hon. Friend when the programme will be extended to his constituency, but the preliminary evidence is that it works and we want to extend it.
  As the Chancellor said yesterday, I shall shortly announce a national campaign with employers and others to help get more lone parents into work. I am convinced that

  747
  we can do far better to get more lone parents into work. For obvious reasons, they are often much more motivated than others to get into work, and we are offering them more help and support. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that because of the interventions that we introduced, there are well over 100,000 fewer lone parents on income support than there were when we came into office.
  By building on stability, setting our priorities and cutting unemployment, we have been able to do more not just to make the country more economically efficient, but to make it a fairer country where more people can participate and get on. Sadly, the previous Government not only neglected that, but in many cases virulently opposed it.
  Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one aspect of people taking part and being treated fairly is that they have some protection in work? There have been 400 additional union agreements with employers this year, and we should be pleased about that. Working in partnership means that people have some sort of protection. I do not believe that the Opposition thought about that when they were in government.
  Mr. Darling: The Opposition were never too hot on looking after people who worked. They were the party which said, for example, that the minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs. The shadow Chancellor said that, and he has a rocky record on reliability. He was wrong on that, and my hon. Friend's comments are right.
  I turn to the measures that we announced yesterday to help families and children and the progress that we are making towards ending child poverty. It is an awful pity that although my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) asked the hon. Member for Havant a number of times—having given him notice of the question three weeks ago—the hon. Gentleman's mind was blank about what happened when he was the principal adviser to the Conservative party on these matters some 10 years ago.
  It is worth reflecting that in total, following all the personal tax and benefit changes that we have introduced since 1997—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should address the Chair?
  Mr. Darling: I shall address you with great pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to tell you of the good things that we have done since 1997. Following the changes that we have made, families with children will be on average £1,200 a year better off after inflation, and the poorest 20 per cent. of families will be on average £2,400 a year better off after inflation. That is a measure of how much we have done in five years.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: My right hon. Friend will recall that when he spoke to the all-party group on poverty at the end of February, he promised that a consultation document would be issued shortly on how the Government measure child poverty. Can he say more about that?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, I can. The hon. Member for Havant mentioned the document that we published. He had the decency to say that he had not read it, before going on to denounce its conclusions.
  748
  For the past three years the Government have published in their "Opportunity for All" series three separate measures of poverty—absolute poverty, persistent levels of poverty and relative poverty. We also set out measures of deprivation in relation to education, health and so on. All of them are important.
  Over the past year or so, academics and others have asked whether we would consider measuring poverty in different ways, as is the case in other countries. Indeed, the hon. Member for Havant said that we should go to other countries with open minds to see what is on offer. That is precisely what we are doing. When he is travelling round Europe looking at health systems, perhaps he should also look at the way in which poverty is measured there.
  We are setting out in clear terms what we have done and possible alternative ways of measuring poverty, many of which owe much to Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics. The Government are neutral on whether or not we change the measures that we use. We have an open mind. We are consulting and we will hear what people have to say. One thing is important, however. On any measure whatsoever, child poverty in this country is coming down. The Conservatives could never say that.
  It is obvious, especially in respect of relative poverty, that as a result of what we are doing, even at a time when the country's wealth is growing spectacularly, we are narrowing the gap between the richest and the poorest in the country. That is a measure of how much we are doing. The child tax credit which comes in next year will for the first time provide a single system of income-related support for families and children. That in itself will make a major contribution towards the eradication of child poverty.
  Mr. Willetts rose—
  Mr. Darling: I dare say that all the time—and I did not know it!—the hon. Gentleman was working towards an anti-poverty strategy. Let us hear all about it.
  Mr. Willetts: I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. I look forward to reading his paper. Of course there are many ways of measuring child poverty, but we need an assurance that the target which he, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister set of taking 1 million children out of poverty and eliminating child poverty using the measure of 60 per cent. of median income still stands. The right hon. Gentleman can measure poverty in many different ways, but his target was formulated in terms of 60 per cent. of median income. Does he stand by that target?
  Mr. Darling: The target that we set was to eradicate child poverty within a generation, and by 2004 to be a quarter of the way towards that. The public service agreement target is in place and we will stick to it. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are about a third of the way towards meeting it in time, and about a third of the way along in terms of the number of children removed from poverty. I thank him very much for raising that point; I much appreciate it.
  Mr. Willetts rose—
  Mr. Darling: I have answered the hon. Gentleman. He asked me about the PSA target, and I said that we were

  749
  sticking to it. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly, but I want to make some progress. I am very conscious that he overstayed his welcome; I do not want to do the same.
  Let me return to the child tax credit. One of the big differences that it makes is that, for the first time, the tax system will recognise parents' obligations towards their children and the new demands that they bring. It allows parents to get help when they need it most and to take a break from their work without the catastrophic drop in income that they might otherwise have suffered. It treats families equitably. Alongside child benefit, on which it builds, the child tax credit provides support to families with incomes of up to £58,000, paid to the main carer. Some 90 per cent. of families will benefit, and many Budget commentators have noted the great effect that the policy has on so many families. Despite yesterday's national insurance increase, many families will gain from substantial reductions in the amount that they pay because of its implementation.
  To pave the way towards the more generous credit, we will increase the child allowances in income support and jobseeker's allowance by £3.50 a week from October this year. That will mean that the amount paid to parents on income support to help them support their children will have gone up by 85 per cent. since 1997. We are also introducing other measures such as the extension of support for child care costs to help with approved child care in people's homes. That will particularly help people on shift work, who have had difficulties in the past.
  All in all, we are introducing measures that will make a great deal of difference to many people and families in this country. Every single measure is opposed by the Conservative party. I listened to what the hon. Member for Havant had to say about these measures, but it returned us to the same problem that the Conservatives have with health. What they are against is spending more money, whether on health, tackling poverty or supporting families. I have considered the hon. Gentleman's argument; indeed, he has produced the same one month after month, so I can assure hon. Members who do not usually attend such debates that they get no better. He has a familiar style and always returns to the same point: he is against complexity. However, he has had to admit, as even the professor who speaks for the Liberals admits, that no matter what happens, support must be provided for people on low incomes. Inevitably, that means making some sort of assessment of people's need and income, but when it comes down to it, the Conservatives are against the fact that we are spending more money. When they say that they want a simpler system, they really mean that they want a meaner one. The hon. Gentleman kept mentioning family credit, hut when we consider the family credit system to which he is so attached, we see that it is far from simple. Like the basic state pension, people think that it is simple, but it is complex when it is considered in detail.
  When the Government came to office, lone parents were receiving an average of about £58 a week from family credit. By November last year, after the introduction of the working families tax credit, they were getting an average of more than £88 a week—£30 a week more. The amount will increase again as a result of the Budget. That is what upsets the Conservatives: the fact that we are spending more money.
  750
  So the argument is not about whether to help families on low and modest incomes, but about the level at which that help is set. There is nothing complex about that, as the hon. Member for Havant will find out when he knocks on doors at the next election. Even if he cannot do the maths, he will find that the voters can, just as he found when he proposed the abolition of the winter fuel payment, on which I seem to remember that the maths was also straightforward. Opposition Members need to focus on this point: for families with an income of less than £50,000 a year, the child tax credit will guarantee support for a first child of £26.50 a week, compared with only £11 in 1997. For families with an income of less than £13,000, it will guarantee an income of £54.25 a week, whether the parents are in or out of work. That is almost double the help that was available in 1997; it is about £28 a week more.
  Even if the Conservatives cannot do the maths, families can. So too can pensioners, about whom the hon. Gentleman's argument is exactly the same. He is against the fact that the pension credit, which will take effect next year, will benefit about half of all pensioners. On average, it will give pensioner households about £400 a year. If the hon. Gentleman is against that, it is fine by me, but he will have some explaining to do. Not only are pensioners who pay tax not affected by the national insurance changes announced yesterday, but as their tax allowances are increasing above inflation next year, we will take a further 170,000 of them out of tax all together.
  I find it very surprising that the hon. Gentleman had so little to say about health, especially as his party has had quite a lot to say—and very illuminating it has been, although unintentionally so.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Perhaps he will be talking about it in Germany.
  Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend says, that might be what the Germans are getting tomorrow.
  We have heard the Conservatives set out exactly the same approach on health that the hon. Gentleman has set out on families and pensions. They use exactly the same strategy: they rubbish the extra investment, say that it is impossible to do anything and then argue for cutting the money. The Conservative health spokesman said at a private meeting—it is a shame that he did not make the remark at a public meeting, but fortunately, somebody has made it public for us—that the Conservatives' strategy is to persuade people that the health service will not and cannot work, and then to argue that people should pay for their own health care in what he calls "self-pay". We can be clear what "self-pay" is, as the BUPA price list is on the internet and bears close examination, especially for people who will not get health insurance easily and would have to pay through the nose. The good doctor also said that he wanted to reduce public spending and that the most difficult part was to argue the Conservative alternative. He is not the only one. When I appeared on last night's "Newsnight", I saw that the shadow Chancellor was in some difficulty when he was asked about the Conservative alternative. After 18 years in government and five in opposition, he still does not know what the Conservative policy on health is.
  Surely the central point is that there is cross-party consensus about the fact that the health service needs more money. Yet the Opposition cannot say whether they

  751
  would spend the same as us, or more or less than us. The question is fairly simple. We have said how much we think should be spent on the health service in the next five years, but the Conservatives cannot say whether they would match it.
  Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives' difficulty stems from their deep hostility to the provision of public services? Far from seeing public services as a way of liberating and supporting individuals, they have always seen them as a burden, which is why they are so reluctant to pay for them.
  Mr. Darling: The shadow Chancellor may secretly be working towards the same policy as ours. Perhaps that will be revealed on some suitable occasion. Many Conservatives have had an ideological objection to the national health service since it got going.
  Mr. John Bercow: No.
  Mr. Darling: Come on; not even the hon. Gentleman can persuade me of that.
  Mr. Bercow: I have used it for more than 30 years.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman would probably have used anything that he could have got his hands on all his life, but that still does not tell me that he is philosophically attracted to it.
  People's ability to use the health service freely and on the basis of need is not only a question of social justice. It also makes economic sense. I can understand the Conservatives' aversion to equality or some sorts of fairness, but it does not make economic sense to take the route that they now appear to be taking. There is a consensus that more money needs to be spent, and there are two sources from which it can be obtained.
  Mr. Jack: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: One moment; the right hon. Gentleman may wish to comment on this point, as he probably comes from the other wing of the Conservative party.
  There are two sources of money, one of which is taxation. We have made it very clear that that is the best and fairest way of raising the money that our health service needs. The alternative is fees and charges. People can get insurance, but fees and charges would remain.
  The Conservatives will have to face up to a problem as they travel around the world in search of a solution. They might want to fly to the United States to see what is on offer there. The Americans have a system of private insurance, and the average family insurance premium for the health service is about £100 a week. Problems would soon arise if we took that route. One does not have to go far in the United States before meeting people who say, "If you are very poor, you have Medicare; if you are fairly well off and in a company scheme, your company provides your health insurance"—that is a cost on the company, of course—"but if you lose your job you often lose your health insurance." Americans who are on the
  752
  equivalent of our welfare-to-work programmes often say, "I'd love to go to work, but I'm terrified about health care for my children." Very many Americans are not covered, so they do not have health care. If that is what the Tories want, let them tell us, because that is the choice—taxation or the American style.
  Despite everything that the Conservatives have led us to believe, they appear to have a new-found attraction to matters European, so why do not they take a day trip on the Eurostar to France? If they want social insurance, let them look at its cost. It costs French employers about £60 a week per employee. That is the reality of social insurance. Opting for what the shadow Health Secretary calls self-pay would mean that the sick pay for being sick.
  There is a respectable argument to be had about this, so if the Conservatives want a debate, let them set out their policy. We believe that taxation is the fairest and the best way to fund the health service; they believe that it should be based on fees and charges. Whereas the shadow Chancellor says that he has not yet made up his mind and the hon. Member for Havant is vague, the shadow Health Secretary has made his view very clear: he has said in terms that he wants self-pay and that the great untapped market in Britain is health insurance.
  If we are to have this great debate, I ask Conservative Members this. Under the Tory scheme, who pays, how much will they pay, and what will happen if they cannot? Until the Tories answer those questions, their credibility on this matter will be absolutely zero. In many people's eyes they have always been suspect on the health service, but if they cannot tell us who pays, how much they will pay and what happens if they cannot, people will have every right to believe, and to be fearful, that if the Conservatives got back into power the health service would be anything but safe in their hands.
  Mr. Jack: May I take the Secretary of State back to the previous passage of his argument? Does he agree that the formulation of health policy is difficult? The Government's track record is as follows: first, accept Conservative plans; then, change through the 10-year NHS plan; and now, the Wanless plan. The Government have been in office for five years and have had three goes at trying to design a health care policy, and we still do not know whether it is correct. Is this not a complex and difficult matter?
  Mr. Darling: Some aspects of health care are extremely complex and many decisions are difficult—I grant the right hon. Gentleman that—but the decision on whether to fund the health service from taxation or to make people pay through fees and charges is pretty simple: one has to choose between one or the other. No amount of travelling to Europe, the United States, or anywhere else in the world will solve the Conservatives' problem. They will have to answer the question. If they believe not in funding the health service through taxation, but in self-pay—as the shadow Health Secretary explicitly said—they must tell us who pays, how much, and what happens if they cannot. If they cannot do that, they are in real difficulty.
  Mr. Michael Weir rose—
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: The idea that the Liberals have the answer is laughable.

  753
  I shall give way to both hon. Members, then move to a swift conclusion before I outstay my welcome.
  Mr. Weir: The public funding of the health service is probably one of the few things about which I would agree with the Secretary of State. I want to add to the questions that he asked of Conservative Members. Under their proposed system, what would happen to those who are already long-term ill or disabled and cannot get health insurance at a reasonable cost?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Anyone who examines the small print of a private health insurance document will note that it seems absolutely great until one becomes ill or old. Today I asked someone to look on the Internet at three of the main private health insurers' prospectuses. They all quote prices, but all have asterisks and footnotes saying, "If you are over the age of 60, you need to write separately and we will give you different rates."
  The hon. Gentleman is probably right that this is the only thing that we agree about, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that one of the reasons why we have been able to increase health spending in Scotland by so much is that it is part of the United Kingdom, which has a Labour Government.
  Mr. Davey: As the Secretary of State knows, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party agree that the health service should be paid for primarily through taxation. Can he explain how years four and five of the health service spending increases announced by the Chancellor yesterday will be paid for? Will they require any extra taxation?
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman looks at table C5 in the Red Book, that will all be explained to him. When it comes to giving us lectures on public spending, I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Prime Minister said to his leader yesterday. The Liberal Democrats have commitments that would fill this Chamber three times over, all to by financed by 1p on income tax.
  The differences between the two major parties are very clear. We have set out a clear course for building economic stability and for increasing investment in our public services. We will ensure that we do more to fight poverty and to help families with children; pensioners; and, in particular, the health service. We have clear, published plans that work, compared with a Conservative party that is increasingly evasive about its real intentions. Frankly, until the Conservatives are prepared to be straight about how much more or less they would spend and what their charging policy on the health service would be, they will have very little credibility.
  I believe that the people of this country will trust our judgment and our belief in fairness and enterprise far more than they are tempted by the Conservative alternative. I commend the Budget to the House.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: When our constituents see Prime Minister's questions, they often ask us, "Why do you lot always shout at each other and why are you always disagreeing? When you agree with someone, why don't you say so?" I therefore want to begin my remarks
  754
  on behalf of the Liberal Democrats by saying that there are significant elements of the Budget that we welcome and agree with.
  We very much welcome, and indeed had called for, the increased spending on the health service—a key issue in the Budget that I shall return to later.
  On the specific areas for which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is responsible, we welcome several of the changes to the children's tax credit arrangements which were announced yesterday. We welcome the fact that the difference between support for children whose parents are out of work and for those whose parents are in work has been levelled up. We particularly welcome the fact that that takes effect from October, as there was no requirement on the Government to do that—they could have started from April 2003, so it will be six months early.
  I welcome the fact that the threshold at which support runs out altogether has risen from £42,000 to £58,000. Like several other hon. Members, I should perhaps declare an interest. So generous is the child tax credit that from April 2003 I will be entitled to it. It does make me start to wonder what is going on when even I start to be entitled to additional tapered support with the costs of my children. Nevertheless, raising that threshold has prevented some two-earner families from losing out.
  I welcome the fact that the Government are addressing child care in one's own home, which will benefit people with irregular working patterns, among others.
  Those are welcome, desirable changes, and it is important to put that on the record.
  Lest my hon. Friends become too nervous and start drifting out of the Chamber more rapidly than they otherwise would, I should say that we have some important concerns to raise with the Secretary of State. On the child tax credit, it is not correct to say that the change that the Chancellor announced has avoided creating losers. I shall use the example of a professional couple who are both on £30,000 a year—say, senior public service workers such as a teacher and a nurse who have made some progress in their professions. At present, they get the full tax credit, which will be about £540 next year. From next year, when they have to add their incomes together, they will get nothing at all. In addition to the £300 or so each of additional national insurance, they will lose a £500 tax credit, so they will be £1,000 worse off overall.
  If a scheme were defined from scratch, it is debatable whether it would provide for couples with a combined income of £60,000 to receive a means-tested version of support. That would be odd. However, they have been given the money. A few years ago, the married couples allowance was taken from them; a year later, they were given the children's tax credit to replace it. Two years later, in one fell swoop, they will lose £500 pounds on top of national insurance increases.
  My colleagues and I sympathise with the view that direct taxation had to increase to pay for the health service. Although we would have used a different method, the national insurance rise is not an unreasonable way to finance the increases. However, removing a lump sum of £500 from hard-working families, some of whom work in the public services, is a swingeing loss on top of other tax rises.

  755
  Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that those families have got used to having the £500, which will be taken from them overnight next April, and consider a transitional arrangement whereby families who have already benefited from the tax credit can retain it? Obviously, new families will not be entitled to it, but should not existing families have some protection? A tax rise of £1,000 in one go is substantial, and the Treasury should think again.
  The Secretary of State used the phrase "making work pay". The Government constantly suggest that work always pays, but there is an exception that they have failed to tackle. Owner-occupiers who do not work can get their mortgage paid through income support, or whatever it will be called, or private insurance. When they take a job—of 16 hours a week under income support rules—they lose every penny of mortgage assistance. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Financial Secretary can tell us whether work pays for families in that position.
  Mortgages are a substantial part of the household budget, and if people lose all support when they take a low-paid job they can be worse off. The Government fail to grasp the nettle of housing costs. They have postponed reform on housing benefit, but, if anything, they have allowed private insurance to play a bigger role in providing help for people with mortgages.
  I stress to the Financial Secretary that successive Governments have imagined that pushing mortgage support into the private market relieves the state of a burden. However, it creates a deeper unemployment trap. I know of constituents who have private mortgage insurance and cannot touch work because private insurers are even fussier than the Department for Work and Pensions. When anyone takes a job, all support stops and it cannot be given again. I hope that the Treasury will consider that new unemployment trap, which will become worse if, for example, house prices start to fall from their peak and there is negative equity. If unemployment rises by even a little, people who are increasingly likely to have private insurance will find that working does not pay. They are an important and growing group, which are excepted from the Government's goals.
  If the Government had come clean about child poverty, we might have supported them and said, "Well done." On any definition, taking 500,000 people out of poverty is an achievement of which to be proud. However, we are disappointed, to put it charitably, by the way in which the Government have handled the matter. Instead of admitting that they promised to take 1 million children out of poverty but that they have barely done half the job, they tried to fiddle the figures.
  On "Newsnight" recently, the Secretary of State said that when the Government claimed they would take 1 million children out of poverty, they meant that some children might fall into poverty if they took no action; that had not happened, so that accounted for some of the children. Politicians are mocked enough for breaking promises. If the Secretary of State says that he will take 1 million children out of poverty, one imagines that he means 1 million children who are currently in poverty. That is not an unreasonable assumption.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) tried to intervene when the Secretary of State made his confession. He said that the first goal was to take
  756
  1.1 million out of poverty by 2004 and that the Government were a third of the way there in time and in numbers. The same Secretary of State sat in the "Newsnight" studio and claimed that the Government had achieved their goal of getting 1 million children out of poverty. The Chancellor made the same claim during the general election campaign. The Secretary of State has now admitted on the record that the Government are a third of the way towards getting 1 million children out of poverty. Who was right—the Chancellor in the general election campaign or the Secretary of State today? I know of old that when the Secretary of State engages in fevered conversation with a ministerial neighbour, he is uncomfortable.
  There is a serious debate to be held about child poverty. As the Secretary of State said, a report has been commissioned, inviting comments on how the Government should measure child poverty. It was published in good time for our debate this afternoon. It would be disrespectful to the hon. Member for Havant to suggest that I had leafed through it during his contribution. I therefore speculate on its contents. I shall be charitable, as is my wont, towards the Government, and assume that the wider debate about defining poverty is the sort of discussion that I called for when they published the figures last week, rather than an attempt to get off the hook about missing their original target. I shall assume that they will retain the target and be judged against it. In that context, I welcome the document.
  If we are to have a popular front against child poverty, we must do it in a way that folk can grasp, not through percentages of medians below thresholds.
  James Purnell: I confirm that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the figures because I heard him speak at the End Child Poverty Campaign meeting last week. He said he believed that different methods of examining figures should be used. However, I am not clear from that meeting or his comments today whether he supports the child tax credit or whether he is worried about the means-testing involved, as he said last week.
  Mr. Webb: If the hon. Gentleman consults the record, he will discover that I led for the Liberal Democrat party in the debate on the children's tax credit and that we voted for it. There is no ambiguity about that.
  Mr. Willetts: I think that the hon. Gentleman means the child tax credit.
  Mr. Webb: I do. The hon. Gentleman is right; I got the name wrong, as did the Secretary of State on several occasions. That probably proves a point.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State would be so kind as to record my comments as representation No. 1 in response to his consultation paper. I believe that we should have a measure of child poverty that permits headline figures, not 50 indicators. The "Opportunity for All" approach and the thick documents that the Government have produced are right to highlight the fact that poverty is multidimensional, but the political sting is taken out of it because they contain no summary of progress. Instead, we get, "This measure's gone up, that measure's gone down, this measure's unmeasurable." The latter is the most common problem with the Government's figures. We want a

  757
  summary of progress on tackling poverty that catches the public's imagination and has relative as well as absolute dimensions.
  The Government are right to have a poverty target that is about one's standard of living relative to society. We do not want to freeze the target in the Victorian or post-war eras. As we become more prosperous, our expectations for our children increase and any good poverty measure should provide for that. The Secretary of State will be familiar with the "Breadline Britain" studies of the 1980s and 1990s. They were not perfect, but they asked people what they needed to be a part of society.
  People could grasp the basics—for example, that children should be able to have a family holiday once a year, and new, not second-hand clothes; that parents should be able to afford to send children on school trips rather than keeping them off sick because they could not afford it. The studies surveyed the number of children who could not get those items. If we track them over time, the list changes. Fifty years ago, having a television was not a necessity, but nowadays a child whose parents cannot afford a television is probably missing out at school. The list changes but a Government who ensure that no child has to live in a damp, draughty house or miss out on a school trip and who make progress on those matters are rewarded.
  The Chancellor has been accused of doing good by stealth and putting money into tax credits but hoping that nobody will notice because there is no public support for tackling poverty. However, poverty is defined obscurely. If we defined it in a populist way, many people would say that they wanted their children to have a holiday or new shoes and that therefore they wanted that for other people's children. They would sign up to the expenditure.
  I support the Government's relative measure. I should like them to set out a headline measure—of course, there will be reams of supporting statistics—for which the Government can be held to account. I hope that that is a constructive response to the consultation process.
  At the risk of deviating from being constructive, I want to draw to the House's attention a line in yesterday's Budget speech relating to the treatment of teenage single parents. It has not attracted a great deal of attention, but it was a rather strange line. It stated that teenage single parents who are not living with their parents should not be allowed council houses. That rang bells, and I have done some research on the matter. In 1996, The Independent referred to a speech made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) at the Conservative party conference as long ago as 1993. It states that
  "the then housing Minister Sir George Young invoked an image of teenage girls leaping up the council house waiting lists with new babies".
  This is the origin of the present idea.
  The concept was taken up with enthusiasm by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in 1996. This is rather intriguing. I am again quoting from The Independent:
  "Mr. Redwood, whose Conservative 2000 Foundation will be launched on Wednesday, said young mothers should be housed in hostels rather than leapfrogging 'the couple in their twenties who decide to wait before having a child' in the queue for council housing. He deplored the assumption that 'the illegitimate child is the passport to a council flat and a benefit income'."
  758
  The most intriguing aspect of all this is the Labour party's response as reported at the time:
  "John Prescott, Labour's deputy leader, said: 'The Tories want to return to the 19th century and put mothers and babies in the workhouse.'"
  The newspaper went on to describe the scheme proposed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham:
  "Mr. Redwood's hostels would offer a mix of studying, working and childcare".
  If I understand the provision correctly, that is precisely what the Government are proposing. The idea resurfaced in the social exclusion unit's paper of 1999, which advocated something similar. There are two possible responses. One is to assume that new Labour has adopted a right-wing Conservative agenda. Far be it from me to suggest that. The alternative response is to suppose that this proposal is entirely benign and that the Government are saying that chucking teenage single mums into council flats and leaving them to rot is not a good idea. I am with them on that. I think we would get that far together.
  The question is, what is going to happen instead? What will be the element of coercion in this proposal? Perhaps the Secretary of State, or whoever is going to wind up this debate, could respond to that question. How much coercion will there be? To what extent are existing teenage single mums in council flats going to be forced out against their will? To what extent are the incoming teenage lone parents going to be forced to live in hostel-type accommodation? Are we talking about a small number of units of good-quality, supportive accommodation that will provide a basis for work and child care, or are we talking about large institutions?
  Miss Anne Begg: May I give the hon. Gentleman an example from Aberdeen? The Foyer organisation is a voluntary sector organisation working with the homeless. It takes lone parents and helps them, gives them support, and ensures that they will be able to sustain any kind of tenancy. It also assists them in the job market, helping them into work. It often has to help people to overcome a drug habit, and gives a high level of support to very disadvantaged youngsters in Aberdeen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited it more than once; he complains that we keep taking him there. It is an excellent model of how we should be helping young people to come out of poverty and a dreadful lifestyle and into accommodation and work that they can sustain.
  Mr. Webb: We would all agree that that is entirely desirable. Will the hon. Lady reflect, however, on whether that sort of project would work if the lone parents in question had been forced to go there? Presumably they go there of their own free will at present, because they are attracted by what is on offer. The key question is whether lone parents in this position will be enticed by what these schemes have to offer. If so, they will probably be queueing up.
  If the schemes are as good as the hon. Lady suggests, if they are to be extended nationwide, and if the money is going to be put in to them, great. People will not need forcing, because the schemes will be an attractive alternative to being left to rot in a council flat. My suspicion, however, is that that is not exactly what is

  759
  being proposed. The amount of detail is very scant. We have looked through the documents, and we have found scarcely an item about the provision.
  Mr. Willetts: I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman with the history of this idea. He has referred to discussions that took place on it pre-1997. He omitted to say that the Prime Minister made great play of it in 1998 in one of the Labour Government's classic welfare crackdowns. We get those every few months. At that time, there was a welfare crackdown story on the front page of the Daily Mail, with a signed piece by the Prime Minister, which stated that teenage lone parents should not have houses of their own and that they should all go into hostels. He spun that idea for a week in 1998. Nothing happened then, and we have no reason to believe that anything will happen this time.
  Mr. Webb: I am not sure whether I welcome the idea that nothing will happen this time. We have been reflecting on what the Conservatives might have done, had they been allowed to continue. Perhaps they would have taken action on this front; perhaps that is where they were heading. They have not needed to do anything, however, because the present Government have taken up that agenda.
  Miss Begg: The hon. Gentleman has still not given us any evidence as to why he thinks that this Government are proposing what he seems to think is a worst-case scenario. Where is the evidence for that?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady is well versed in the language of new Labour, and the rights and responsibilities agenda. What will be proposed here, as in so many elements of the welfare reform package, is compulsion. In this Budget, lone parents with children under five are going to be compelled to have interviews on pain of loss of benefit. The partners of the unemployed and of the disabled are also going to be compelled to go in for interviews.
  Rosemary McKenna: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: In a moment. Compulsion is central to the new Labour agenda. That is why I suspect—more than that; I am almost certain—that coercion will be central to this proposal. If the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) wants to tell me that there will not be any compulsion, I shall be delighted to hear it.
  Rosemary McKenna: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is so wrong with ensuring that young, vulnerable people come for an interview to see how they can be assisted into work and into a better lifestyle?
  Mr. Webb: If all these things are so good for people, why do we have to force them to do them? That is the key question. If the provision is self-evidently good for people—if they are being offered support, not threats—why do they need forcing?
  The Financial Secretary will have the chance to respond to the debate and to put on record today whether there will be compulsion in these schemes. I will happily take
  760
  an intervention from him now if he would like to tell us the answer. This is a simple yes or no question. He does not want to intervene on me because he cannot say whether there will be compulsion. This is why we want to put this on record.
  Mr. Darling: I am aware that I spoke for a long time earlier, but I can answer that point. For the avoidance of doubt, it is a condition of receiving benefit that anyone of working age comes in for an interview to find out what help is available. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is wrong with that? If it is obligatory to send our children to school, surely it cannot be too great an obligation to say to someone, "You have got to find out what help is on offer." Even for the hon. Gentleman, that was a daft point.
  Mr. Webb: The House will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. The question was: will teenage single mothers be forced out of council flats into hostels, or some sort of supportive accommodation?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): That was not the question.
  Mr. Webb: The Financial Secretary says that that was not the question. It may not he the question that he wants to answer, but it is the question that I am asking. We have not had an answer. The House has not been told whether teenage single mums will be forced into hostel-type accommodation. We do not know how big the accommodation will be, or what level of support it will provide. We do not know what the penalty for saying no will be.
  If these projects are to be paragons of virtue, like the Foyer project that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South described, they will be wonderful. People will queue up to get into them, and we will not need to use force. If they are not, there might be some resistance, which is where the Secretary of State's penchant for using force will come in. The House will notice that that possibility has not been denied.
  Mr. Connarty: I am amazed. I now know why my colleagues in England dislike the Liberals so much. The hon. Gentleman's use of this scenario is a scare tactic. Does he not think that there is something wrong with saying that we will leave people socially alienated and excluded? That is what happens to people who are slapped into council flats with no support and no compulsion to go and see an expert who has strategies to get them out of their social exclusion and alienation. The hon. Gentleman wants to leave those people to languish, and he should take responsibility for that. That is what he is advocating at the moment.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The only distinction between my approach and his is that I want to offer teenage single mums the chance to have such attractive accommodation and he wants to force them into it. He obviously thinks that they may not find it attractive. We have had no denial of that. If that

  761
  accommodation is attractive, why are the Government so afraid that teenage single mums will not take it up that they are forcing them to do so?
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: No. We have pursued that issue sufficiently.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Webb: I suppose I should give way to both my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell: Does my hon. Friend remember the terms of the speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the House of Commons yesterday? He said:
  "Where there are lone parents under 18 who cannot live with their family, the policy is that, instead of independent tenancies, they will have supported housing that combines accommodation with counselling and help with child care."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 587.]
  Is not the ambiguity that my hon. Friend is highlighting a direct result of the ambiguity of the Chancellor's speech?
  Mr. Webb: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. We have looked through the documents and we cannot find any clarification on this issue. I invited the right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench to intervene, but no one has explained the position, which means that it must be compulsory. We can come to no conclusion other than that teenage single mums will be coerced into taking up this accommodation. If that is in their interests, why do they need to be forced to take it up?
  Mr. Connarty: It was interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) used the correct term "supported housing", not "hostels" or "institutions". Even Women's Aid in Scotland has supported housing for women who are alienated and excluded from society. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) does not seem to accept that single parents who are out of a family situation become broken away and hide from society. There needs to be some way of compelling them to go for an interview with someone who can help. There is nothing wrong with compelling people to go for interview with someone who will help them, if the alternative is social unrest, which is what the hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing, because he thinks that it is good for Liberal Democrat votes.
  Mr. Webb: There was a slightly bizarre conclusion to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. At least he is honest about being comfortable with compulsion and coercion, but it is not clear whether the Secretary of State is because he will not tell us. The part of the Chancellor's speech that my right hon. and learned Friend referred to said that lone parents under 18 will not have an independent tenancy. If it is not an independent tenancy, what is the difference between supported housing and a hostel? I do not know what this accommodation will be like.
  The other substantial area of the Budget that we should touch on is the plans for health spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked the Secretary of State to clarify the Government's plans
  762
  and to say whether there is a hole in them. The Government have set out detailed spending plans for the national health service for five years, but detailed tax and revenue plans for only three years.
  The Secretary of State referred my hon. Friend to table C5, which contains the grand totals and which I have read, but Budgets do not spell out which taxes that percentage of gross domestic product will come from. They do not give that detail several years ahead. In response to my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State failed to put on the record whether more discretionary tax increases will be required to fund the planned health service spending. If the Secretary of State or the Financial Secretary think that there is a danger of the wrong impression being given on the record, I am happy to give way so that they can clarify whether any further discretionary tax rises will be needed, over and above those that have already been announced, to meet the spending plans for the health service that were given yesterday. They do not want to intervene, because they do not want to answer that question. The chances are that there will need to be more discretionary tax rises, and they should come clean about it.
  That brings me to the central point of the Budget. A year ago the Labour party wrote its manifesto. There are two possibilities. One is that it knew it would have to raise direct taxes to pay for improved public service, and it failed to disclose that fact, which would be dishonest. The other is that it did not know it would have to raise taxes to improve public services, which would be incompetent. I shall not judge whether the Government are dishonest or incompetent, but they must be one or the other.
  Yesterday's tax rise was predicted by us during the election campaign, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and by all independent commentators. It was predicted that the Government would have to raise direct taxation to pay for their public spending plans. They declined to tell the electorate that. It would have been better to come clean, because they would then have had a stronger mandate for the tax rises that they announced yesterday.
  The Chancellor rejected the notion of hypothecation, so yesterday's national insurance rise was just a general tax rise; it would go into the pot with other tax rises, which would pay for public spending. There was no link, not even between the 1 per cent. on national insurance and the health service, because most of that 1 per cent. will not be spent on health but on pensions and other services, or it will go into the national insurance fund surplus.
  The Chancellor rejected hypothecation for one reason: he did not want the cyclical effect of the economy to undermine the funding of the health service. I gave him, in my usual generous way, an offprint of an article that I wrote for New Economy, the journal of the Institute for Public Policy Research. [Interruption.] Indeed, it made his day. He promised to take it to bed with him, but he obviously did not read carefully the section about how we should deal with the ups and downs of tax revenues. The Chancellor does that all the time. He sets fiscal targets that work over the economic cycle.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Cyclically adjusted.
  Mr. Webb: Cyclically adjusted, as my hon. Friend says. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not expect every year to meet all the rules: he says that we will meet

  763
  them over the cycle. The health service could be funded in precisely the same way. National insurance rates, if that were the hypothecated tax, could be set so that over the cycle the health service was funded in a predictable and stable way. In the good years it would raise more than was needed, in the bad years it would raise less, and when those figures were cyclically adjusted, as the Chancellor is so fond of doing, there would be no problem. That is not a fundamental objection to linking tax and spending.
  The electorate do not trust the Government on tax because they failed to tell them at the election that they would need to raise taxes, and then went and did so yesterday. We need a method whereby the electorate know that they can trust politicians on tax. Politicians could bind themselves to spending every penny of a particular tax on a particular service and not siphon that money off. If the public were asked to pay more, they would know where the money was going. It would not need an Audit Commission report or anything else: they would know by statute.
  The Chancellor said that he wanted a debate on how public services should be funded.
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: No, because I am about to finish.
  These ideas will be a way of reconnecting the public with taxation. The Government and the Liberal Democrats both want good tax-funded public services. We are united on that against the Conservative vision. The danger is that, if the Government blow it by raising taxes that they did not tell people about and do not spend them entirely on the things that people want, the public will not give a second chance to parties that believe in tax-funded public services and they may be seduced by the Conservative dogma.
  In a spirit of constructive friendship, I say to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench that the Government should come clean on tax and link what they are spending with what they are raising, and then the public may trust them. By not telling people during the election what they intended to do and then putting taxes up yesterday, they betrayed the public.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I do not intend to follow the same route as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), except to say that I do not believe that the Government are dishonest or incompetent. We can debate hypothecated taxation, but the hon. Gentleman said himself that if we had hypothecated taxation, money could be spent year on year in a certain area to the detriment of other areas. As for whether the public knew that we were going to raise taxes to fund the national health service, up until yesterday the world and his dog knew that we would do that.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that Labour is comfortable only when it raises taxes to spend money. That is not the case at all. Labour Members do not welcome tax increases. Like anyone else, we would rather the health service were funded, as it has been funded in the past five years of the Labour Government,
  764
  through the good stewardship of the economy. The money has been available because of increased employment—1 million people are back in work—and increased tax revenues. It would be much better to fund the health service in that way, but if it needs extra funding I am not afraid to say to my constituents, "Yes, taxes must increase to provide you with the national health service that you want." Over the past year or so, the public have made it clear exactly how they want their national health service to operate. They want more money put into the service. I am comfortable with the increase in taxes to fund the national health service.
  As I have said, it is Labour's prudent management of the economy that has allowed considerable investment in our public services over the past few years without those tax increases. I shall not repeat the list that was given yesterday, but it included low interest rates, low inflation—the lowest for many years—and higher employment. I believe that only this week unemployment fell again.
  I welcome the extra money for working families: increases in the working families tax credit, working tax credit and child tax credit. Those moves will greatly assist my constituents. The extension of the new deal is also welcome. Over the last few years my constituency has experienced high unemployment, but, although the level is still slightly higher than the national average, it has fallen recently as a direct consequence of the Government's policies.
  I look forward to the pension credit that will be introduced next year. That too will help many of my constituents, especially those who qualify for pensions under the mineworkers pension scheme or who qualified for it prior to 1975, before it was index linked. A very small occupational pension has prevented such people from obtaining other benefits.
  I welcome the tax concessions for small businesses. Because of our attempts to regenerate the Barnsley area over the past two years, we have had to seek assistance for such businesses—surprisingly enough. I am happy to say that my constituency contains some world-leading small businesses. I also welcome the reductions in beer duty for micro-brewers and local brewers. I should declare an interest as honorary adviser to the northern branch of the Licensed Victuallers Association. The move will help breweries in rural areas and rural pubs; one of the issues in such areas is the decline of the traditional country pub.
  I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present, as he is responsible for the climate change levy. I am glad that electricity produced from coal mine methane will be exempted from the levy. Only a few days ago, my right hon. Friend opened a plant in my constituency that converts methane leaking from old coal mines to electricity in order to power a local glass factory. I understand that next year such methane will be exploited on some 80 sites.
  While I am on the subject of glass, let me say—I know my right hon. Friend will expect me to make this point—that the glass industry has been hit hard by the climate change levy, especially as a result of the exemption and rebate system that revolves around the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations. A company registered under the regulations will receive an 80 per cent. rebate.

  765
  I understand that, to qualify, a company must melt glass. Some companies use a lot of electricity, but do not melt products in order to make glass. They may bend substances, for instance to make motor-car windscreens; some, such as Potters Ballotini in my constituency, use 100 per cent. recycled glass—coloured glass. That is an environmentally friendly operation in itself. Such companies, however, are subject to the full rate of the climate change levy.
  Potters Ballotini must pay £160,000 per annum, in return for which it receives only £2,000 in national insurance rebate. It points out that because it uses 100 per cent. recycled materials, it should not be subject to a levy that is intended to make companies focus on being environmentally friendly and on emissions targets. I hope my right hon. Friend will look again at the way in which the IPPC regulations affect such companies. I have heard it said many times that the climate change levy is revenue-neutral, but it is not revenue-neutral for the companies paying £160,000 in order to receive £2,000.
  As I have said, I welcome the extra funds for the NHS and the five-year stabilisation plan. As I said after the statement by the Secretary of State for Health, however, my constituency and others are in a bizarre position: NHS funding appears to be decreasing when examined against target funding for the health authorities involved. It is a question of distribution.
  Last year my authority received 98.5 per cent. of the funding target; at the end of the current year, it will have received 97 per cent. of that target. Although more money is going into my health authority and the NHS in general, the amount provided for its core functions appears to be falling. That 3 per cent. shortfall equates to some £6 million, which the health authority simply could not find. In fact, its budget was rejected by Trent regional health authority on two occasions because it simply could not find a way of disguising a £6 million shortfall, or making any further efficiencies to reduce the amount. It had already taken £1.5 million out of the budget through efficiencies.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. Ministers consistently tell us that NHS spending is increasing. In my area, the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire trust has been called on to make 2 per cent. efficiency savings in consecutive years. It says that its budget is way below what it needs. I am talking about the sixth largest hospital trust in the country, which received no stars in a recent survey. The hon. Gentleman has identified the difference between the Government's claims and reality.
  Mr. Illsley: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Similar points were made following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  I readily admit that the amount being spent on the health service is increasing, but the manner of its distribution, and the fact that it is sometimes attached to initiatives, tends to move it away from the core. That is one of the main problems in my area. Initiatives have been imposed on the health authority—the other day the pro-chancellor of Hull university described the syndrome as "initiative-itis"—to which the money is tied. It is tied to an initiative and to a target. That tends to move the money away, because part of the health service
  766
  concentrates on achieving the target. Meanwhile, another part of the service may receive less money and experience neglect.
  My area is desperately short of general practitioners. Apart from, I think, Sunderland, it has the fewest in the country. We had a training surgery providing initiatives with the aim of recruiting and training more GPs, but the funds had to be withdrawn because the health authority had to concentrate on other initiatives and targets imposed by the Department of Health.
  We have experienced shortfalls year on year. It is not just under the present Government that my health authority has been underfunded. More than a year ago, inappropriate prescribing by GPs led to a shortfall of about £1 million. Perversely, this year—because we have addressed the issue—we have more problems because prescribing is very good. GPs are now prescribing according to the Department's instructions in terms of best practice. That has increased the cost of prescribing and left us with a £2 million shortfall, as part of the overall £6 million.
  We would appreciate some targeting of funding for the health service. The new independent audit and review must assess each health authority to determine which are providing value for money, but doing so on a shoestring because they are underfunded, and which are being wasteful. We must ensure that there is a balance of the scarce resources.
  My local health authority has the worst rates of lung cancer, heart attack and stroke in the Trent region, which covers most of south Yorkshire and north Derbyshire, and probably among the worst in the whole country. We have among the lowest rates of heart attack survival and the highest of morbidity. A recent Commission for Health Improvement survey of Barnsley district general hospital came out with the bald statement that anyone aged between 35 and 75 admitted to that hospital suffering from a heart attack had a 50 per cent. higher chance of dying than in any other hospital in the country. That alone tells me that our funding problems must be tackled.
  We hope that the NHS audit will solve the problem. I have yet to get an answer to a question that I have been asking for many years. We are 3 per cent. short of our target, but no one can tell me why my local health authority, which probably has among the highest need in the country, continues to be underfunded. When they consider the whole idea of the distribution of funds for the national health service, I hope that the Government will revisit the targets and sort out those problems.
  I am also concerned about other public services, and especially those delivered through local government. A few years ago, we were promised a review of standard spending assessments, but that appears unlikely to occur according to the time scale set out last year. We were looking for a vast improvement in the mechanisms for local government funding, reflecting need rather than proceeding on the current formulaic basis.
  My local authority has been underfunded ever since 1990, when poll tax capping was introduced. This is the area in which the public come face to face with the delivery of services, and they often find that the service that they expect cannot be provided because of lack of funding.
  Our education funding has improved dramatically, with grants now given directly to schools to improve facilities, and I very much welcome the new school building

  767
  programme. I am happy to say that the rate of staying on at school post 16 has improved in my constituency, as has our performance at GCSE, which has traditionally been poor. However, the services known as the "other services block", such as street cleaning and environmental services, have suffered over the past few years as the Government have, quite rightly, targeted education. I hope that they will look again at the funding of local government.
  Housing, and the lack of money being made available to local authorities to meet the demands of repairs and other services, continues to be a problem. The Government have set out their policies on council housing clearly: sell it off to other landlords, form aim's-length management companies or simply maintain the status quo. Tenants in my area voted against sell-offs and the Government will not allow the local authority to construct an arm's-length company, because its rating in housing management is only two stars rather than three, so we are left with the status quo and council tenants cannot get repairs or improvements to their properties because the funding is not available. I hope that the Government will do something about that in the near future.
  This is the point at which I usually say something about excise duties, but as none of them was increased yesterday there is very little to say. Let me repeat yet again, however, that cigarette smuggling remains a problem. It is a huge industry—a black economy—in my constituency. I agree that cigarette prices need to be increased for health and social policy reasons, but that tends to increase smuggling in areas such as mine.
  I warmly welcome the Budget and the fact that the Chancellor has grasped the nettle and taken the right decision on the future funding of the national health service. I fully support him on that and look forward to a much improved NHS in my constituency.
  4.26 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that raising taxes is not enough. I agree.
  I declare my interests as set out in the register.
  It is highly appropriate that we should be debating today the work and pensions implications of a Budget that has produced the highest tax rise on jobs since Labour introduced the selective employment tax in 1966—and this on top of a substantial tax on pensions in a previous Budget.
  The proclaimed essence of the Budget is a massive £8.5 billion tax increase on jobs to pay for more health spending. If we are to go down the crude tax-and-spend route, the first question to ask is, will it do the trick? Are taxes set to go even higher? What about other expenditure requirements, such as defence, education, transport and indeed pensions?
  Liberal spokesmen have popped up throughout the afternoon demanding more discretionary tax increases. One of them asked for more to be spent on education, and another wanted more money for social services, and now the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), in his line of questioning to the Minister, seemed to be asking for yet more discretionary taxation.
  768
  The Wanless report, published yesterday, argues that if all the extra funding for the NHS is to be found through taxation, tax may have to rise by an average of £5 billion every year for the next 22 years. To put that in perspective, if the whole amount of the extra revenue were placed on income tax, it would rise by 2p in the pound each year, reaching a maximum of 66p in the pound, just to cover health funding alone, never mind extra spending on pensions, education and the rest—the mind boggles.
  The Chancellor seems to be contenting himself with a massive one-off tax rise of almost £9 billion next year, and an implicit claim that the Government will match future expenditure to economic growth. A critical issue, therefore, is whether the target for economic growth—2.5 per cent. in this Budget—is likely to be met. So far, the Government have had luck on their side. In part because of the strong economy inherited from the Conservatives, and in part because of a massive expansion of imports into our economy, we have had reasonable economic growth over the past few years.
  That is unlikely to continue in future. On the contrary, genuine investment-led growth is grinding to a halt.
  The one word that the Budget dare not speak is productivity. Even the Government's recent White Paper did not include a table showing productivity rates over the past 10 years. That is strange and does not follow precedent. Table 1.1 on page 3 of the White Paper "Productivity in the UK" published in November 2000 shows that the average productivity rate was 2.1 per cent. between 1990 and 1997, declined to 1.6 per cent. between 1997 and 1999 and has been 1.9 per cent. thereafter. Since its publication in that report, table 1.1 has never been seen again. It has been airbrushed from all subsequent publications on productivity.
  Despite this censorship, the secular decline in the rate of productivity ever since the Government took office remains a fact of life. We know this to be true because the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted as much in a recent interview on the "Today" programme. The issue is not whether productivity rates have fallen, but why. That question is absolutely critical to a proper assessment of the Budget.
  The rate of productivity is the performance measure of the structural changes occurring in the economy. The figures tell us that the rate at which the competitiveness and efficiency of the British economy was catching up and even overtaking other countries under the Conservative Government has now slowed down and gone into reverse under Labour. This is why, from being the sixth most competitive country in the world in 1997, we have crashed to 14th place and the plummet shows no signs of slowing down. The rate of investment has crashed from a peak of 13 per cent. in 1998 to 2 per cent. in 2001. Last week's figures show that inward investment fell by more than one third last year and that our European Union share fell from 26 per cent. to 19 per cent.
  Not surprisingly, as a result, old ailments are beginning to recur. Since 1998 there has been a dramatically steep rise in our balance of payments deficit from an annual average of around £5 billion in the first half of the 1990s to nearly £20 billion in the second half. If that reversal of the fundamentals of our economic fortunes had been unavoidable it might at least have been forgivable. It might also have been insolvable. It was avoidable, is unforgivable and remains unsolvable. It requires, above all, a change of Government.

  769
  There are at least four reasons why the necessary investment to improve productivity and competitiveness will never be forthcoming under a Labour Government. Special circumstances apply to the present Labour Government, but the general rule persists: in the end a free-enterprise economy always comes unstuck under a Labour Government, even one as fortunate as the present Government in their inheritance from the Conservatives.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept that the reduction in inward investment is to some extent due to the fact that Britain remains undecided on the euro and many inward investors would like us to take a decision on that? Does he also accept that his party's position, which is for Britain never to join the euro, would lead to an even bigger drying up of inward investment?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I shall turn to the euro in a moment. However, in the past the rate of inward investment has been high and it is still higher than that in most euro countries. So that argument does not wash. Indeed, in a moment I shall argue that the Government's commitment to enter the euro is one of the problems currently affecting confidence.
  The first reason why the Government's economic policy will end in tears is that Labour does not understand capitalism and free enterprise. Many Labour Members do not even try to understand capitalism because the basis of their ideology and motivation into politics is antithetical to it.
  One might say that the dividing line between old and new Labour is between those who try to comprehend the ways of competition and free enterprise and those who contemptuously do not. In practice, the distinction does not matter very much because it all comes down to the same thing in the end: free enterprise never works very well under Labour. The reason is that free enterprise, especially the incentive to invest, requires confidence, particularly confidence that the rules of enterprise will not be changed meretriciously as they were twice for Railtrack investors and as they were for investors in power stations faced with a sudden moratorium on gas.
  Helen Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If free enterprise worked so well under the Conservative Government and people were so motivated to invest, can he explain why nearly 20 per cent. of the manufacturing industry in my constituency was destroyed?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I cannot speak for the companies in the hon. Lady's constituency; perhaps they were not very efficient. I have no idea. However, I can refer to the massive growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s which the Government inherited. They had managed to keep the momentum going, but it is now on the brink of slowing down. The hon. Lady must accept that productivity and investment rates are so low compared to what they were five or six years ago that Britain is on the brink of a severe economic problem which is reflected in the volume of imports and other factors that I have mentioned. I certainly cannot speak for the hon. Lady's constituency as I do not know the circumstances there, but there is a dramatic change in the structure and the fortunes of the British economy.
  Mr. Connarty: As we are talking about capitalism which I studied long and hard when I took my degree in
  770
  economics, is it not the case that the great capitalist economy of the USA has a much larger balance of payments problem than the UK yet, despite the events of 11 September, it has strong growth and is fundamentally a thriving capitalist economy apart from the fact that it imports more than it exports?
  Sir Michael Spicer: In recent years, because of the strength of the dollar and the fact that US companies would pay in US paper—a commodity which reflects the strong internal economy—the US has imported more than it has exported. That is a matter for the US economy to put right. I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. The US cannot continue using paper to pay its way in the world, at least without depreciating that commodity. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point but I am talking about the UK economy, which in many respects is unlike that of the US. The Americans make almost a conscious decision to use their paper to buy in goods. Our economy is increasingly being forced to buy goods because it is not sufficiently competitive to pay its way. There is a fundamental difference between the American economy, which is highly competitive in most sectors, and the British economy.
  The fundamental point is that Labour does not really understand how capitalism and free enterprise works. This is illustrated by its chopping and changing on Railtrack, the sudden moratoriums on power stations and financiers being faced with dramatically changing rules for the funding of London Underground.
  At best, new Labour sees the private sector as providing a reserve of funds to be turned on and off at the will of the Government. Capital markets simply do not work in that way. Investors cannot be ordered around, otherwise they take their capital away, and there are signs that they are beginning to do precisely that.
  The second reason for falling confidence under Labour is regulation, which has been mentioned today. It is partly a matter of the sheer quantity and the burden of the new rules, but it is more significantly a matter of their quality and direction. Together, the new regulatory regimes add up to socialism by stealth, and investors do not like it.
  The Labour Government have contorted and perverted a regulatory structure laid out by the Conservatives to ensure maximum competition when they privatise utilities and certain state monopolies. The Utilities Act 2000 gives powers and roles to the regulatory bodies that have nothing to do with improving economic performance, let alone competition, and everything to do with socialist ideology, specifically the redistribution of income.
  The gas and electricity regulator is empowered to relieve fuel poverty. The telecommunications regulator sets out to ensure universal coverage, the Financial Services Authority must achieve social banking as a priority, the water regulator must ensure fair investment, and the rail regulator must provide a total transport strategy. Ofgem has even been used to try to protect jobs in the mining industry through its implementation of the gas moratorium. It would seem that the prospect even exists of regulators coming together to agree a total strategy for governing the commanding heights of the economy. As I say, this is socialism by stealth and investors do not like it.
  As the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) said, the question also exists of the Government's commitment to entering the single European currency. Investors know

  771
  that we would either enter at a rate that would be a permanent and artificial handicap for British sales to the continent of Europe, or that the Government would be forced to take action through interest rates to lower the value of the pound, which would prove inflationary and further undermine British competitiveness. Indeed, if they were carrying out the rules of the Monetary Policy Committee—assuming, as we were discussing earlier, that it were still an independent body—they would have to raise interest rates at that point, which would itself prove counter-productive. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, the whole process of commitment to entry is a destabilising factor.
  Mr. Hendrick: The Monetary Policy Committee would not raise interest rates, because if were joining the euro, the interest rate would, by definition, have to be the same as that of the European Central Bank.
  Sir Michael Spicer: There is considerable argument as to whether we would have to be within an equivalent of the exchange rate mechanism, but I am talking about the process of entry into the euro. The Government would be faced either with an artificially permanently uncompetitive rate at which to enter—that would certainly scare off industry from investing in this country—or they would try to talk down or work down the rate of the pound. As a result, inflationary pressure would come into play and the MPC would have to put up interest rates.
  Mr. Hendrick: If we entered the euro as a result of a referendum, the Government would not try to manage the exchange rate; the markets would take care of it.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I should be delighted if that were so, and that is exactly how exchange rates should operate. They should be market-led, and should reflect the economies of the countries in question. However, that principle is denied under the permanent and indefinitely fixed exchange rate that entry into the euro requires. It is exactly because we do not want fixed rates that some of us are dead against the euro. Whether one is against it or not, my point is that the very commitment to enter the euro is itself a destabilising factor in British economic policy.
  The final element of destabilisation is taxation. Despite the denials and obscurantism of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, taxes have gone up continuously under Labour. In 1994, they constituted 34 per cent. of gross domestic product. They rose to 36 per cent. in 1997, to 37 per cent. in 1999, and to 38 per cent. in 2001. According to the Red Book, yesterday's Budget will push that figure above 40 per cent. in a year's time. Of course, this Budget is the one in which Labour has broken its cover; it has been outed as a high spend, high tax party.
  It is not just investors who will be put off. At a level of more than 40 per cent., taxes are bound to be regressive, and will hit the standard of living of people on lower incomes. What does all that add up to? Britain's economy, which was one of the most dynamic in the world, is moving back to being one of the more sluggish. Once that happens, the spiral will be downwards. More public spending will mean even higher taxes. That will mean lower growth, which will lead to yet higher taxes, and so on. That downward spiral is implicit in this Budget.
  772
  The challenge for a future Conservative Government is to reverse the spiral, as past Conservative Governments have done, by removing the shackles from businesses and by releasing the energy not only of the private sector but of the so-called public services. However the Government caricature such matters, new ways will have to be found of running and funding public services. In particular, we must break up the monopolistic position of the providers, and return powers—especially purchasing powers—to the customer. Achieving that—particularly improving the effectiveness of health care provision expenditure—by adopting one of the many funding models that operate throughout the world is the debate that the Government should have launched today, and in which they seemed to want to engage as recently as last year. At some point during this winter, they seemed suddenly to change their mind, and retreated into old-fashioned socialist dogma. That has pleased their own Back Benchers and got them cheers, but we shall have to see what the result of that shift will be.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman should consider what happened when we introduced the market into other utilities. The trend has been towards monopoly, not competition. As an expert told many of us in the parliamentary group for energy studies in some detail last night, that is particularly true in the energy field. There are three major energy suppliers in Europe. What we have is not a free market, with lots of competing small suppliers that help the consumer, but large monopolies that, without regulation, would force prices up. It is the regulator that keeps prices down for the consumer. Free market capitalism always leads to monopoly, because monopoly leads to super-normal profit, which is the whole purpose of capitalism.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I shall not only defend my position; I shall tell the hon. Gentleman how wrong he is. Contrary to what he has just said, one massive effect of the electricity legislation that as the Minister I piloted through the Commons was the complete break-up of monopoly power. We had a monopolist—the Central Electricity Generating Board—but now we have a multitude of companies, only one of which has more than 9 or 10 per cent. of the British generating market. That is absolutely contrary to the hon. Gentleman's argument. The same applies to the distribution side of the industry—an outcome that we did not fully expect. The hon. Gentleman is factually 100 per cent. wrong. Given that he obviously knows something about this field, and that he attended last night's lecture—I was not there myself—I am very surprised that he takes the view that he does.
  Mr. Connarty: As has been pointed out, 10 Downing street's electricity is supplied by a French company that bought London Electric. Such developments are happening throughout Europe. No. 10 would be paying much higher prices if were not for the fact that a regulator controls domestic prices.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's views about the future of Europe. If he wants a united Europe, he should be pleased about the free flow of capital. Personally, I am very relaxed about the free flow of capital around Europe; I simply object to the fact that the rules are such that our capital does not flow into

  773
  continental Europe as easily its capital is allowed to flow into Britain. The hon. Gentleman's basic point that free enterprise leads to monopoly—a good socialist thing to say—is the exact opposite of what has happened. In fact, we broke up a thoroughly inefficient state monopoly—the CEGB—that was running massive overcapacity. Now, prices have come down and there is tremendous competition. We have a thriving industry, into which people want to buy because it is thriving. That is the exact opposite of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I am very grateful to him for making it.
  The sadness for the country of the Labour party's change of heart on a more radical approach to funding for public services, especially the health service, is that it will further delay the time that our people will benefit from the quality of service to which other countries have become accustomed. We discussed health yesterday and today, but Labour Members have not once accepted that other comparable countries with different funding systems have much better health systems. We are looking at those systems because they are better. It is no good shutting our eyes and denying that there is a better way. The result has been that the British taxpayer is paying for our people to receive treatment on the continent of Europe that they cannot get here. Sadly, that will continue to happen for longer because of the Government's refusal to consider alternatives ways to give consumers the purchasing power that they have in other countries.
  Those methods do not necessarily require lower funding by the state. For example, France does not spend much less than we do, but it gives the consumer more power, so monopolies are broken up and the health service is provided far more effectively. Because the Labour party has balked on that issue, the electorate will turn against it. This is a turning point in the electoral fortunes of the Labour party and it will be left to the Conservatives to pick up the challenge and put things right in the future.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It probably has not escaped the attention of hon. Members that the average length of speeches by Back Benchers so far has been 21 minutes. If that continues, we shall hear from few other hon. Members this afternoon.
  4.52 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: Before I commend the aspects of the Budget that will encourage people into work, make work pay and bring more children out of poverty, I must tell the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who unfortunately is no longer in his place, that it will come as a big surprise to my constituents with severe disabilities who have moved from hospital wards to supported accommodation, run by such worthy organisations as Cornerstone, Archway and the Richmond Fellowship—I am sorry if I have missed any Aberdeen organisations out—that they are regarded by him as living in an institution. Other disabled constituents have moved out of the family home into supported accommodation to gain more independence, but—according to the hon. Gentleman—they are now living in an institution. The biggest surprise of all will be felt by the hundreds of pensioners who live in sheltered housing complexes, if the Liberal Democrats now believe that that means living in an institution too. Many of our constituents already live in supported housing—that is the exact phrase that the Chancellor used yesterday—for very good reasons. I do
  774
  not understand why the Liberal Democrats have taken against such accommodation for lone parents under 18, as the Chancellor mentioned yesterday.
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was making a point about choice. He expressed the strong concern that people might be coerced into certain actions and wished to be assured that they would be able to choose. In fact, Liberal Democrats welcome many schemes around the country in which young people are supported.
  Miss Begg: We take a slightly different view of the case. If people are vulnerable and in need, we should not leave them to their own devices. This case concerns lone parents under 18, which in England and Wales means that they are under the legal age at which they can get married. In Scotland, young people can marry at 16 without their parents' consent. However, we could be talking about children as young as 14 or even younger. The earliest age at which young girls get pregnant is about 14, and some are no longer able to live in the family home—as the Chancellor said yesterday. We do not think that such vulnerable young people—some of them are still children—should be left alone in a council house. They should be in supported accommodation. It is not a matter of choice—children should not live alone.
  Mr. Connarty: I remind my hon. Friend of the landmark case in my home town of Monklands. A 16-year-old obtained a legal judgment to the effect that she should be allocated housing on her own. She was allocated housing in a flatted block, but she was violently and sexually assaulted in her flat within a few months. It was an unprotected and unsupported environment, and we think that we should do better for those young people.
  Miss Begg: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. I detected nothing in what the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have said that would suggest that any coercion will be used to make lone parents under 18 live in accommodation that is not suitable for the purpose.
  I commend what the Budget will do to encourage people into work, to make work pay and to bring children out of poverty, and I shall concentrate my remarks on those aspects. Not long after the introduction of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage, I received an irate letter from a constituent who complained that everything was being done for children but nothing was being done for those of working age who were in work but on low incomes. He claimed that he would be better off on benefit than he was in work. I asked the Library to do some calculations, and he was right. Because of the way in which housing benefit, jobseeker's allowance and other benefits worked, some people in full-time work would have been better off not working, so they had no incentive to work. Those people felt left out and unable to share in the growing prosperity.
  One answer to the problem is to raise the minimum wage and I am glad to see that it is increasing, albeit not as fast as I would like. I accept the arguments about the need not to destabilise the economy and we do not want unemployment to start increasing, as the Opposition

  775
  claimed would happen when the minimum wage was introduced. Unemployment did not increase, and I still think that the minimum wage should be increased further.
  I welcome the new employment tax credit introduced in the Budget. It will ensure that people such as my constituent, who are just above any kind of minimum income but paying high housing costs—as often happens in Aberdeen—will have an incentive to work. The figures for the employment tax credit cited by the Chancellor yesterday show that a single-earner couple will have a guaranteed income of £183 a week, while a family with one child will have an income of £237 a week.
  The integration of the employment credit and the working families tax credit to form the new working tax credit will make it absolutely certain that in all cases work pays. I know many hon. Members find it difficult to persuade constituents who are looking for work in the low-wage end of the economy to take such work unless in every circumstance their constituents will be better off. The working tax credit will ensure that.
  I also welcome the extension of the new deal. I remember many people in Aberdeen asking why we needed the new deal—unemployment in Aberdeen is extremely low: 1.5 or 1.8 per cent.—when anybody who was any good would get a job anyway. Therefore, it was argued, the only people who were not in jobs, particularly young people, were those whom nobody would employ. In fact, the opposite proved the case. Youth unemployment in my constituency has dropped by about 80 per cent. because there are jobs if people of working age are ready for them.
  It is interesting that a fairly affluent constituency such as mine has benefited from many of the Government's policies, such as the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, and that is because most of my constituents are in work but often in low-paid jobs. There are many highly paid jobs in Aberdeen—we have a fairly buoyant economy—and because of the oil industry, there are also many service industry jobs. There is a need for cleaners and there is a lot of bar work available in the local hostelries. Very often, those involved are paid low wages, so they obviously benefit from the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Well over 1,000 families-2,000 in the case of the minimum wage—have benefited from the working families tax credit in my constituency alone.
  Any extension of the new deal to those over the age of 25 who have gone in and out of work—a pattern we see in Aberdeen—is welcome. I have seen constituents who have been out of work for just over six months but do not yet fit into any of the new deal categories. They have felt left out—that somehow, Government policies have not catered for them—so I am glad that they no longer do.
  I undoubtedly welcome the increases in the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit. It is very important that disabled people share this country's increasing prosperity, and one of the best ways of doing so is by entering the labour market. In Aberdeen, there are jobs available if such people are given support to get them.
  Perhaps the biggest barrier to getting back to work, particularly for lone parents and other working parents, is the issue of child care. The problem is not just affording
  776
  child care—the Government have gone some way to solving that problem by introducing the child tax credit—but finding appropriate child care. That problem is faced by those who work shifts. There is much shift work in Aberdeen, and there is a lack of child care. Any help that the Government can give to encourage more people into the child care business would be welcome. If people are going back to work, why should they not become child minders? That would certainly ease difficulties in Aberdeen. There is certainly a need for high-quality child care.
  I particularly welcome the move toward integrating the tax and benefit systems. Until those systems come together, there will always be poverty traps and always some who lose out. I hope that there will be a seamless system. If everybody has to declare their income, eventually those who do not receive enough will get money back, and those who receive too much will pay tax. We will therefore remove the stigma of means testing and ensure that any help is well targeted.
  I also commend the Government's work on bringing children out of poverty. I know that there was huge controversy last week over the Government's figures, but by any measure, 500,000 children is a lot. That was not an accident; it did not happen because the economy improved or it just so happened that parents went back to work. It was specifically because this Government were the first in history to introduce measures aimed directly at tackling child poverty. As a result, 1.4 million children have been lifted out of absolute poverty, and 500,000 out of any relative poverty.
  I have not had tune to read it, but I welcome the Government's consultation document on measuring child poverty because it is time we had a proper measure that everybody can trust and understand. There is more to poverty than just income.
  By any measure, the Government have done well in reducing childhood poverty. I was surprised at the amnesia displayed by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). The reason so many children were living in poverty when we were elected was that when the previous Government were in office, from 1979 to 1997, the number had multiplied by a factor of three. If the then Government had made a promise to take 1 million children out of poverty in 1979 and had done it, there would be no children in poverty now. It is important to have a clear definition of poverty and that the Government continue to pursue these measures.
  With those comments, I commend the Budget to the House. There is no doubt that its proposals mean that more and more families will move up the income scale and be able to share in the country's prosperity.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I remind the House of the declarations of my business interests that are properly put into the Register of Members' Interests.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on a characteristically good speech about her constituency. I sympathise with some of her observations about the child tax credit and child care. I congratulate the Government on responding to representations that I and many others have made on helping parents who work irregular hours to have child care provided in their own

  777
  home. That will be of particular benefit to those working in the care and nursing home business. They have to work antisocial hours, and this will mean a great deal for them.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be so kind as to let me make a little progress, in the light of your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I also welcome the fact that venture capital trusts will be used in inner cities. I still feel that it is an indictment on us all, in the 21st century, that we have some really bad spots of urban dereliction. We struggle to get to grips with them but they are often the centre of so many social and crime problems.
  Finally, I welcome the Government's acknowledgement that some more money will have to be found in the Budget for social care. I hope that some effort will be made to ensure that some of that resource goes into child care, in the sense of being responsible for children. Like every other right hon. and hon. Member, I was shocked by the information that came out of the Victoria Climbie inquiry. We hope that this will never happen again but, to a certain extent, that is possible only if child safety is given the resource that it needs.
  Mr. Connarty: I do not know the right hon. Gentleman's interests. It is possible that I may be called to speak next, but I would lose that opportunity if I left the Chamber and would then be debarred from speaking. The right hon. Gentleman has not declared his interests, so if he speaks in favour of or against something and has an interest to declare about a particular organisation, I would be grateful if he named it as he speaks.
  Mr. Jack: If I had felt that there was anything so specific, I would have done, but I followed the precedent that has been followed throughout the debate of making it clear that I have business interests as a non-executive company director and as chairman of an agricultural consultancy company. I do not propose to say anything about that, or the business that the company trades in. Those declarations are properly and publicly made and we have all followed that precedent. I have made it clear to the House that I have business interests and am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) for allowing me to tell him a little more about some of the things that help to inform me about the real world in which I live. It illustrates the fact that many on the Labour Benches have little understanding of the world of business, because they have not been directly involved in it.
  One of the areas that I hoped the Budget might touch on was Britain's responsibility in the world to deal with the sources of discontent that have given rise to some of the terrorist outbreaks that we have seen. Perhaps the Financial Secretary could consider giving some form of credit or tax allowance to encourage British companies to invest in those parts of the less developed world where the growth of good markets and good business may help to be an antidote to the discontent that manifested itself in the terrorist events of 11 September. Our private companies have a tremendous record of involvement in the less developed world. We can be proud of that role,
  778
  but we should give them some encouragement, especially in those hot-spot areas identified by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That would be of particular value.
  The detail of the Budget can be interesting. One note—Rev Bn 20—is entitled "Denying tax relief to bribes". Even when I was in the Treasury, I was not aware that we gave tax relief for bribes. In the fevered discussion about donations, the note may offer some interesting further reading.
  Our debate has already touched on the tax burden borne by our citizens, and on the tax increases in this and previous Budgets under this Government. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has produced some figures that paint a rather different picture of the tax burden in this country. The centre found that, after deductions,
  "British families have only 68 per cent. of their total gross annual income left to spend."
  That is less than France, where the level is 75 per cent.; in Spain and Italy it is 61 per cent. The level in Germany is 66 per cent. The finding is interesting, because the figures will worsen as a result of the changes in national insurance announced yesterday.
  I want to bring another matter to the Financial Secretary's attention. In 1981, as a Back Bencher, the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs initiated an attempt to assess the impact of the Budget on the direct and indirect tax paid by individuals. The present Labour Government found the results deeply embarrassing when they came to power, and concocted a set of words to explain why they would not provide that information. They said that the request was unrealistic and that they could not meet it.
  With respect to the Government, they must realise that it is legitimate for Members of the House of Commons to seek that information, and that the Labour party in opposition requested it first. Will the Financial Secretary say whether the Treasury will reconsider its position? The previous, Conservative Government provided the information, even though it was embarrassing to them. It would be useful if the Government continued to provide the figures.
  It is all a matter of openness. In that connection, does not the Financial Secretary also think that more information should be regularly released about what is happening to the UK economy in cash flow terms? I keep tabling questions asking for projections of tax revenues, but am always told that the matter is too difficult. However, I am also told that 18 people in the Treasury are busy working on projecting tax revenue. If they are employed to make such projections, why cannot we—the representatives of the people and the taxpayers of this country—know what is happening to the cash flow of the economy? That information would give us more sense of the dynamics involved.
  The question of what comes next has already been raised in the debate. Anatole Kaletsky's perceptive column in The Times this morning draws attention to the work being done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The institute has calculated that sustaining the real annual spending growth of 4 per cent. projected in the Red Book would require that an additional increase in taxation amounting to some £6 billion would have to be announced in each Budget of the next Parliament. That is the

  779
  institute's opinion, and I appreciate that much can change. However, the point is that more tax is in prospect, unless other factors—as yet unknown to us—change.
  The article, like others, points out that the rather subtle change in national insurance has allowed the Chancellor to get around his promise not to raise the higher rate of tax by sneaking in an additional 1 per cent. tax on all higher-rate taxpayers.
  The Chancellor has done something else that is significant: he has ended the contributory principle of the national insurance fund. Most people pay national insurance contributions because they think it a good thing to do so. The most recent report from the Government Actuary found that 0.9 per cent. of the national insurance fund goes to the national health service. That proportion will now be much larger.
  We have witnessed the true birth of hypothecation under this Government, but at the same time the end of the contributory principle. Other hon. Members have noted in this debate that the Government from now on will use the national insurance fund as some sort of cash milch cow.
  The Red Book contains a whole list of the Government's tax measures. One of the items that I was interested to note was the amount of money that will be paid for the research and development tax credit. It will rise from £200 million in the current financial year to plateau out at £400 million for the next two financial years. What is the reason for that plateauing? Do the Government not think that the measure will suck in more and more investment to be relieved? In business terms, the changes in employers' national insurance are comparable with putting another 3p back on corporation tax.
  There are also some other interesting things. I am delighted that the Government have come to their senses and ended their love-in with the film industry in their changes to film tax relief. That, at least, is a note of realism that I applaud. The Government will get some flack from the City, however, in response to some of the changes, particularly in terms of foreign companies. The Government were right to consider that question, but they will find some difficulties there.
  The other mysterious thing is the oil fraud strategy. We all know that there may be some funny goings-on in relation to red diesel, but the build-up in the countering of fraud seems to be incredibly slow, given that, in year three, according to the Red Book, a projected £550 million will be put in as a result of this exercise. It will be very interesting to learn more about that matter.
  I am surprised, too, that we have not heard anything from Ministers about the National Audit Office's observation that VAT fraud amounts to some £6.4 billion to £7.3 billion of lost revenue. If that nut could have been cracked, the Government would not have had to raise the national insurance contribution by anything like the amount by which it has been increased. I admit that exercises are under way in relation to fraud, but if £6.4 billion to £7.3 billion is going missing and there is no discussion on the Treasury Bench about additional resources to go into that area, that says something about where the Government's priorities lie.
  I shall comment briefly on expenditure on health. I was interested in the observations of Patience Wheatcroft, whose column in The Times I have grown to enjoy.
  780
  She contrasts Mr. Fred Goodwin with Mr. Wanless, from whom he took over as chief executive of NatWest bank, and writes that Mr. Goodwin would have been harder than Mr. Wanless—rather than giving the money away first, he would have got the reforms. I want to share with the House the thought that, in delivering this health care package, one of the problems that the Government will face will be actually getting people in for treatment.
  The Wanless report gives us some counsel. First, it points out that it is difficult, in various scenarios, for spending growth of between 7.1 per cent. and 7.3 per cent. to be spent wisely on the health service; that is pushing it. It is not surprising that paragraph 5.54 of the report refers to the problem of the shortage of doctors, which it predicts for after 2005:
  "If 20 per cent. of GP and junior doctors' work were shifted to Nurse Practitioners, this would eliminate any potential capacity constraints in doctor numbers."
  That is worth considering. However, it continues:
  "On this basis, the demand for nurses would increase by around a further 10 per cent. This could be filled if 12.5 per cent. of nurse workload could shift to health care assistants (HCAs). But on the basis of a transformation rate of 1.5, this would require additional recruitment of almost 70,000 HCAs in addition to the projected increase in demand of 74,000. Although there is scope to increase the number of HCAs, it may be difficult to recruit this many HCAs on top of the current workforce of around 350,000."
  The whole report is littered with ifs, buts and assumptions. If the Government's policy on health care is founded on solving such problems, that illustrates the difficulty of spending the money quickly to deliver front-line services.
  I hope that some of the money will contribute to relieve the wait to see consultants. Under the current arrangements in my area, as far as the Blackpool Victoria hospital is concerned, since January 2000, large numbers of specialties have vastly increased waiting times, which are well above the Secretary of State's current target of 15 weeks—soon to be 13 weeks for the first consultant appointment, I think. In only those disciplines in which clinical priority was changed by the waiting lists initiative has there been any decline in waiting times. The worst-case scenario is neurosurgery; someone with a brain problem has to wait 72 weeks to have it sorted. That is unacceptable, but I hope that the problem will be solved. I also hope that the policy will mean that the Blackpool Victoria hospital will get an additional CT scanner. I say that because I fight for the health care interests of my constituents and because I am personally dependent on the national health service. We want rapid progress.
  I draw attention to another contrast. I talked to the new chairman of our primary health care trust who was involved with the primary care group until this month. He told me that it had taken him nine months of battling to try to get more chiropody services into the local health authority. No one could understand why what he described as "foot care maintenance" mattered. Now that he is the chairman of the primary health care trust, he says that he will change that. However, people have had to wait nine months to receive chiropody services, and we have all received letters from elderly people who desperately need help. This issue illustrates the problem and the complexity of the task of trying to put the health service right.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends are right to examine alternatives. We should not be criticised because we have the courage to consider different approaches. We share

  781
  the common agenda of wanting better health care in this country. I am glad that we at least share such common ground, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Budget.
  5.21 pm
  Rosemary McKenna: I am grateful to be able to take part in this important debate. We should welcome the gracious comments of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) at the beginning of his speech. It was nice to hear such words from a Conservative Member.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a superb Budget that will be of major benefit to all the people of the United Kingdom. It is worth noting the impact that it will have on Scotland, where it is good news as it will provide an extra £2.7 billion for public services over the next three years. That is equivalent to £528 per man, woman and child in Scotland. A further £5.5 billion will be provided in years four and five.
  The 2002 Budget will go down in history as the one in which the Labour Government began to reverse decades of under-investment in the national health service and returned it to the type of health service that people want and deserve. The development of modern techniques and the fact that people are living much longer create an even greater burden. I believe that the vast majority of people understand that massive investment is required to make the health service, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor,
  "the best insurance policy in the world."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383. c. 592.]
  I refer those Members who argue that the public will not understand our policy and will not continue to support the Labour party to the words of the taxi driver who brought me to Westminster this morning. His comments will certainly reassure Labour Members as we all know that London taxi drivers are a great barometer of public opinion. He said, "We want a good health service and we know we have to pay for it." His views reflect what the vast majority of people think. They want an NHS that is free at the point of need and that is not based on anyone's ability to pay.
  The reforms demanded are crucial. We need an audit commission, and I welcome the creation of such an independent body. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made it clear just how independent the process will be. There must be an explanation for why some areas of the country are so much better served than others. I hope that the commission will provide such an explanation, as well as the accountability that has been sadly lacking in the health service for a long time.
  I also welcome the improvements in the help given to working families through tax credits, which will further help people into work. I wholeheartedly support the efforts to get people into jobs because that is the only way to begin to lead people out of poverty. That is the principal way in which we can achieve our target of eradicating the scourge of child poverty. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)—she put it so well—that helping even one child out of poverty is worth celebrating. It is appalling that, in 2002, so many children are denied the prosperity of the majority.
  782
  I will continue to work with others in my constituency to improve take-up. I assure the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that Labour Members continue to remind the Secretary of State about that very important issue.
  I was appalled at the attitude of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and the scare tactics that he used. I was a housing convenor in the mid-80s and one of the things that worried me most was having to give young, pregnant, vulnerable girls the keys to flats because we were putting them into such a dangerous position. To have to look after a young baby in isolation and without support is probably one of the most frightening experiences in the world. As a mother of four, I completely understand what that is like. Fortunately, I was never left alone, but it must be absolutely terrifying. That is why we should welcome the proposals in the Budget statement.
  Supported living accommodation is needed. In my constituency, we have the first foyer project in Scotland, and it grew from a council initiative. Way back in the late 1980s, together with the YMCA, we set up supported accommodation not just for girls, but for young vulnerable people, and that has grown.
  Mr. David Rendel: We welcome that initiative only if it is voluntary.
  Rosemary McKenna: Believe you me, those young people welcome it, and it is not appropriate in this day and age to put young pregnant girls—some are 14 years of age and all are under 18—who cannot be supported by their parents into a situation that would make their lives worse. They are vulnerable financially and sexually. What happens to some of those young girls is just unbelievable, and we want to ensure that they become responsible citizens and better parents. Surely that is the aim of all hon. Members.
  My constituency has benefited greatly from the Budget and certainly since the Labour Government were elected in 1997. We have an unemployment statistic of 3.5 per cent.—a reduction of 43.3 per cent. since 1997. That is an amazing figure in anyone's book. I also congratulate our local jobcentres on developing their own initiatives. They have not waited for instructions to be handed down from on high. They have encouraged people into work, and they have done some superb work.
  The people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth will benefit hugely from the child tax credit, and even more families are benefiting from the working families tax credit—more than my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) says benefit from it in his constituency. More than 1,700 families benefit from it in my constituency.
  Mr. Connarty: May I correct my hon. Friend? In fact, I said that it was 1,881.
  Rosemary McKenna: I am sorry: I misheard. The number in my hon. Friend's constituency just beats mine. My aim is to get even more people to benefit from that credit and to continue the work on its take-up. Helping people to stay in work is very important. That is why we have to make work pay.
  The additional assistance for child care is also greatly welcomed. In my constituency, that is particularly welcome for those who need to have their children looked

  783
  after at home. A great many of those in the work force in my constituency work shift patterns. Many of the jobs are in distribution, with a 24-hour working day. Having child care in the home will make a huge difference to those people; indeed, it will be a good reason for more individuals to get into work. At the moment, a lot of women are prevented from working and cannot take up much-needed jobs.
  I welcome the guarantees for pensioners, especially those on state pensions or small occupational pensions. People who were able to provide for their retirement often found themselves in a poverty trap; the Budget will make a tremendous difference to them. Many pensioners in my constituency have asked me to thank the Chancellor because they are better off than they have been for many years: we should not be afraid to express such sentiments. Eight hundred and fifty businesses in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth will benefit from the cuts in the starting rate for corporation tax and the small business rate, as well as other measures to encourage enterprise and new business. New businesses are crucial to future employment prospects, and the Chancellor has provided genuine incentives to improve the business rate.
  I am delighted that the Budget will benefit everyone, but I have one concern. How are areas like Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, where people are not highly paid but where there is low unemployment, to help adjoining communities with unacceptably high unemployment? Areas of deep deprivation and poverty, which often adjoin successful constituencies are one of the biggest challenges facing the Government. A significant target for us is to find a way to help them out of poverty.
  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth give a sincere welcome to the Budget. We are a hard-working community; most people are in employment, but are not on high incomes. We hoped that the average income would rise in the near future; a well-known Scottish footballer, Henrik Larson, suggested that he would move to the constituency but, sadly, he has changed his mind, disappointing 50 per cent. of my constituency; I do not know what the other 50 per cent. are saying.
  It is a great honour to be a member of a Government who have made a commitment to improving our public services. The Budget will ensure that resources will be available to both the Government and the Scottish Executive to deliver improved public services. I believe in our public services, and I want them to be the best in the world.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I draw attention to a registered interest: I am non-executive director of a hotel or catering conference company that is relatively labour-intensive, so I anticipate that it will be adversely affected by some of the provisions in the Budget.
  I originally intended to make just two points. Bearing in mind the edict of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I shall restrict myself to one point which, however, I shall extend a little by regretting the fact that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is no longer in the Chamber. I appreciate that he has legitimate business elsewhere, but I was genuinely interested in his contribution to our debate. There appear to be affinities
  784
  between Barnsley and Basingstoke. My constituency is situated in a relatively affluent part of the country, but has pockets of deprivation. I therefore identified with the hon. Gentleman's observations about Barnsley. In particular, our health authority has incurred a recurring deficit. Both today and yesterday, I listened carefully to all the Government's statements and observations; I have yet to hear, but look forward to doing so, clarification of the way in which the Government's increased expenditure plans will bear on health authorities with a historic recurring deficit.
  I shall confine my further comments to just one point: the impact of the Budget on industry and commerce. Earlier in the debate the Secretary of State referred to the unprecedented strength and stability of the economy—I believe that I quote him accurately. It would be churlish to deny that that is the case in many respects, and I give credit to the Government for that. However, it is not the whole story.
  During the previous Parliament, according to the Confederation of British Industry, business was burdened with an extra £6 billion a year in tax and some £5 billion in the estimated cost of red tape. Even before yesterday's Budget, those burdens have been impeding companies' ability to win orders and create jobs.
  There is a further down side to the current generally healthy situation. The Government have so far only paid lip service to another important matter—the burden of bureaucracy on UK businesses, which increases remorselessly. Opposition Members have grown accustomed to pointing out that there has been the equivalent of one new regulation every 26 minutes of every working day during the lifetime of the Government. Whether or not that figure is disputed, it is irrefutable that UK businesses are spending more and more time filling in forms and less time chasing orders and creating jobs. Consequently, the UK is becoming a less attractive place to do business.
  That is potentially very serious for a constituency such as Basingstoke—there are many similar constituencies, especially in the south-east of England—where a great deal of the locally based economic activity flows from inward investment. Over the past five years the UK has fallen from ninth to 19th in the league of world competitiveness, according to my figures. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) had slightly different figures, but we are making essentially the same point.
  The Government inherited a legacy of low taxation, a mobile work force and low non-wage costs for employers, but that legacy has largely been eroded. We have lost and are losing much of our advantage. That is important to towns with a high-tech industry component, such as Basingstoke. The Minister may recall the table that appeared earlier this week or perhaps last week in The Times, which showed that in towns such as Newbury, Basingstoke, Woking and Bracknell, the rate of unemployment has increased relatively dramatically over the past year or so, admittedly from a very low base. Our productivity growth used to be faster than that of the United States, but under the present Government productivity growth is slowing.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the gradual increase in the rate of unemployment in the

  785
  towns that he mentioned is due to the nature of the industries in those towns—high-tech industries, which have been greatly affected by the downturn in the high-tech sector in America?
  Mr. Hunter: Of course that is right. I briefly pointed out that the downturn in the American economy is a significant contributing factor, but there are also other factors. My general point is that the UK is becoming a less attractive place for inward investment, which has consequences for employment in areas such as those that I have mentioned.
  On trade, we keep reminding the Government that the UK's share of world exports has fallen and continues to fall. Our balance of trade has been in deficit every month for the past four years. I make those points simply to counter the Government's assertions about the strength and stability of our economy. Although I do not substantially disagree, I am saying that those factors are not the only picture, because there are other growing areas of concern that are relevant to the Budget, as I shall explain. The experience of my constituents is that, over the past five years, taxes have increased; public services have generally become worse; and business has borne the brunt of increased taxation. The essential point that I want to make is that from the point of view of business, the tragedy of the Budget is that some of its positive features are wholly negated by the increases in national insurance contributions.
  The positive features are commendable. One of them relates to payroll burdens and the Government's response to the findings of the Carter report. They have responded, albeit modestly, and acknowledged that businesses have been hit severely by payroll burdens in the past four years. Nowadays, businesses are acting as unpaid tax collectors and administrators for the Treasury with regard to the working families tax credit, stakeholder pensions and student loan repayments, and no doubt in other respects. The Budget's payroll burden measure goes some way towards addressing the issue.
  On the extension to large companies of the research and development tax credit scheme, I think that we are entitled to remain agnostic until we know the precise details and have seen the measure in practice. It is right that the Government should encourage companies to invest in research and development, but as a general rule, they can best do so by creating a climate that is favourable to the growth of business. That climate will consist to a significant degree of low taxes and fewer regulations, rather than a tax credit scheme that is burdensome to operate.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunter: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I wish to accelerate my remarks so that other hon. Members may contribute.
  We know about the measures that the Chancellor has announced with regard to corporation tax and capital gains tax, but they are all very small fry. They account for virtually nothing and fade into insignificance in comparison with the increases in national insurance contributions, which represent a £4 billion-a-year tax on jobs starting next year—the equivalent of an increase of almost 3.5 per cent. in corporation tax. The impact will
  786
  vary from company to company, but every company, and also the self-employed, will be hit. As has been pointed out in this debate and earlier during questions on the statement, the largest employer in this country is the national health service.
  So it is happening again: for virtually every business, the overall tax burden will increase. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, said yesterday that the Budget brings a net increase of £2.5 billion in the cost of doing business in the United Kingdom.
  Most commentators are saying today that the Government have taken an enormous gamble, and I am sure that that is an accurate assessment. There was media speculation, not supported by my own observations, that some Labour Members had the jitters earlier this week when a national opinion poll stated that 70 per. cent of the population remain unconvinced by the argument that higher taxation is the way forward for public services. Irrespective of whether that is so, I am certain that we will see jitters in the years to come.
  5.45 pm
  Gillian Merron: I very much welcome the Budget, not least because of the greater security that it gives to jobs in the city of Lincoln, where unemployment is just two fifths of what it was in 1997. In an already increasingly vibrant economy, the reduction in red tape for small businesses will be greatly welcomed by the local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses. The tax cuts for more than 1,600 businesses in Lincoln will also help to continue the positive local developments.
  Engineering has received a great boost from the exemption from the climate change levy that has been given to the combined heat and power industry. I have worked for some time on behalf of Alstom, the largest private employer in my constituency, which makes gas turbines. Following its representations, I led an all-party group of MPs to meet my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to press for an exemption from the climate change levy. In an attempt to hold him to ransom, I reminded him that the heat and light that was being provided to Whitehall through a combined heat and power system was driven by a Lincoln-made gas turbine. Clearly my attempts were successful, and there was no need to get Lincoln to pull the plug on Whitehall.
  There have been two years of unrelenting damage to the combined heat and power industry, and I hope that the exemption will be part of a mix of measures that are needed to deliver the Government's target of doubling combined heat and power output by 2010. I urge the Government to continue to take action and give support. Nevertheless, this step is extremely welcome and greatly increases job security at Alstom.
  I turn now to the health service. Over the next five years, the Government will spend nearly half as much again as they are spending now. I know how warmly that is welcomed in Lincoln, where people have demanded—and, indeed, deserve—a better health service. The extra money that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday is extremely welcome. It gives the health service a financial footing that mirrors its place in people's lives and affections.
  However, as has been acknowledged, extra money is just part of the solution. I want to press for a shift in approach, because we have the opportunity to do that.

  787
  Disease prevention must be much higher up the agenda than it is currently. The funding for the NHS is long term and. as I am sure hon. Members agree, prevention is better than cure. Not only will prevention save the NHS billions of pounds in the long term, but it will improve the quality of life that people can enjoy.
  In 1996, coronary heart disease—the single leading cause of death in this country—cost the health service £1.6 billion, yet only 1 per cent. of that money was spent on prevention. Diabetes and its associated complications account for just under one tenth of the whole NHS budget. The incidence of adult obesity has tripled in the past 20 years, so that one in five adults is dangerously overweight, as is one in 10 children under the age of four—twice as many as 20 years ago. Obesity carries a tremendous cost—£500 million per annum for the health service, but also a personal cost in sickness, and, sadly, premature death for many thousands each year. This is a serious matter that needs serious and dedicated action.
  The Budget is about much more than extra money for the health service. It also covers reform and independent inspection of standards. However, we must plan carefully to ensure that we move from having a national poor health service to a national good health service. Sport and exercise is proven to improve mental and physical health and to tackle many life-threatening conditions; I have mentioned some of them.
  The Government should take positive action to encourage people of all ages and backgrounds to take part in more sport and exercise. I am sure that the film "Bend It Like Beckham" will do a tremendous amount for women's football—that is not lost on Lincoln City Ladies—and especially for Asian women's football. However, we need a plan to improve the uptake of exercise and sport as part of a national health service strategy. I shall make some specific suggestions.
  First, the Government should ensure that primary care trusts and groups, doctors and nurses better understand the role that sport and exercise can play in promoting healthy living. We should set national physical activity targets, as already happens in Scotland. We should ensure that health improvement modernisation plans include specific guidance on physical activity. General practitioner exercise referral schemes need long-term funding. They currently receive only short-term funding, the provision is patchy, and the Department of Health does not keep statistics on them. We must move beyond that.
  Secondly, the Government could consider amending planning law to ensure that private developers pay a business contribution towards improving sport and recreation facilities. In Lincoln, the Ruston Marconi sports ground was recently acquired by Ashtenne Holdings for development. I share and have expressed the tremendous local anxiety about the provision for sport and recreation in that part of the city. We need better, not worse facilities. A change in the law would assist the local community in bringing pressure to bear to ensure that we have better facilities.
  Thirdly, we should promote and quantify local authorities' role in sport and recreation. We expect local councils to provide facilities and a number, including Lincoln, find that such provision is under extreme
  788
  financial pressure. It is difficult for councils to make the provision that they would like. I urge the Government to ensure that the review of local government finance takes account of our expectations and funds them accordingly. We must make a decision about the role of local authorities. I believe that they play a strong role in making local provision as part of a national health strategy.
  As sponsor of a ten-minute Bill that advocated tax relief to community amateur sports clubs, I welcome that move in the Budget. I know that the Lincoln canoe club and Lincoln Wellington athletics club, which has offered to help me train for next year's London marathon after my first appearance in the Lincoln 10 km run this year, will welcome that support as well as the £20 million to renovate and improve community sports facilities.
  I would like to finish by referring to the Wanless report, and to its conclusions and recommendations, which state:
  "The Review has concluded that the UK must expect to devote a significantly larger share of its national income to health care over the next 20 years."
  The report goes on to say that there are five factors which would result in the health service needing fewer resources. One of those factors is
  "more success in public health".
  It is clear to me that, in addition to the extra funding and monitoring, we must have a greater emphasis on prevention, not just on cure.
  There is something for everyone in this Budget—we have the framework and the resources; I hope that we can make it work for the benefit of people in this country.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to participate in this debate. I want to speak mainly about education and students in particular. It is interesting that those two subjects were scarcely mentioned in the Budget speech yesterday. It is also interesting that the Government have chosen not to allocate a particular day to the subject of education during the Budget debate. After all, it is the subject that they originally based their whole government on, saying that it was the most important aspect of public spending. Now it seems to have dropped way down the list of priorities, and I deeply regret that.
  I want to make two other quick points before I move on to education, the first of which concerns the question which was, in a sense, at the heart of the Budget—that of the 1p extra tax on incomes for health. This is an interesting concept because it is neither a direct income tax nor a direct national insurance tax. Under this new tax, 1 p is being levied on everybody's income above a certain basic allowance, which is very similar to how an income tax works. Indeed, if one were beginning to introduce an income tax with no suggestion of its being progressive, that is exactly what it would be: 1 p tax on income above a certain allowance.
  On the other hand, national insurance for employees is at present levied above a certain allowance, as is income tax, but it also has a top-level cut-off. In that sense, it is very different from this new tax, which goes right the way through the income scale up to the top. Although, sadly, this new tax is not as progressive as the present income tax system, it is nevertheless closer to an income tax than to a national insurance tax. It is interesting, by the way,

  789
  that people talk about a I p levy, because, of course, 2p will be levied on income: 1 p from the employee and 1p from the employer.
  If anyone doubts that there is a close connection between the new tax and income tax, it is worth thinking about what would have happened at the last general election if the Labour party had pledged in its manifesto not to raise national insurance contributions, but had made no such pledge about income tax. If it had done that, it could have done precisely what it did yesterday. It could have said, "All right, we will introduce a new 1 p levy on income tax—because we did not promise not to raise income tax—but you can be sure that we won't touch national insurance. That is not changing at all." It could then have done precisely what it did yesterday, and said, "We are keeping to our pledge, because we are only raising income tax." That demonstrates clearly that the Government are simply playing with words when they claim that they have kept to their pledge not to raise income tax, by raising only national insurance.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Rendel: I shall give way, but I will take only one intervention.
  Mr. Connarty: The Chancellor said that everyone, businesses as well as individuals, will benefit from a better health service. It is correct to levy the business community as well as the working population.
  Mr. Rendel: I did not say that it was not right to levy the employers. That was not the point I was making. I was saying that the employees' side of the provision is much more like an income tax than a national insurance contribution. The Chancellor's and the Labour party's pretence that they have carefully kept to their pledge because they have raised only national insurance and not income tax is, frankly, an attempt to fool the populace at large, but I do not think that they will be fooled.
  I also want to make a brief point about social services. We were promised today that there would be a 6 per cent. increase in the amount allocated for social services. That is desperately needed, as everyone in the country knows that social services are particularly underfunded at present. What horrified me in the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon was that he seemed to think that 6 per cent. was going to be enough. He seemed to suggest that, with that increase, it would to be easy for local authorities to end the problem of bed blocking, and to take everyone out of hospital who was ready to come out. Indeed, he threatened that he would fine local authorities if they did not do that.
  In West Berkshire, we have had cuts worth much more than 6 per cent. Our social services funding has been cut by about 30 per cent. in the past few years. In spite of that, West Berkshire is still spending 50 per cent. more than its standard spending assessment—more than the Government say it should be spending now, let alone when it has taken on the extra people who are blocking the beds in our hospitals. If my local authority is fined in future for failing to take people out of hospital when it has been given this pitiful amount compared to what is needed, it will feel very hard done by, and I would not blame it.
  790
  I shall now deal with the problems of students and education as a whole. It is a glaring omission that students were not mentioned in the Chancellor's speech. There was little about education, and almost nothing about higher education. The only time he mentioned higher education was when he said that
  "education will receive the priority to deliver further substantial improvements, not just in our schools but also in"—
  here it comes at last—
  "our universities and colleges."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 588]
  That was the only mention of higher education, and there was no mention at all of students.
  Liberal Democrats welcome the extra money for universities and colleges. Although the figures came out in a parliamentary answer to a question that I tabled, the Government have not yet fully admitted that funding per student from the public sector has fallen by 6.7 per cent. since Labour came to power in 1997. It would therefore take more than 7 per cent. to put that back up even to the figure the Government inherited from their predecessors. It is welcome that we are at last getting some of that money from the public sector.
  That money may be going to universities and colleges, but nothing is going into the student finance package. That is a criminal failure by the Government to finance a sector of the public service that desperately needs more funding. It is in line with what we are told the Chancellor keeps saying to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State, which is that whatever happens in the student finance review, there will be no more money overall. Most of us had hoped that that was the Chancellor's position, and that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State would have the strength to overrule him and to insist that more money should be available as a result of the student financial review to be published in the summer. It looks as though that will not be the case.
  That is odd, because the Labour party is well aware of how many votes it lost in the general election on this issue. At the end of last year, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills said that the Government had
  "got the collywobbles…after a successful campaign by the Liberal Democrats during the election."—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 144.]
  He said that that was why they had set up their student financial review.
  The Secretary of State has explicitly recognised that debt is a great barrier to access, which the Government are rightly determined to improve. She said:
  "I recognise that for many low income families fear of debt is a real worry and could act as a barrier to higher education. I want to make sure that our future reform tackles this problem."
  How can it tackle the problem when no more money will be made available?
  It is also odd because of the effect on students. Students now leave university with an average debt of £10,000 and rising. The National Audit Office has confirmed the danger to the student population that that lack of finance is causing. It reported on student participation, and

  791
  confirmed that people from poorer backgrounds are significantly less likely to participate in higher education following the Government's changes. It said:
  "Since 1998–99…final removal of the means tested grant is likely to have widened the gap between social classes."
  Is that what the Government were elected to do?
  The NAO has reported that 47 per cent. of students have to take on work to fund their educational experience. According to the National Union of Students, full-time students work on average II hours a week—what does that do to their educational experience? Research at Newcastle university suggests that 35 per cent. of students with a job would get a higher-class degree, and a better grade for every year they spent at university, if they were not in employment.
  For all those reasons it is odd that the Government have failed to put more into student finance this year, but one thing is even odder. At the heart of this Government and this Budget has been the theme of the NHS and what should be done to improve it. This afternoon's statement made it clear that the Secretary of State for Health expects to employ some 15,000 more doctors as a result of these changes. Doctors have to undertake not just a three-year but a five-year course, at least, before even qualifying—and they must undertake much more training after that. The five-year course must often take place in London, which is one of the most expensive areas for students.
  For doctors, it is not just a question of a 10,000 debt when they leave university. Even now the amount averages £13,350, and 40 per cent. of those qualifying end up with a debt of at least £15,000. The sum is increasing constantly as the new system becomes fully operational.
  My early-day motion 875 was tabled some time ago. It refers to the problems of students who undertake long courses. It has attracted signatures from Irish Members and nationalist Members, and I am pleased to say that there are signatures from Labour Members as well as members of my party. Sadly, however, there has not yet been a single signature from a Conservative Member. The Conservatives are simply not interested in the problems of students undertaking long courses.
  In case anyone has any doubts about the disincentive caused to those considering taking up medical careers, let me point out that the intake of one London medical school this year consists of some foreign students—that is good news, of course, because it means more money—and some students who have been educated at independent schools. Not one of those students was educated in the public secondary school sector—there is a disincentive for you.
  If we really want to encourage those from poorer backgrounds to enter the medical service, we must do something about the funding of medical students. It is idiotic to aim for an increase of 15,000 in the number of doctors in this country unless we are prepared to ensure that there is a much smaller financial disincentive for those who want to take medical courses at medical schools. We need a bit of joined-up government, between the health and the education services.
  Many students and their parents had assumed that the current review would lead to a better, more generous financial package. The Chancellor has now made it clear
  792
  that students can expect nothing overall. The Government admitted that they were shocked by the effect of this issue on their vote at the general election. Well, students and their parents will have one last chance, before the spending review is out, to send the Government the message that we need more money for student finance. That chance will come on 2 May, and I hope that the voters will take it.
  6.8 pm
  Helen Jones: It is a pleasure for me to speak in this debate, especially on a day when we have heard a statement describing how the increase that the Chancellor announced for the health service yesterday—the largest-ever sustained increase in health service resources—will be implemented.
  This is a good Budget for my constituents. The child tax credit will provide a tremendous boost for many of my constituents on very modest incomes. The same applies to other measures announced by the Chancellor, such as the raising of pensioners' income threshold, which will take many pensioners out of the tax system altogether. That will be a marvellous boost for many of my constituents who have very small occupational pensions to top up their state pensions.
  What I expect my constituents to welcome most of all, however, is what the Chancellor has announced for public services. They will welcome not only the health announcement, which builds on the £43 billion that we have already committed to the public services up to 2004, but our plans for education. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said, the Chancellor made it clear yesterday that education spending would continue to rise as a proportion of national income and that there would be an immediate £100 million extra for school improvements.
  Those announcements are both economically and morally right. They are economically right because a sound economy can afford to invest in its public services, and if we are to create a society in which people are prepared to take risks, be enterprising and start new businesses, we need the underpinning of public services that makes them feel secure in doing that. The announcements are morally right because they show clearly that we have an obligation to one another in society and that we can achieve more by acting together to provide communal services than by acting alone.
  I support the arguments for extra investment in public services that the Chancellor advanced yesterday. The Conservatives continually denigrate those services and have set out on a sustained mission to try to convince the public that public provision cannot and will not work, as a prelude to further privatisation. That is the same argument that we heard from the last Tory Government, but simply packaged more prettily. It is based on the fundamentally flawed belief that public services, far from being a help to individual effort, are a hindrance to it, and that libertarianism produces a better society.
  That idea is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of this country. All the great advances for individuals have been achieved through public provision at a very basic level: the provision of clean water, sewerage and mass vaccination did more for people's health than any individual effort could achieve. Public housing took people out of slums, and the creation of a

  793
  public education system allowed individuals to achieve their potential in a way that was unknown several generations ago.
  I always cite my own family as an example, not because we are in any way exceptional but because we are so typical. My grandparents brought up their children in the direst poverty. My older relatives still remember what it was like to have to struggle to pay the doctor if a child was ill or a new baby was born. There was no hope of staying on in education past 14. Yet my grandmother lived to see her grandchildren born in national health service hospitals, living in decent public housing and going to university. That was achieved not because we were clever or because we worked hard—I do not believe that my generation ever worked harder than my grandparents did—but because the public provision was in place to make it possible.
  We have to achieve that again for a new generation. Quite rightly, the public services that we put in place have raised expectations. People demand more of the services that we provide now. That is why what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said about a clear and proper audit of the extra provision for the health service is so important. Governments have a duty to tax fairly and spend wisely, but our individual citizens also have the right to expect that we will make it clear that the extra spending is truly improving provision.
  Hon. Members' readiness to support that will speak volumes about their beliefs about the future direction of this country. The Conservatives' position is clear, however much they may try to obfuscate it: it is Thatcherism with a smile. They talk about better provision of public services and about the disadvantaged, while at the same time they are committed to cutting public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. That would have a profoundly regressive effect, giving tax cuts to people on higher incomes. The poorest and those on modest incomes will have to pay for it.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) kindly told us exactly how the Conservatives plan to pay for health care. They want more people to take out private medical insurance. The trouble with that is that schemes do not take on people who are sick, have a long-term chronic condition or are elderly. The Conservatives want more of what they call "self-pay". Do they mean hip operations that cost between £5,000 and £8,000, cataract operations that cost between £1,500 and £2,500 or people having to pay to see the doctor? They have not explained exactly what is involved, but it is clear that their plans would put an end to medical care free at the point of need, which has always been the key to health provision in this country.
  In my view, it is much fairer and more equitable to fund health care through direct taxation, as the Government have decided to do. We must also be honest enough to tell people that we expect to see changes in the service for the money that we put in. There is no longer a something-for-nothing deal. Public services must be much more responsive, because what was appropriate for people's needs in the 1950s is not appropriate in the 21st century.
  We have already seen that the public sector can deliver more responsive services if it is given the opportunity to do so. Examples are NHS Direct, walk-in centres and the personal medical service pilots. The one in my
  794
  constituency has been able to tailor its services to the needs of the population and train its front-line staff to do much more.
  The money will provide an opportunity to look carefully at the services that are currently provided and ask some fundamental questions about them. For understandable reasons, health care has been focused on acute services. I trust that now, with the extra money going in and the primary care trusts coming on-stream, we will be able to spend much more on community services.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) rightly mentioned the need for more chiropody and podiatry services. They are not glamorous services that attract a great deal of publicity, but they do more to keep elderly people mobile, prevent them from developing other diseases and keep them out of hospital than other services in the acute sector. Similarly, we need to make sure that therapy services are properly delivered and that we integrate hospital and community provision so that people have a proper package of care when they come out of hospital. That will end the revolving-door syndrome whereby patients leaving hospital do not get proper therapy and therefore have to be re-admitted.
  The health service can be flexible and respond to changing needs only if we invest in front-line staff and allow them to take the lead in developing services. They are often fizzing with ideas. We have to accept that some of those ideas will not work, but we cannot make progress without drawing on the experience of the staff, not simply the extra doctors and nurses whom the Wanless report makes it clear are required, but other health service staff. Many are on low grades, but they have a great deal of experience to offer the health service. We should design a proper career path that rewards their commitment to public service with the ability to progress. The Government have made a start by allowing health care assistants to train as nurses and I hope that there will be more progress in future.
  I conclude with a few words about education, which I hope to expand on at some future date. The Government have improved standards in primary education beyond recognition through use of the literacy hour and the numeracy hour, which, it is fair to say, were viewed with great suspicion at the beginning. We now need to focus on how we deal with secondary education, and to ask some fundamental questions about the values that we want to pass on to our children, and what they ought to be learning to equip themselves for a vastly more complex world than we ever had to face. We must address not just the teaching of basic subjects, but how we teach our young people to deal with the vast amount of information that they receive through various media. We must teach them how to discriminate between, and value, types of information.
  We must look carefully at the practical skills that children need, and we need seriously to consider when we should begin language teaching in our schools, because we in this country have not been good at that. We must also look at how to develop scientific literacy—not just the teaching of science, but an appreciation of how science has changed our world and how people can learn to assess scientific risk—because recent examples have shown that our society is very poor in that regard.
  We can consider many things, but the key is that this Budget has given us secure funding for public services, which will allow us to ask those questions and to build

  795
  up our services for the future. That will enable us not merely to firefight in the public sector, but to develop the best possible provision for the people of this country. That is why it is a good Budget. It enables our people to look forward to the future with confidence, and I hope that the House will support it.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I am fortunate to be called late in this debate, because it gives me a chance to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who, in a thoughtful and obviously sincere speech, expressed a point of view with which I fundamentally disagree. This Budget is one of the worst that I can recall. Why, oh why, do Chancellors not follow the example of Mr. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, who, in a lengthy Budget speech some years ago, changed the excise duty on chicory—and nothing else? More Chancellors should realise that, as they tinker, they do damage.
  When I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Treasury, I discussed with others the fact that any measure taken by a Chancellor of the Exchequer inevitably damages somebody. The then Chancellor was quite proud of his measure to reduce the duty on environmentally friendly, "green" petrol. He said, "There is a change that won't damage anybody at all", but it virtually drove out of business the main manufacturer of anti-knock additive to lead petrol. I gather that that manufacturer was a strong supporter of the Conservative party. Every change damages somebody.
  Although they are probably not directly relevant to my remarks, I should declare my interests, which are properly recorded in the register.
  This Budget is extremely damaging: it is damaging to employment, through the 2 per cent. increase in national insurance, and to investment. Anyone listening to yesterday's statement would have thought that the Chancellor was actually helping oil companies in the North sea; in fact, he was adding a 10 per cent. duty on profits. The Budget was far too complicated, consisting as it did of various children's benefits and working families tax credits. I gather that the take-up rate for the working families tax credit is about 31 per cent. This Chancellor simply cannot resist tinkering. We would be better off without this Budget and, in my view, without this Chancellor.
  I am not the only one to think so. The "Lex column" in today's Financial Times, which refers to "Tax tinkering", deserves extensive quotation:
  "If you want to raise the rate of income tax, the simplest thing to do is raise the rate of income tax. That, however, would be too straightforward for Gordon Brown. Hemmed in by an election promise to raise neither the basic rate nor the higher rate of personal income tax, he has furtively accomplished the same thing by introducing an additional I per cent national insurance contribution on all earnings…This is evasion, not avoidance, of the election promise.
  If this were the first time that Mr Brown had introduced needless complexity in pursuit of some private whim, it would he bad enough. The Chancellor is, however, a serial offender. He has turned the British tax system into a monstrous thing, riddled with complexities and inconsistencies."
  We have a bad tax system that is far too complicated. If the Chancellor were a company director he would be banned, and if he were a bookie he would probably be warned off the course.
  796
  The Labour view, well expressed by the hon. Member for Warrington, North in her thoughtful speech, is that the Government know best and that any problem can be resolved by Government. That is why the top rate of tax is now effectively 41 per cent., but for those earning between £28,000 and £30,000 it is effectively 51 per cent. because of the total of the national insurance payments.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is of course a former Financial Secretary and knows what he is talking about, made a very good point when he said that we should look globally at taxation. That is true. If someone works overtime and earns £50, half of it will go in tax and national insurance. If he then spends £25 on petrol for his car and a packet of cigarettes, more than 90 per cent. of those overtime earnings will go to the Government in revenues of one kind or another. Perhaps it is time for a study that shows the inter-relationship between direct taxation and indirect taxation. We are being very heavily taxed and little money is left with which individuals can make their own choices.
  We forget also that universal benefits cost around I per cent. to 1.5 per cent to administer, but means-tested benefits cost some 10 or 11 per cent. on average. The increase in means-tested benefits under this Government is costing a great deal in administration. For example, in the past four years, the Government have introduced five new tax credits for families, scrapped four of them and introduced two more. That level of complexity is confusing and expensive. Occasionally I meet constituents who really know their way around the tax and benefit system and they are usually doing well. However, for most of us it is far too complex. The present tax system is beyond many people's comprehension, take-up rates are poor, it is unfair and expensive, it encourages dependency and it discourages independence.
  The main theme of today is work and pensions and I wish to return to a point that I put to the Secretary of State on Monday during questions. I am glad to see that he is in his place today and I congratulate him on that. Unlike many of his Front-Bench colleagues, he is a good attender in the House and we appreciate that. My point was that the Government and the Chancellor, in his single biggest act of taxation, changed the rates of advance corporation tax on pension funds, thereby damaging them—perhaps irreparably.
  I made the point that millions of people in their 30s and 40s now find that pension funds are phasing out final-salary schemes. Those people will no longer be able to make provision for their retirement. The Secretary of State responded by saying that, not for the first time, I had misled the House. He pointed out that reductions in value on the stock exchange and longevity were more responsible for changes in pensions funds and the phasing out of final-salary schemes than was advance corporation tax. That is not true, because pension fund trustees can take account of long-term variations in stock exchange values. They know that values on the stock exchange go down as well as up, and they can plan for the long term with the advice of their actuaries. They can take a view on long-dated bonds and AAA-rated bonds and invest for the long term so as to allow the pension fund to reflect the requirement for pensions to be drawn from it. Longevity is also taken into account by actuaries when they advise the trustees on the proposed benefit schemes.

  797
  Final-salary schemes are being phased out because the Chancellor, in his biggest single stealth tax, which he introduced in his first Budget in 1997, has placed a massive burden of £5 billion a year on pension funds. The cumulative effect is that many pension funds are phasing out their generous final-salary schemes and introducing instead money-purchase schemes. I repeat the point that I made on Monday: millions of people in their 30s and 40s will be deprived of the independence in retirement for which they were hoping. They will be forced into dependency. One is forced to believe that this Government do not want to encourage independence.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Viggers: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has intervened frequently this afternoon.
  I think that the Government like to have people on means-tested benefits. They estimate that between 56 and 59 per cent. of pensioners and 40 per cent. of people generally are on means-tested benefits. According to departmental estimates, 65 per cent. of pensioners will be on means-tested benefits by 2050. We on the Conservative Benches deplore that and believe that independence is the single most important thing that people seek. This Government have done a massive amount to destroy that.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: This has been a good, stimulating and robust debate, to which so far no fewer than 13 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. It was opened with his usual style and incisiveness by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who offered the House a forensic dissection of the complexities and minutiae of the Government's tax credits policy. The Secretary of State followed, with what I must confess, by his standards, was a highly humorous and witty speech—though I am sorry to say that, in my mind at any rate, that did not compensate in any way for its relative lack of intellectual substance.
  The Secretary of State was followed by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who gave us a scholarly disposition on a range of Government policies. When I observe the hon. Gentleman, I am always rather worried on his account. He has so many brains that I am always a little apprehensive that at any moment one or other of them might spew forth from his head and on to the Floor of the Chamber. He made a good speech and I enjoyed listening to it, as I did to that of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who offered a penetrating critique of the Government's climate change policy based on his experience in his constituency. I am sure that it was greeted with respect and understanding on both sides of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) commented with authority and expertise on the Government's tax policies, the declining competitiveness of UK plc and the alarming problems of the productivity gap. There was a potent contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is a distinguished former Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He focused among other topics on venture
  798
  capital and the burden of corporation tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) offered a general critique of the Government across the field of public policy, including their failures in respect of economic performance and the delivery of public services.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) talked about energy, the health service and her particular pleasure in respect of Government policy in the Budget on community amateur sports clubs. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) lamented the Government's position on student finance. We had a powerful contribution just a few moments ago from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), one of the merits of which from my selfish point of view was to remind me of how moderate in my criticisms of the Government I am progressively becoming. I am grateful to him for providing a yardstick against which I must measure my efforts in future.
  I hope that I have not missed out too many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a powerful speech, but I shall not be hypocritical about it. Sadly, I was not present for most of it, but I am well aware that that was my loss and not hers.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) made a brilliant, skilful, eloquent, passionate and sincere contribution to the debate. I recall, as she will with some pain and anguish, that I lavishly complimented her in a newspaper interview about a year ago. Whether there is any causal relationship between that compliment and the inexplicable fact that she continues to languish on the Government Back Benches, I know not, but I do not wish to embarrass her any further.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Why not?
  Mr. Bercow: Because I am a naturally generous-spirited fellow, and I do not wish to damage the hon. Lady's prospects in any way.
  In the short time available to me, I wish to focus on a number of aspects relating to business, the children's tax credit, national insurance and the health service. On business policy and the contents of the Budget impacting on companies, we will certainly look dispassionately and constructively at the research and development tax credit, the Government's proposals for VAT reform, the pilot schemes to encourage the provision of training and the attempted reduction in the payroll burdens on business following the Carter report—burdens that have been substantially imposed by the very Government who are now pledging to review them.
  Similarly, we will look critically but with interest at the Government's policy on gains from substantial shareholdings, on tax relief for intellectual property and other features of the Budget that have been highlighted in contributions this afternoon. However, I have to say to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is winding up for the Government, that any progress in relation to enterprise, any assistance to companies that has been provided and any betterment of the business climate that might result from particular measures in this Budget must be viewed in the context and against the background of two important facts. First, the consequence of the changes—let us be explicit and say the huge increases—in national insurance contributions will be extremely damaging to large numbers of companies the length and

  799
  breadth of the United Kingdom, as the authentic representatives of British business, whose word I trust on these matters, have eloquently testified over the past 26 hours.
  These measures must be viewed in the light of the damaging regulatory imposts that have spewed forth from Whitehall since May 1997. The Government said just before they were elected that they would not impose burdensome regulations upon business because they understood that successful businesses must keep costs down. Since then, they have progressively increased regulatory burdens so that the sea of regulation with which businesses have to contend is deeper and more hazardous than at any time in the history of the United Kingdom.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, the Government have imposed one regulation every 26 minutes of the working day. In 2001, from the Treasury alone, we had no fewer than 188 regulations in the form of statutory instruments, running to 1,352 pages—a veritable cure for insomnia—and weighing 4.074 kg. That is the record of a Government who do not understand business, have not worked in business, have never run a business and have certainly never owned one. That is the context in which we must view what they say now.
  The Government have talked with enthusiasm and no little pride about their child tax credit and the measures that they are taking, the better to assist families. As a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out over the past 24 hours, that must be considered in the light of the fact that between October 1999 and April 2003 the Government will have introduced five new such credits, withdrawn four of them and then added another two on top. Many of those measures require substantial swathes of regulation if they are to become effective in practice, and that means regulation on businesses. When we talk about regulation on businesses, we do not mean businesses including small businesses, we mean predominantly small businesses. Some 99.6 per cent. of companies in Britain employ fewer than 100 people; at my last examination of the matter, they accounted for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and they now generate about half our national output. Those companies are being belaboured by the regulatory leviathan so favoured by this Administration.
  We know that the increase in national insurance contributions will hurt some people badly. It has been imposed even though, on 29 May last year, in a debate on the "Powerhouse" programme towards the end of the election campaign, the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that there was no question that national insurance contributions would be increased. She said that the Government had no such plans, and she added that it simply would not happen.
  In defiance of those apparent commitments, the increase has happened. The Forum of Private Business said yesterday that the additional bill would be £2,361 a year for companies with 10 employees. For any firm daring to grow and become more prosperous, to generate greater wealth and employ up to 100 people, the additional national insurance burden as a result of yesterday's Budget will be £23,606.
  800
  The change also has a relevance for public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out to me today that each of the six secondary schools in his constituency will each face an extra bill of £40,000 a year as a result of the 1 per cent. increase in employer national insurance contributions. I think that even the Financial Secretary will be able to do the arithmetic readily enough. The extra bill will amount to almost a quarter of a million pounds a year for those schools.
  In the education service, for 361,200 teachers, the extra bill will be £79 million a year. The police service has 124,970 officers, and the additional bill there comes to £32 million a year. The NHS is now the largest employer in western Europe, following the collapse of the Red Army. The extra national insurance bill for the NHS as a consequence of yesterday afternoon's deliberate and calculated imposition by the Chancellor is £336 million a year.
  That is the reality of what is about to be implemented by the Government. They say that the purpose is to finance improvements in health, and that those improvements will be accompanied by reform. However, before the Budget, I made a cursory examination of speeches by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Since 1998 there have been no fewer than 23 references to the matter but, although we have had the extra £100 billion in taxation and some of the promised increases in expenditure, we have not had the reform.
  The Secretary of State for Health made a statement today, but on reform he gave us only woolliness and gimmickry on a grand scale. Problems of bed blocking and cancelled operations—77,818 of the latter last year—persist. The problem that there are more people waiting to see a consultant remains—there are 113,000 more of them since the Government came to office. The problem that our NHS has more administrators than beds persists and is exacerbated almost every day. To be precise, there are 12,290 more administrators than there are beds.
  All those problems persist because we have a monolithic, bureaucratic, over-centralised, inflexible and unresponsive system. About £10 billion a year is wasted in the NHS in various ways.
  A little while ago, I praised the hon. Member for Warrington, North generously and perhaps extravagantly. She spoke about the danger that more people will have to pay for operations. She is a keen student of the facts of political debate, and she must know that, last year alone, an extra 250,000 people in this country did just that, even though they had no insurance.
  The two-tier system already exists under this Government. Many Conservative Members, including those who have used the NHS for decades of our lives, do not think it right that people should have to use their life savings to save their lives. That is what is happening under this new Labour Administration.
  I shall take no lectures from the Financial Secretary, and certainly none from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I hail from the wing of the Conservative party whose members pay mortgages and buy their own furniture. I have used the NHS for 35 years of my life. I did not go to a Scottish public school called Loretto, and I will not take lectures from the Secretary of State about

  801
  the importance of standing up for and tailoring policies that are in the interest of people who do not have money. I believe in treating people on the basis of their need. We have an open mind about how to improve health care, and the Labour party has a closed mind. It has learned nothing over the past five years, and it is arrogant and stupid enough to think that it has nothing to learn in the course of this Parliament either.
  This Government have failed on their public service agreement targets. They have failed on truancy, they have failed on numeracy levels for 11-year-olds, and are failing now in terms of the growth of passengers on the railway system. They are failing in terms of the reduction of congestion on our roads, which increased in 2001 by 3 per cent. They are failing in relation to their criminal justice targets, too. They say that they want to cut robbery; they are failing to do so.
  The Government know how to tax and they know how to spend, and, as my right hon. and hon. Friends and millions of people the length and breadth of the country are increasingly aware, they also know how to waste money on a monumental scale. They have failed, and they are failing. With their approach, they will continue to fail.
  The Government have been sussed. That is why they are becoming rattled—they have no new ideas. They have lived by spin, and they will die by spin. They are a useless shower.
  6.46 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been a good debate. I fear that its tone and content plummeted with the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I would not dream of lecturing him; it is not in my nature. I feel called on, however, to counsel him slightly, which is in my nature. The last person whom I witnessed using visual aids at the Dispatch Box, as he has just done, was one Neil Hamilton. We all know what happened to him. I would hate the hon. Member for Buckingham to end up in freak show television. He is due for another destination entirely—languishing on the Opposition Benches for many years to come.
  In this Budget, we are building on the prudence of our first five years in office the principles for the next 50 years. I say that in the light of two contributions that I have heard from Opposition Members. If I may, I should like to compare and contrast them, as one was invited to do in response to exam questions of the sort set by the professor—the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on this issue—and even, I suspect, from time to time, by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), in his own mind at any rate.
  The two contributions in question came from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer). They were interesting and contrasting contributions. That of the right hon. Member for Fylde was reflective and considered. It bore all the hallmarks of someone who has been responsible for the publication of the Red Book, and it raised a number of important issues, not least about oil fraud. I am bound to say that, just as Calais was found to have been carved on the heart of Mary Tudor, so oil fraud will be found—when that unhappy day comes—to have been carved on mine. I will therefore write to the right hon. Gentleman about his detailed points in relation to oil fraud.
  802
  A contrasting speech was made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. His contribution was that of an energetic Europhobe and a fanatical free marketeer, who characterised the Government's economic policy in the most grotesque way. For him to suggest, having heard yesterday's Budget speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government had a downer on competition and did not recognise the benefits of the market parodies beyond belief what the Government have stood for over the past five years.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham invited the House to consider what has been said about the Budget by those responsible for industry, business and the creation of wealth in our society. I am happy to do that. I refer him to the comments of Mr. Digby Jones of the CBI, who said that the Chancellor had left businesses in no doubt that he was committed to encouraging enterprise. The tax improvements, he said, including those relating to the red tape burden, were welcome. He especially welcomed the financial help for small businesses gaining accreditation as Investors in People. Although the two sides of the House disagree about the issues and about the balance of the Budget, to characterise the Budget, as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire sought to do, as anti-competitive and anti-market does not do justice to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister at least accept that the Government have fundamentally changed their minds about tax and spend in the past six months? Is that why the Prime Minister has been going around looking so washed out over the past few days?
  Mr. Boateng: I do not accept that, or the hon. Gentleman's description of the Prime Minister, any more than I recognise his description of the state of the British economy today. We must not forget what we inherited from the Conservative party.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, not at the moment. Conservative Members do not like being reminded of their past, but they will have to hear about it for a bit.
  We inherited from the Conservatives in 1996–97 a debt that was 44 per cent. of national income. Three years ago, we brought it down to 36 per cent. and, last year, it was 31 per cent. That is in stark contrast to the United States, which has a debt of 41 per cent., the euro area as a whole—this will be music to the ears of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire—which has a debt of 53 per cent., and Japan, which has a debt of 59 per cent.
  The difference between us and Conservative Members is that we have the prudence and capacity to manage the economy, whereas they are incompetent and have a wanton disregard for sound public finances. That was the Conservative party's legacy. The Labour party is now the party of government—that rankles with all too many Conservative Members—and we have cut interest debt payments by £8 billion and saved almost £5 billion more on the cost of unemployment.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham is concerned about waste. What about the waste of idleness and the obscene waste of unemployment? That is what Conservative

  803
  Members were responsible for when they had stewardship of our economy. We have made the Bank of England independent, a step that the shadow Chancellor described at the time as damaging to the future of this country. Conservative Members have changed their minds. I listened to the right hon. Member for Fylde, and I could actually believe—this may stretch the imagination of some of my hon. Friends—that, somewhere deep in the bowels in the office of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he was secretly working away at just such a plan. However he did not have the guts to implement it. It took a Labour Government and a Labour Chancellor to do that, and the economy has benefited ever since.
  We have freed up the resources for public services in a sustainable and responsible way. We are delivering on our commitment to improve the public services in the Budget. That was recognised by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). All of them recognised in their contributions what the Government have done for the public services.
  This Budget rightly places an emphasis on health—I want to deal with that in detail in a moment—but my hon. Friends have also recognised what we have done for education and law and order in their constituencies. Importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln also emphasised in referring to community sports clubs what we have done for social cohesion—what we have done about the business of bringing together people and communities.
  Yes, we are desperately concerned as a Government about the importance of social inclusion. Yes, we are concerned to take the practical measures necessary to bring together sections of our community, one of which has been mentioned in the debate: teenage mums—girls under the age of 18 who find themselves with child. Yes, we are determined to do all we can to bring them back into the mainstream of society, to give them the opportunities to gain an education and to make work pay for them. Yes, we are absolutely determined to use all the
  804
  resources and measures at our disposal to ensure that they do not just allow themselves, or that they are not allowed, to languish alone, unsupported and isolated, in council estates or in unfurnished or furnished bedsits throughout the country.
  Yes, there is another way: it is right to make available the resources by which those young girls can be helped in supported accommodation. For those who speak for the Liberal Democrats to characterise that as a form of compulsion is a travesty of what we seek to do. This is a matter not of compulsion, but of support and encouragement.
  Mr. Willetts: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in an article headed "Why we should stop giving lone teenage mothers council homes" that appeared in the Daily Mail on 14 June 1999, the Prime Minister announced that that was the Government's policy, and that nothing has been done in the three years since then?
  Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken forward that cause in the Budget, as he has a range of other issues.
  The Budget sets out our response to three key challenges. The challenge of enterprise involves a low-taxation environment, incentives for investment and innovation and support for small businesses. There is the challenge of child poverty and family prosperity. We are helping families to help themselves with a radical reform of the tax and benefits system. All families with an income of up to £58.000 a year will be better off. There is also the challenge of the public services, which were starved of investment under two decades of Conservative rule.
  We are seeking to address decades of underinvestment in the NHS. The Opposition have failed to explain in all their wanderings, like flying Dutchmen going from place to place, how they will deliver the resources necessary for the NHS. Above all, they have failed to say how they would pay for the NHS and who would do the paying. We know who would pay—the public, through charges and private insurance. The Budget defends the NHS and takes forward our economy. I commend it to the House.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin]
  Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

  Former British Coal Employees
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I wish to raise an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on 7 November last year: the dilemma of canteen workers and cleaners who used to work for British Coal and its forerunners. The debate on 7 November was well attended.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy met nearly two dozen Members of Parliament in the Department of Trade and Industry on 13 November. He listened to what we said about the situation and heard our many points about the plight of former Coal Board canteen workers and cleaners. At that meeting, I made a handwritten note that the Minister acknowledged that
  "an injustice had been done between those who were registered and those weren't"
  under equal pay legislation. He also said that he would see if there was a mechanism for making an ex gratia payment, as he was anxious for the Department to make progress on mining issues.
  The Government have made good progress on mining issues, and have learned in the past five years that the legacy of the coal industry runs deep and wide, ranging from cleaning up the environment to compensating workers who have become victims of ill health. It is claimed that there are many victims, not least the women who worked in the industry, who were denied equal pay, given fewer holidays and refused help with concessionary fuel, and who received inferior pensions because they were women. Their fight for justice turned into what can only be described as a war of attrition between the unions in the industry and the Government which went on for many years.
  Those women did not have claims in on time, as the legislation stipulated, but many of my hon. Friends and I believe that that was not their fault. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out in a letter to me today, it was the responsibility of union representatives to keep their members informed; if the claims had been lodged in a timely manner, the problem would not have arisen. Somewhere along the line, someone did not process their claims. Since our meeting with the Minister, there have been two lobbies of Parliament by those ex-workers. I was invited to the second one on 21 March, which was addressed by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, Arthur Scargill.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I was invited to that meeting by women with claims in my constituency. Did my right hon. Friend, like me, find it bizarre that that was the only lobby of Parliament in which the sole speaker was the president of the NUM? All those women had travelled down to London to lobby their MPs, but the only person allowed to speak was Arthur Scargill.
  Mr. Barron: I did indeed find it bizarre. It was the only parliamentary lobby I have ever attended at which the person sitting on the platform asked people to ask questions, then said if there was time MPs could ask, not answer, questions. I dare say that many right hon. and
  806
  hon. Members would love all lobbies to be like that; we could go along and ask questions of people who had come to make a case to the House.
  At that meeting, the NUM president once again claimed that in April 2001 the then Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), had agreed to pay women who did not have a valid claim under the legislation. I have spoken directly to my right hon. Friend, who categorically denies the allegation made by Mr. Scargill.
  I have a copy of my right hon. Friend's letter dated 23 April 2001 which outlines what was agreed between the Department of Trade and Industry and the NUM regarding the women who had valid claims under the legislation. There is no mention in the agreement of any promise of payment to women who did not submit a valid claim. There were three points in the agreement: first, the level of compensation that the women would get; secondly, the minimum payment that they would get; and thirdly, an agreement to fund arrears of subscription and an administration fee in accordance with the ruling handed down at York county court on 2 October 2000.
  The third point may sound a little obscure to my hon. Friends, so I shall clarify it. They may be interested to know what the York county court case was about. I have a copy of the court's decision. The court was in fact the Barnsley county court, which happened to be sitting in York that day. No reason is given for that.
  In 1999 the DTI offered a settlement to the women who had valid claims, and some of them accepted. Included in the 1999 offer from the DTI was an offer of indemnity against the women having to pay money to the NUM out of their settlement. As some hon. Members know, the NUM asks ex-members to sign a form agreeing to pay arrears of subscriptions and an administration fee if their claims are successful. The women who had agreed the DTI settlement therefore refused to pay the union, given that they had indemnity. As I understand it, the level of settlement would have meant the women handing almost all their compensation over to the NUM.
  As a consequence of the women's refusal, the National Union of Mineworkers took three of the women to court—its own ex-members—in a test case. The women were defended by the DTI, but the NUM won the case. It won the right to take a cut of the women's compensation money.
  When the rest of the cases were settled by agreement in April last year, the Government gave the NUM £1.7 million under the terms of the agreement to which I referred,
  "on the basis that the Union would not seek to recover those costs from the compensation amounts being paid to each former canteen worker—who will therefore receive their full entitlement without any deductions."
  The NUM can hardly justify seeking to recover those legal costs, because it was paid a further £600,000 to cover legal costs incurred over the years in connection with the claims. Out of a total settlement of some £14 million the NUM received £2.3 million. Some people might argue that legal costs paid for in the 1980s and 1990s were paid out of the women's contributions while they were at work.
  When the former canteen workers and cleaners who had received no compensation lobbied Parliament on 21 March, I asked Mr. Scargill whether, if the

  807
  Government were to offer ex gratia payments to those women, he would want any of it. He said that he would not. I should think not, given that none of the women had submitted valid claims. It is clear that his union had not represented their interests in the matter.
  Hon. Members may be interested to know that the NUM is making a huge profit from the operation of the current compensation schemes for chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger. Former coal miners suffering from those industrial diseases who approach the NUM are advised to use a firm of solicitors, Raleys, in Barnsley. When their claims are submitted to Raleys, they are asked to sign a form agreeing to pay fees to the NUM. I have spoken to ex-miners who thought on that basis that the NUM was progressing their compensation cases, but it is not doing so. It is the solicitors who are progressing their claims. One of the fees that they agree to pay to the NUM by signing the form is an administration fee of 3 per cent., up to a maximum of £750, which is different in total from that of the canteen women. The other fee is NUM contribution money for a maximum of three years, which is not dissimilar to the amount that the NUM attempted to take from the canteen workers and cleaners who settled with the DTI in 1999.
  I have an example of how much the NUM receives by getting the claimant to sign the form, but letting someone else do the work. The example involves a man who made a successful respiratory claim. Out of the total amount that he received—£6,390—the NUM was paid an administration fee of £184 for pointing him in the direction of Raleys solicitors, plus £308 for back payment of union dues. Some £492 was thus paid to the NUM. Even on claims in which compensation is low, the NUM still takes at least 15 per cent. from claimants through Raleys. Raleys itself is paid large amounts of money by the DTI to administer the scheme, as are other claims handlers, so the firm is not on its own in that respect.
  In an answer that I received today to a parliamentary question that I tabled last week, the up-to-date figures show that Raleys has received £4.8 million for chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims and £3.2 million for vibration white finger claims. If we look at how much money is paid to claimants through Raleys, we see a total for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger of some £60.5 million. That is the total that has been paid through Raleys to claimants in the area that my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) and I represent.
  If we accept that the vast majority of Raleys claimants are NUM members and that the bulk of the money paid is for final settlement—indeed, this must be the case because, as my hon. Friends know, interim settlements are only £2,000 per claimant—it is reasonable to assume that the NUM, on the basis of its lowest fees of 15 per cent., has had or will have at least £9 million out of that money for doing nothing more than getting its members to sign up to Raleys solicitors in Barnsley. Furthermore, about 40 per cent. of the claims are settled posthumously, so they are taking dead men's money.
  It is clear that the union has been taking millions of pounds for doing very little, while the former canteen workers and cleaners have been left out in the cold
  808
  through no fault of their own. We need to find a solution to this mess. In his letter to me today, my hon. Friend the Minister reiterates his difficulties in finding a legal basis to solve the problem. However, he says that he will continue to explore whether there is any reasonable way of addressing the matter. I hope that a mechanism can be found to make these women an ex gratia payment of at least the minimum sum that was paid out to their more fortunate colleagues in last year's settlement. The NUM was a party to the dilemma in which these women find themselves, so I think that it should also make a contribution to them in an act of solidarity, given that millions of pounds have gone into its coffers over the past few years for doing next to nothing.
  I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us about how he would like to make progress with me and other hon. Members on justice for these mineworkers, who have been left out in the cold through no fault of their own.
  7.14 pm
  The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on securing this debate and on bringing this issue before the House. He extended his comments, perfectly properly, in order to draw parallels between the treatment of various former miners and former NUM members. I think that the court of public opinion will be very interested in his comments about the NUM's behaviour. However, I shall restrict my remarks, for reasons that I am sure my right hon. Friend understands, to the subject of canteen workers and cleaners.
  The subject has become very familiar to me and to all Labour Members who are present. Indeed, the Minister for Employment and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), stood in for me in a similar debate on 7 November. I appreciate that this continues to be a matter on which there are strong feelings within the coalfield communities. I have experienced those, having gone out of my way to encounter the people involved at first hand. I wish that it was within my gift, or that of any Minister, to resolve the issue in a simple, straightforward and just way.
  Before discussing the details of where we are now, it might be useful briefly to recap the history of the equal value issue. Originally, certain British Coal women workers, mainly cleaning and canteen staff, lodged claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970, which required
  "like pay for like work".
  The claims lodged in the 1970s proved unsuccessful, and in the event British Coal won the litigation. The 1970 Act was amended in 1983 so that claims could be made on an equal value basis. Subsequently, a majority of the women who had lodged the earlier claims went on to lodge equal value claims. In all, between 1986 and 1992 around 1,300 women lodged claims at the employment tribunal.
  The amended Act enabled the women to seek compensation if they could show that they were being paid less than men in comparable jobs. British Coal resisted that on the grounds that the legislation did not apply to their situation. The arguments about those legal technicalities went on for many years, culminating in hearings in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords. Settlements were reached with members of the

  809
  Union of Democratic Miners and, subsequently, several members from the NUM. However, the NUM urged the majority of its members to hold out.
  To fast forward a full decade, a deal to settle the outstanding claims was finally brokered in April last year by the then Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain). Under that agreement, all the women with valid claims lodged with an employment tribunal stood to receive settlements based on length of service, the average settlement being around £10,000. It was also agreed that those who had accepted British Coal's earlier offer would, as they had lodged a claim, receive top-up payments, ensuring that all those eligible would receive settlements on the same basis. I am pleased to say that almost all—98 per cent—of those with tribunal cases have now been paid.
  Up until that point, it was clearly a story of a Labour Government accepting an historic liability and acting in an extremely honourable way towards a group of people who had registered claims that had not been paid out during previous years. Unfortunately, as we all know, the story did not end there.
  When the deal was brokered last April, it was apparent that some women who had not lodged equal value claims at the industrial tribunal might otherwise have had valid cases for compensation. It now appears that there may be more than 3,000 such individuals—more than twice the number of those with valid claims. I recognise that at that time, between 1986 and 1992, they may not have been informed of the possibility of making a claim or may have been let down by those acting on their behalf.
  The trade unions were well aware of the equal value rules and the procedures that had to be followed. In such matters, it would have been the responsibility of union representatives to keep their members and former members informed.
  Jeff Ennis: I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. He is very well briefed and he knows that the issue is not quite as simple as that—in fact, it is extremely complicated. In my constituency I sent out forms to about 100 of my former canteen workers and cleaners who fall into this category. I received 79 back, of which only 42—or 53 per cent.—were from NUM members. The other 47 per cent. were either in a different trade union or, in 33 per cent. of cases, not in any trade union. I therefore accept that to some extent the NUM is culpable as regards the situation of their members. However, some women who were not trade union members received no advice at all. My canteen workers are not especially interested in who is to blame; they want to know who will sort out the mess. Arthur Scargill and the NUM will not do that, and I hope that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has timed his intervention wrongly. However, he should not make a speech.
  Mr. Wilson: Obviously, we could debate the matter for much longer than half an hour. I cannot begin to tackle the list of reasons why, between 1986 and 1992, each woman did not register a claim or have a claim registered on her behalf. The bottom line is that although 1,300
  810
  people registered claims, and there were channels for communicating information, others have emerged—in some cases, 10 or 15 years after they should have registered a claim—who have not done that. I am now confronted with that problem.
  As I said, the trade unions were well aware of the equal value rules. I did not mention a specific trade union. Although the Administration at the time were very different, steps were taken to communicate the fact that the claims could and should be registered. I acknowledge the specific difficulties that existed in coalfield communities, especially in the earlier part of the period that we are considering, but they cannot explain the failure to take action that was clearly so much in the interests of members, especially women members. I cannot help wondering whether the interests of male union members would have been so lightly regarded.
  Whatever the reasons for claims not being made or pursued, there is no legal basis on which British Coal or the Department of Trade and Industry can simply pretend that the claims were legally registered. The terms of the Equal Pay Act 1970 impose a time limit on bringing a claim before an employment tribunal—a time limit of six months from the termination of employment. There is no discretion to extend that limit. Anyone who fails to register a claim in the employment tribunal system within six months of termination of employment does not have a legally valid claim to equal value pay under the terms of the Equal Pay Act, and is not eligible for any payment.
  It is important to note that the legislation does not apply only to the coal industry, but to all employment sectors. Of course, I sympathise with the women who are in the position that we are discussing, and I have therefore agreed to reconsider whether anything can be done for them. I am giving the matter detailed consideration; I have gone down several avenues in an attempt to find a solution. I have listened carefully to representations. However, none of the options that I have identified so far can overcome two key difficulties.
  First, there is no legal basis for paying out money on large numbers of claims that have turned up more than a decade late when there is no other legal reason for doing that. Secondly, it is hard to understand how special treatment for British Coal employees would not be unfair to all those other people who have had claims disqualified under the tribunal system because of time barring. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider carefully the significance of that point. All hon. Members have such people in their constituencies. In resolving one apparent anomaly, we would create a much bigger one. The 2,000 claims did not appear until the 13 had been settled. In the same way, if the other 2,000 were somehow settled by sleight of hand, tens of thousands of people throughout the country who have had tribunal claims time barred would be in the same position as the 2,000.
  Mr. Barron: I understand the difficulty that my hon. Friend outlines, but, as he said, many of the problems occurred under a former Administration. I know that some of the cases relating to equal pay claims were around in 1985. A constituent, Mrs. Peggy Craig, who, in the 1970s, took over from a man as manageress in the canteen at the coal mine where I worked, received letters in 1985 from her union, the NUM, about the action that it was taking. The case did not progress. That was partly to do with the battle in the courts between the National Coal Board and

  811
  the Government. The Government were trying to frustrate small victories that the unions gained on behalf of their members. Much of the problem stems from the war of attrition that I mentioned earlier. That did not apply in any other industry to my knowledge. It makes the people whom we are considering a special case for that reason, if not in law.
  Mr. Wilson: As I said earlier, if we start going into every individual case to find out why a claim was not registered in 1986 or 1987, that would be an extremely complex matter to determine. Let me assure the House that every legitimate case will throw up an anomaly with someone else who will have a different set of circumstances attached to their case. An awful lot of injustices occurred during that period, in the coal industry and in society in general. The idea that the Government can now address retrospectively 10, 15 or 20 years later every tribunal case that was not registered as a result of these injustices is evidently unsatisfactory.
  I want to nail the untruth that an assurance was given to Mr. Scargill in April 2000 that these claims were going to be dealt with. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath confirmed, no such undertaking was given. Incidentally, I have looked at the press coverage on the day after that meeting, and there was not a word from Mr. Scargill about unregistered claims. The coverage was all about the 1,300 registered claims, which have been met in full at a cost to the Government of £14 million—honour due and honour paid to the credit of this Government—and what we are talking about here are the 2,000 or more claims that have subsequently turned up, which were not registered within the proper time frame or, indeed, until a decade or more later.
  I want to say something about addressing historic injustices when there is a legal basis on which to do so. My right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to what we are doing in that context. This is not about the money. If one looks at the amount of money that is going into the
  812
  coalfield communities as a result of actions taken by this Government, it is clear that the amount of money involved in dealing with this issue is absolutely tiny. What is not tiny is the fact that there is no legal basis for addressing these claims under the tribunal system, and that to do so would create an anomaly that would represent a gross injustice to all the other people who have time-barred claims under the tribunal system before and after the episode that we are discussing.
  I shall give the House an example of what we have done to try to address real injustices, when there has been a legal basis to do so. On 11 December, I announced that, following the consultation process, I was persuaded that a number of miners who were dismissed in connection with the 1984–85 strike and not subsequently re-employed by British Coal were harshly treated. I concluded that the most appropriate way forward would be to enhance the pensions of those miners in recognition of the years of further service they had lost. I am about to write to the interested parties about the process that will be followed, and to ask them to inform former miners who think they might qualify for a pensions enhancement to register their interest.
  On coal health, we have addressed the liabilities of the past that were ignored for 20 years. On low pensions, we have picked up the injustices of the past that were ignored for 20 years. On dismissed miners, we have picked up the injustices of the past that were created almost 20 years ago. On the issue of canteen workers, there is a genuine difficulty in picking up injustices of the past that involve claims that should have been registered 10 or 15 years ago and that were not brought to our attention until 2001 when a Labour Government had come to power. I think that my colleagues can understand that difficulty. I do not expect Mr. Scargill and his like to want to understand it. I have placed our general record on dealing with historic injustices in the coalfields in front of the House tonight, and I believe that we have a very good story to tell.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Social Fund
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 232, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5237.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.——[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am delighted to have this opportunity to share with colleagues some of the deliberations of the Select Committee on Social Security——now the Select Committee on Work and Pensions——whose report on the social fund was published on 27 March 2001.
As I came up the stairs into the Chamber, someone provided me with what I think will be the killer punch in today's debate——an article from The Daily Telegraph of Monday 15 April that announced to the world that J. K. Rowling is on my side. It says that she called for reform of the social fund in the foreword to an important report by three charities——the National Council for One Parent Families, the Family Welfare Association and the Child Poverty Action Group. She is also in favour of child development grants that focus on providing essentials for decent homes.
I am told that if the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), is not kind to us this afternoon, he might be cast in a not especially advantageous light in one of Miss R ling's novels. I know that he is a literary man and that he will know exactly what that could mean for him——[Interruption.] He might indeed get a share of the royalties, which he would no doubt give to charity.
It is important that we have this debate now, although it is inconvenient for two reasons. First, hon. Members in the main Chamber are discussing important social security and welfare issues relating to the Budget. It is not my fault that we cannot be there: today is the day that was allocated for this debate, and the Select Committee decided that we should take the best possible advantage from it. Secondly, colleagues serving on the Standing Committee on the State Pension Credit Bill would have been here had their duty not been to that important part of the work of the House. Hon. Members might be slightly thinner on the ground than they would have been had the debate been better timed, but at the end of the day it is quality that counts, not quantity.
For two reasons, however, it is important that we hold the debate now. The report was published in the dying days of the last Parliament, and the Government responded, as they are bound to do, in the early days of the new Parliament. I hope that the Minister, who took office in middle of the process, has had slightly longer than usual to reflect on the recommendations in the Committee's report and on the Government's response.
240WH
I hope, too, that he has been able to gain an idea of the inevitable competing and conflicting priorities in his Department. The report was published a year or so ago, and it is reasonable to step back and consider now how the policy on the social fund and its various elements is being implemented, and whether it is achieving the desired objectives.
The other reason why this is an important time is that it will be difficult for the Minister to make a substantial impact and bring about reform on the necessary scale within the tight envelope of existing departmental budgets. However, as we all know, the Government are carefully considering what they will do for the next three-year comprehensive spending review round. The Minister will, I hope, take some comfort from what is said this afternoon, because it should strengthen his hand in trying to find out what scope there is for making step changes in the next three years to aspects of the social fund and its objectives.
I have always supported the Government's substantial policy changes to encourage people into paid work. Making work pay, welfare to work programmes and other related policies are all important. They are changing the culture. It is right to encourage people to find their own path and work their own way out of sustained periods on benefit. The adage used by the Government to encapsulate that idea starts "work for those who can", but the other half of the adage is "support for those who can't".
I listened carefully to the Budget statement——yesterday afternoon was exciting. About extra resources for the national health service, some of us would say, "Not before time." However, I am concerned that some people are being left behind by the Government's aspirations——their ambitious targets and objectives to help those who are not in work into work and to sustain those in low-paid work. People who are a long way removed from the labour market——some of them in impossible positions and with few realistic prospects——are being left behind. Are the Government giving support for those who cannot get into work the same energy and commitment as they have expended on trying to make work pay and get people off benefit into work of some sort?
It is easy to forget that members of families and households who experience chronic long periods on benefit can be left behind. They are the forgotten poor, living at the very low end of the market. Despite the Government's good work on welfare to work, some of the policy discussions that we have had in the House in the past three or four years have tended to overlook those who are abjectly poor and living below the poverty line. Some of them, because of the impact of the social fund, are working with budgets that are less than minimum social security rates; that is impossible to sustain for any length of time.
I am therefore absolutely behind the Child Poverty Action Group and other pressure groups that are arguing that an effective voice should be made available for the poor——I am talking about members of households with below average income in the bottom two deciles, especially those who remain there for a long time. We must find some way of making a better connection with them, because they are largely alienated. They inhabit estates that are despairing places in which to live and raise families. We must try to engage

241WH
their interest and prevent the alienation that is rotting the social fabric of many estates throughout the United Kingdom. I do not want to exaggerate that decay, but we all have pockets where those problems are prevalent in our constituencies. The problems are complex. There is no easy solution; I ask only that the same degree of attention be paid to that category of claimant as to those who are nearer the labour market and have been able to take advantage of the new deal and other programmes, which the Government are right to have introduced and for which they deserve credit.
The Social Security Committee's third report of the 2001–02 Session was published on 27 March 2001, and the Government's reply was published in July. We have all had time to consider the content of both documents, so I shall simply sketch the background to the social fund. Launched in 1988, it is in two parts today. The first part is the regulated social fund, from which payments are made by right to people who meet certain conditions; there is a full right of appeal to a social fund tribunal.
The second part is the discretionary social fund. Discretionary payments are made from a cash-limited budget, but there is a restricted, internal right of review. The regulated social fund is responsible for sure start, maternity grants, funeral payments, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments. People receiving a range of benefits, including income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance, are eligible. Working families tax credit gives access to maternity and funeral payments; housing and council tax benefit gives access only to funeral payments. Winter fuel payments are made on the basis of age to households containing people aged 60 or over, regardless of income.
The discretionary social fund, the one that principally concerns us, consists of three elements. First, community care grants meet the needs of people coming from institutions to help them to become established in the community——or help to prevent people in the community going into institutions. Secondly, budgeting loans, which are repayable by the claimant through weekly benefits, help to deal with expenses that occur irregularly. Thirdly, crisis loans are designed to meet unforeseen emergencies; those, too, are repayable from weekly benefit. The discretionary fund remained substantially unaltered between 1988, when the social fund was introduced, and April 1999, at which time, as a result of pressure and advice, the Government tried to simplify the budgeting loan application process by simplifying and computerising it and taking a more mechanistic approach to the business of awarding loans.
Let me describe the spending involved. In 1999–2000, the regulated social fund spent about £1.7 million on winter fuel payments, £38 million on funeral payments, £17 million on maternity payments and about £1 million on cold weather payments. The latest figures that I could obtain for the discretionary fund were for 2001–02, when £103 million was allocated to community care grants. Gross expenditure on loans for 2000–01 was £514 million, but owing to higher than forecast loan recovery and an underspend of £10 million——it may also have been a year of reallocation——the gross loans budget
242WH
was increased for 2001–02 to £548 million. Net expenditure——after loans were repaid——was £32 million in 1999–2000.
In August 2000, deductions were made from the benefits of 746,000 claimants so that they could repay social fund loans of one kind or another. Of those claimants, 51 per cent. were lone parents and almost a third had disabilities. Estimated average deduction from benefits was £9.60 a week, which is a large sum for people in those already disadvantaged categories. Many people's benefits are reduced because of the requirement to repay loans.
It is worth noting that, according to figure obtained from the Secretary of State's annual report, administration costs in 1999–2000 were £250 million. That is a shocking figure, given that it was twice as much as the grant budget and about six times as much as the net cost of the loans budget for that year. There are real difficulties with how much it costs to achieve the outcome, and whether the outcome is adequate to meet the need.
The main thrust of the Committee's report was to consider five key objectives for the social fund. The first objective was to contain expenditure, which has been achieved. The second was to maintain the efficiency of the income support scheme; the integrity of the income support scheme has been preserved. However, it is more difficult to be confident about the remaining three objectives. The third objective was to concentrate help on those facing the greatest difficulties, the fourth to enable a more variable response to inescapable individual needs, and the fifth to break new ground in community care. Some progress has been made with community care grants and how they are applied, but the Committee contends that, at the very least, a question mark hangs over whether the latter three objectives set out in 1998 have been met in anything but the breach.
In paragraphs 117 and 118 of our report, the Committee responds to that problem. Paragraph 117 states:
"We urge the Government to use the opportunity offered by the re-organisation of the DSS to take a radical look at the Social Fund, so that it may work to enhance the strategy to reduce child poverty"——
the subject of one of the Chancellor's main campaigns——
"rather than work against it."
Some evidence showed that the social fund objectives worked directly against the Government's stated aims. As paragraph 118 states, at the start of the inquiry
"we asked ourselves whether the Social Fund was achieving the aim set for it…In particular, we asked whether it was helping the poorest and most vulnerable in our society."
The report's main general conclusion is that
"the scheme in its present format needs urgent overhaul and an injection of funds. Without such action, there is a strong possibility that the wider social policy objectives of the Government will be endangered."
That would be a shame not only for the Government but for those whom the social fund is designed to serve.
The Minister is a friend, a former member of the Select Committee, and a man for whom I have tremendous respect, but I have to tell him that we were upset by the cursory nature of the Government's response. There was an election in the offing, so perhaps

243WH
there was little time to prepare it, or perhaps civil servants go on holiday during elections— I do not know. The fact that the response was published the day before the summer recess began might have had something to do with it. I do not know why the response was so short, but I tell the Minister honestly and openly that the Committee took the view that the Department had given only cursory consideration to the serious piece of work that the report constitutes. The response does not seriously engage with the issues at all.
Paragraph 117 of our report states that
"the huge gaps and inconsistencies caused by the inadequacies of the Social Fund risk undermining important initiatives aimed at tackling homelessness, helping victims of domestic violence re-establish their lives, supporting vulnerable people in the community and re-settling people from institutions."
All those are supposedly stated targets of the fund, but current practice does not help to achieve any of them. Our other main complaint is that the opportunity for reform that was available while Jobcentre Plus and other parts of the new Department were being established was missed. Jobcentre Plus is an exciting and commendable reform, but it could have been used as a platform for rethinking the place of the social fund in the Government's wider social agenda on reducing poverty and social exclusion.
My impression is that Ministers were at a loss to know how to cope with the social fund. The fund in its various parts applies to almost all the disaggregated parts of the Department, such as the pensions agency, Jobcentre Plus, child benefit centres, the disability directorate, and so on. I have yet to be assured that the final resting place of the social fund——the way in which it is finally embedded into the new, reformed Department——has been properly considered and established so that it may stand the test of time.
We thought that there was a clear case for using better trained and specialist staff working directly and intensively with social fund applicants, perhaps for short periods, and to allow them to become involved in liaison with other agencies such as local authority housing departments, social services departments, the probation service, homelessness resettlement projects and welfare rights services. Help given at a vulnerable point in a social fund applicant's life might help them to put their lives back on a more stable footing and allow them to think about the future and access to the labour market. In the longer term, that might reduce the cost to the public purse in terms of benefits. It seems that social fund crisis loan applicants have been excluded as a group from the new, allegedly customer friendly approach of Jobcentre Plus.
In the case of applicants for crisis loans, all claimants will be sent to a designated office within a jobcentre cluster where they will be interviewed by staff sitting behind protective screens. When drawing up our report on the ONE pilots, the Select Committee drew attention to the fact that the Government had promised in paragraph 46 of their response to the social fund inquiry that social fund alignment payments, which comprised 30 per cent. of crisis loan payments last year,
"will be handled as part of the normal claim taking process in Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder areas…and immediate payment facilities will be available when a customer comes in for an Adviser interview."
244WH
I understand that the Government have reneged on that promise. I do not know whether there are sound policy reasons or difficult administrative reasons for that, but although they seemed enthusiastic, they now seem to have set their face against it. I urge the Government to reinstate their earlier promise and give careful consideration to how realignment payments are treated in the new Jobcentre Plus set-up. That is important, because life could be made a lot easier for clients.
There is a substantial case for increasing the community care grant element of the budget. The Select Committee's report calls for a substantial increase in the budget to a level that would at least ensure that all applications that are classed as high or medium priority are met to the full amount required. The report drew attention to the severe pressure on the community care grant budget, which was leading to an unfair postcode and calendar lottery. That argument is set out at greater length in paragraph 37 of the report.
In paragraph 115, on the case for grants, we argued for a system of entitlement that ensures that all those who qualify for payments are entitled to receive them regardless of where they live or the time of year the application is made. That is only common sense and natural justice. A system of entitlement would also allow money to be targeted at specific groups——for example, ex-offenders——to complement other Government objectives. I refer the Committee to the discussion in paragraph 31 and to table 1, where community care grants are set out in tabular form, which is more easily understood by reference to the report.
The tables show that there has been an increase. The community care grant allocation was raised to £103 million for 2001–02, and it will be £108 million in 2002–03. That modest increase is welcome, but it is not enough. The community care grant budget has risen only 11.3 per cent. in the past eight years——although it might be better if someone checked that, because I made the calculation myself. It is a cause of concern that about two thirds of all community care grant applications are refused, and that since 1994 the share accounted for by grants, as opposed to loans, has changed dramatically from about one third to one fifth. It can be argued that the balance has shifted too far towards loans: they impoverish claimants, forcing them to live below subsistence level.
The Committee recommended that the Department commission research to re-examine the basis on which the community care grant budget is allocated to local offices, including the relative weighting given to different client groups and the accuracy of case load and legitimate-demand measurements. The detailed argument for that is contained in paragraph 38 of the report. In their reply, the Government said that they would review the principles underpinning allocation and that the results would be reflected in the community care grant budget allocations for 2002–03. If there has been a change, it would be helpful if the Minister explained the thinking behind the review.
Ethnic monitoring was an important part of the report. I have been the Chairman of the Select Committee for four or five years, and hardly a report by the Committee has not immediately run across problems that arise directly from the difficulty that the Department has in servicing applicants from minority and ethnic backgrounds. That difficulty was a novelty to

245WH
me because as a representative from south-east Scotland, I have had no experience of dealing with substantial multicultural social groups, so it is fascinating to learn about the difficulties that other colleagues have.
I am absolutely certain that the Department can no longer ignore such matters as it seems to do. To give an example from the report, we learned that the call-centre system to deliver the new pension credit does not include a centre anywhere near the south-east. Every thing will be done by telephone, no doubt by highly trained people, in places such as Blackpool. I have nothing against people working in Blackpool, but I do not understand how the system can possibly cope with areas of heavy demand for pension credit and other social security benefit entitlements by remote control. Without experienced, trained interpreters, advisers and support staff who work in those communities, there is no real prospect of delivering a high-quality service to an increasing proportion of the population of the United Kingdom.
The social fund report threw up ethnic monitoring as a problem. It was a problem before, and it is a problem now——it seems to be a problem in just about every report that we do. I plead with the Minister that, when considering the social fund report, he not confine himself to that single policy area, but that he give serious attention to the problems connected with ethnic monitoring, and work with the Commission for Racial Equality as we suggest. To be fair to the Government, their response stated that dialogue was taking place, but the problem is a serious one of first principles. The Government and the Department have substantial work to do to satisfy me that they are dealing adequately with it.
An issue that is not restricted to the social fund and its delivery but crosses the whole of the poverty debate is that of wider access to capital and revenue for disadvantaged households. Increasing and worrying evidence indicates that there is a massive overhang of debt in many such households. I am sure that all hon. Members know from their casework of families who are over their heads in debt. Citizens advice bureaux do valuable work trying to rationalise and reconcile the debts, making it easier for people to work on a cash basis from week to week, but there is overwhelming evidence——it was clear in the evidence presented in the social fund inquiry——that more and more vulnerable families are now victims of loan sharks, who legally charge usurious rates of interest on loans to purchase basic household items to families in adversity, whose circumstances allow them nowhere else to go.
If the social fund were part of a sensible system, it would deal efficiently and expeditiously with cases, even if only by means of a loan which had to be repaid eventually. Instead, people find accessing the social fund so complicated, unpredictable, long-winded and bureaucratic that they would rather go around the corner and pay an extra £100 or even £200 in the course of a year repaying a loan. There was a very good example in the report from the Family Welfare Association. The total cost of buying a £400 refrigerator or washing machine would be £500 if one dealt with it sensibly by applying to the social fund, or £600 if one
246WH
bought from a catalogue. The report gave examples of people were paying as much as £2,000, because they repaid the money over a long period of time to loan sharks who charged increasing compound annual percentage rates.
It is ridiculous in this day and age that people can legally charge such rates of interest. I do not know why the Government have not considered capping the rates of interest that are used and abused in such ways. To keep their families together, people have no alternative but to get the money now, and pay interest at leisure, in a way that makes no financial or economic sense. Wider access to social fund loans is important because it would deal with a problem that is facing more and more families.
Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman makes his point cogently. I apologise for missing his initial remarks. I am not being critical of the Select Committee, but the difference between the regulated and the discretionary social fund is not as hard and fast as we might want it to be. Without going into detail, one of my constituents was seeking a funeral grant after the death of his mother. Initially, it was disallowed because he had a sister, albeit they were estranged. He overcame that, but was then told that he could not receive a grant towards a gravedigger because the gravedigger did not work for the council. Within the regulated social fund, there are discretionary elements that drove a gentleman who was on benefit for many years to seek appeals. He is still paying back the loans because of the discretionary sums, and the sum allowed for funerals falls ridiculously below the going rate for their true cost. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on cases such as that?
Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, we heard about a number of similar cases, but that one sounds especially perverse and difficult. I concur with the hon. Gentleman.
It is now time that we stood back. We have plenty of experience on which to base our judgments, and the time is now right for serious examination and fundamental reform. I know that the Minister is very sensitive to the problems and that he understands them as well as anyone. I know that he will use his best offices within his new office to address the problems. The debate gives us a chance to discuss some of the difficulties facing our constituents, and the Minister will be able tell us whether the next three-year spending round offers some hope that the system will be improved. In the social fund as it is currently constituted there is significant scope for improvement.
3.4 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on chairing the Committee during the production of its comprehensive report on the issues arising from the social fund. I shall try extremely hard not to fall into the trap of being a tad repetitive, because so many important points have been made, but I cannot promise.
I recognise what my hon. Friend the Minister has achieved over the years and what the Government have done to tackle child poverty. That was reinforced so importantly yesterday, in a way that I greatly welcome:

247WH
not only have the Government set the most ambitious target of any post-war Government in committing themselves to eradicating child poverty, but they have made real and substantial progress, however one cares to measure it.
The fact that the target will prove difficult to reach underlines the importance not only of the strategy of improving basic benefits——the working families tax credit and the new tax credit that it will become as well as income support——but of addressing the various ways, of which the social fund is an important one, in which Governments can help families on low incomes to tackle the problems that they face, especially those arising from crisis or the pressures of being on a low income for a very long time.
It is my view, and that of the Social Security Committee, that the social fund, far from contributing substantially to solving those problems, is in many ways part of them. The need for reform is urgent. The social fund is probably the last remaining element of a Dickensian, poor law approach in a welfare state that we are modernising very satisfactorily. So much progress is being made with Jobcentre Plus, the integration of benefits and work, and personal advisers that the service is shifting from a rather hostile, often patronising and generally unpleasant one, which it was for so many people for so long, towards one that is welcoming and positive and that supports people through the welfare to work process.
However, there is a core of people, often those whose lives are the most chaotic or who are in deepest crisis and trauma for a host of reasons, whom we are looking after least well. That is why the need for reform is so urgent. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned the report recently produced by the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Council for One Parent Families, "Like it or Lump it", which is their most recent review of the social fund and the case for action. In many respects, it reinforces and updates this report, and develops some of those groups' thinking. The Committee and I do not necessarily agree with it all, but it is a helpful contribution to the debate.
Those organisations are generally very positive indeed about what the Government have done to tackle child poverty. They are certainly friends, although critical ones, as they should be, of the Government's approach. Their report says:
"The operation of priorities and weightings, subject to local cash limits has led to criticisms that the Fund operates both a 'postcode' and a 'calendar' lottery rather than responding to real need. People can also receive loans if it is considered that they arc able to repay them. Spending on loans far outweighs that on grants and in some years the Fund has recovered more than it has paid out in loans…About one third of Community Care Grants and almost half of Budgeting Loan spending is paid to lone parents…but many are refused help".
That single paragraph crystallises the practical problems with the social fund.
Importantly, however, that is not to argue that the fund does not mean well, that the principles underpinning it are not well intentioned or that most people involved in its administration at all levels are not doing a good, competent and well-meaning job. I believe that they are. Compared with the experience that people on low incomes have of unlicensed credit dealers, the fund is a model of good practice.
248WH
I very much support the points that have been made about the operation of credit, which is so exploitative of those on low incomes. The fund offers loans at low interest, which is clearly of great value to people looking for a sum of money to spend who would otherwise turn to credit dealers, and is open to public scrutiny and accountability, which is why we are having the debate. That is much to its credit.
The fund is flawed in two respects, however. Its provision is not adequate to meet needs——I shall not spell out all the different ways in which that is the case, but it boils down to the fund not being large enough to direct assistance to all those who need it——and it cannot assist in the right way those who have recourse to it. That is due to two factors that are often conflated.
Many people turn to the fund at a time of crisis. Such crises include domestic violence, burglary, fire and a host of other things, and we know that people on low incomes are disproportionately likely to be affected. For example, hon. Members who represent inner-city constituencies will be extremely familiar with the fact that 50 per cent. of families on low incomes have no household insurance. Families without insurance are three times more likely to experience a domestic burglary than families with insurance. The more that people need the protection of an insurance policy, the less likely they are to have one, despite being more at risk. Families are trapped in a vicious circle in which they frequently do not have the money to insure themselves and often live in what are classified red-light districts for insurance purposes. If they are burgled, they find that they are unable to replace their property. Such crises drive people to seek the help of the social fund.
Similarly, we know that low-income families are more likely to be the victims of domestic fires——a fact borne out by statistics. In particular, families living in private rented accommodation in multiple-occupier homes are far more likely to be victims of domestic fires. When such people turn to the social fund, some are refused help and many others are not given all the help that they need. Some are turned from the social fund grant section towards loans. Even allowing for the fact that those loans are interest free, people become trapped in repayment problems and long-term poverty.
We must ensure that the fund is resourced to enable most people to get most of the help that they need most of the time in grant form during a crisis. That should not be subject to the arbitrary impact of the calendar and postcode lotteries that we researched for our report and which are referred to in the National Council for One Parent Families and Child Poverty Action Group report. That means that the social fund must be more generously funded.
I appreciate that not all those matters are in the Minister's remit, but I shall be grateful if he responds and assures me that such thinking is being taken up. Other Departments——in particular the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is responsible for housing——whose responsibilities overlap with those of the Department for Work and Pensions should take up those issues. If we were able to direct assistance towards them, we could help people who would otherwise end up in crisis, which would lead them to call on the social fund.

249WH
A good example of that is the expansion of the furnished tenancy scheme, from which two of the worst interactions with the social fund that I have ever heard of arose. One family——in my experience, this is a common feature of families using the social fund——had spent two years in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They were rehoused in an unfurnished tenancy and applied to the social fund, from which they received assistance. However, they did not receive enough to purchase a fridge. The family had three children, every one of whom had special needs. One child needed daily medication, which had to be kept refrigerated.
Without access to a fridge, the child's mother had to travel three miles to a hospital to pick up her child's medication every day for more than six months. That occurred about three years ago, but it is a classic example of how the social fund helped in the end——the family won their case on appeal. However, had we been able to do more for families leaving temporary accommodation by providing furnished accommodation as a rule, that family's needs would not have had to depend entirely on the social fund.
The second case happened about 18 months ago. A family left temporary accommodation for a flat. They received assistance, and got the cooker, the fridge and bedding, but they were not allowed a carpet. The father of the household was epileptic, so we had to pursue the case through the appeals process on the ground that when the father had an epileptic fit, which was frequently, he would fall and smash his head on an uncarpeted, hard floor. However, that was not considered an acceptable case for the special provision of a carpet.
Those are just two examples of the problems that we face. To set the fund in the broader context of what the Government can do to help in such circumstances, it would be useful to know that they are proceeding more energetically by considering furnished tenancies.
Tenancy-linked insurance schemes should also be mentioned. Some housing associations, and possibly some councils, are doing good work by building an insurance component into rents. Each week, they collect an insurance contribution with the rent, which makes sense. If we could encourage people to have affordable insurance policies, several demands on the social fund would be deflected. Many families, particularly those in chaotic circumstances who have tried to manage on a low income for a long time, simply cannot find £150 or £200 for a domestic insurance policy. They certainly cannot pay in a lump sum.
I shall briefly mention one of the main thrusts of the CPAG research and the representations made during the inquiries into both the social fund and the integrated child credit, which makes provision for what has been nicely described by the Family Welfare Association as "lumpy items." The Government have recognised the principle of the lumpy item with measures such as the winter fuel allowance and the sure start maternity grant, which is an excellent provision. Increasing the sure start maternity grant is one of the many good things that the Government have done to tackle poverty. Nothing is lumpier than a maternity grant.
250WH
However, that principle needs to be extended further to provision for later in life, particularly when children start school. The report develops how a social exclusion grant or a child development grant could be provided as of right to families on low incomes who receive maximum child credit and suggests how that would help families who spend several years on income support to meet the cost of the purchase, replacement or repair of items that are normally out their reach. Such costs are not necessarily those that arise from crises such as fire or burglary. I commend that approach.
I shall address the operation of the social fund, rather than whether the fund provides sufficient resources to help people out of poverty. My comments will reflect what the Committee said in its report, but I have also drawn heavily on an update from my local law centre, which I told about the debate. It was one of the places that the Committee visited while producing the report, and it helpfully provided us with cases and information on its experience of the social fund.
The law centre tells me that claimants still have problems getting past reception staff to make an application. Many people are being turned away by the gatekeepers——this is raised in the CPAG-NAOPF report——and are told, in advance, that they will not qualify for assistance. Those refusals do not show up in the statistics. People are being deterred from making a claim. Some cases, although the evidence is anecdotal and we cannot show how large the problem is, do not even appear as refusals. The law centre gave me an example. A client was given a claim form to complete. After he completed it and handed it in, he was told by someone who was not even a decision maker that his application had failed. He took the claim form back to the law centre, but it was unable to find any record of what happened. That example confirms its case, and our report draws that out through claimants' evidence to the Committee.
In addition, in written and oral evidence, the advice agencies talked about a culture of disbelief among the gatekeeping staff. Most Benefits Agency staff, at all levels, serve the public extremely well and to the best of their abilities. However, as the Chairman of the Committee said, we could do much more to raise the quality of all staff, particularly those on reception, and to monitor the quality of the service provided. In particular, we should do more to monitor and improve the quality of service delivery to ethnic minority clients, who, like more than a third of my constituents, do not have English as a first language, and those with mental health problems, who make a disproportionate number of the more casual claims on the service.
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept those who have been in care or been fostered are another particularly vulnerable group? I can work only on the basis of anecdotal evidence, but it has been reported to me that, although such people are already in the system, the different parts of that system are bad at communicating with each other. The Government have done a lot to raise the group's profile, but there are problems, particularly with loans.
Ms Buck: I thank my hon. Friend. Indisputably, young people in care and leaving care are very much at risk of falling through holes in the net. The service,

251WH
however much it has improved, still has a long way to go. The advice agencies think the information needed to support a claim and ensure that it is properly considered quite disproportionate to the nature of the request. To succeed, claimants must submit a variety of evidence such as reports from doctors and social workers, sometimes for payments of only £200. That is particularly worrying in view of the social factors that must be taken into account.
One claimant who gave evidence to the Committee spoke about people in rural areas sometimes having to go to two, three or four different villages or towns to visit the doctor, social services and the social fund office. In the cities, there is a different problem. Distances are not so great, but the functional illiteracy that many people have to overcome is a serious barrier to access to all the agencies that need to be accessed to draw together the information required to make a case. One knock-on effect of that is that advice agencies across London and in many other areas are buried in such work. They have to marshal the evidence, because too many clients are unable, for perfectly justifiable reasons, to do so themselves.
The third concern is the standard of initial decision making, which is sometimes unacceptably low. The law centre drew my attention to the example of a single parent with mental and physical health problems caring for his six-year-old daughter. The two had recently arrived in the United Kingdom, having witnessed, shortly before they left their home country, the death of the child's mother.
The child was traumatised and was referred to a child psychiatrist for assessment. She also had kidney problems and an immune system deficit. The two were moved from a homeless hostel to a flat that they needed to equip. Initially, they were refused a community care grant because they were not considered to be a family under exceptional pressure, which I find impossible to believe. All the supporting evidence had to be resubmitted, and it was then remarshalled and updated by the law centre. It was finally approved, but at considerable cost to the Government. That example shows how much law centre bureaucracy is necessary to take such a case to appeal.
Discretionary decisions are all too likely not to be properly objective and transparent. I accept the argument that being over-prescriptive may cause difficulties——a balance must be struck——but there remains a suspicion, not only among clients, that decisions may be unfair. We must address that issue. If law centres and advice services have to work with so many clients to guide them through the system, they may need more guidance on what is likely to succeed or fail.
On loan repayments, the Department for Work and Pensions claims back more per week than priority debtors may obtain through the courts. For people on low incomes, £2.70 a week is too high, and other non-priority debtors may expect to receive much less. The limits on repayment could easily be extended. I cite the example of a client who appealed against an incapacity-for-work decision, with income support already reduced to 90 per cent. of the personal allowance. The client was repaying loans at £7.80 a week and living, therefore, on
252WH
only £33 a week. The Government should extend and ease repayments for those who are directed to the loan service.
I welcome what the Government have done to tackle child poverty, but I remain of the view that reforming the social fund is essential if we are to join up all the aspects of the system and make them work effectively, especially for the 10 per cent. of low-income families who are the most needy. We must help those whose lives have been most disrupted by homelessness or domestic violence, or who are in need because they are refugees, because they have suffered a fire or a burglary, because they have mental health problems or because of some other crisis in their lives. Although it would be good to put more money into the social fund to extend eligibility and grants provision, more could be done within the existing budget to make the system work well for people.
We should remove the sense that is shared by too many social fund claimants that their relationship with the fund is stigmatising. They should not feel that they are being robbed of their dignity while having to overcome the problems of low income, but the anecdotal evidence is that that attitude is widespread and rooted among clients and advice agencies. I am convinced that many people have had bad experiences of the service.
I give thanks to people in my law centres and advice agencies, who work 24–7 to deliver a service to the poorest in the country. It is time that more was done to recognise the quality of the service provided by advice agencies throughout the nation to help people at the bottom of the pile.
3.27 pm
Hywel Williams: I speak as a new Member of the House who was not a member of the Social Security Committee. Having not taken part in previous discussions, I do not want to intrude too much on the debate. I begin by congratulating the Committee on its interesting and comprehensive report, and I share the disappointment at the Government response.
Having read the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee last year, I admit to a sense of déjà vu when I note, in paragraph (cc) of the response, the point about expanding the social fund's role to other groups. I remember seeing that recommendation before.
I have reservations about the social fund in general——and I speak as someone who used to help people to apply for payments under the pre-1986 system. That often entailed indignities and stigma for those people, and I remember pleading with officials in those far-off days for extra bedding or a heating addition. It was a dispiriting and stigmatising process. I am an unreconstructed warrior from the mid-1980s; I was against the social fund at the time and I have always taken the view that the only reform that the social fund needed was to be scrapped. I saw it as a vehicle that established the social norm of extreme thrift that was so dear to the last Conservative Government. For a Government who were against the nanny state, it seemed a blatant piece of social engineering. However, the Committee now urges various incremental reforms, with which I have no quarrel in the short term.

253WH
The social fund system has always struck me as being markedly worse than the previous system. The reasons for that are well known and have been rehearsed this afternoon. I shall not dwell on them, but I shall mention a few.
The fact that the fund is cash-limited rather than needs-driven is fundamental. The worries expressed about the balance between loans and grants struck me again when the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) told us that the proportion had reduced to 20 per cent. from the third that we were used to. The administrative costs of the social fund are high. I used to joke that if the fund was a bank it would now be in receivership, given the proportion of cost to the money administered and the good done by the fund——although I do not deny that it does a certain amount of good. I used to worry——I still do——about the operation of discretion; to say the least, it is unclear. Indeed, that is confirmed by what I have read of the report, and other Members have referred to inconsistency over time and from area to area, as a result of the postcode and calendar lottery.
However, my biggest worry is the long-standing worry that the social fund drives people into debt. One cannot say too often that people on income support are driven into debt, and therefore live on an unacceptable level of income. It does not happen by chance; it is well understood that people with social fund debts live below he income support level. They are poor, and they often have to borrow in order to buy the essentials of everyday life. It is no comfort to them to know that those with debts to moneylenders or loan sharks are even worse off.
The Government's response to recommendation (k), on page 7 of their reply to the report, was revealing. It was that extending the period for recovery of budgeting loans would
"extend the period when applicants would be unable to access further loans from the Social Fund because of existing debt."
That is an argument against extending the period. However——this is so revealing——the response continues:
"This could then drive applicants to encumber themselves with debt from other sources".
I have a message for the Government; indeed, I am sure that they already know it. That is the effect at present on people on income support who have debts to the Government for months, or even years, which they cannot avoid.
I asked the people at an advice centre on a local housing estate what the current effect of the social fund was. As always they expressed a number of fears. There is a lot of tick, a lot of tally and many unpaid debts. The people who do not get repaid are often claimants themselves; people who, from the goodness of their hearts, help their friends or relatives, then find themselves short of money. Later in their response, the Government say that they will take a softer view on rescheduling those debts. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that.
The Committee recommends reforms, and I shall mention a few of them——first recommendation (d), on fuel poverty. I cannot understand how the Government can argue that people with a disability or those with
254WH
children are at lower risk of fuel poverty than the elderly. They share the same risks. They have little money, they are more tied to the house, and they will need more heating than the general population. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, because some people need more money as a result of disability or child care responsibilities.
The Government suggest in paragraph 5 of their response that in the past benefits have broadly kept pace with fuel costs. However, as they say in the ISA advertisements, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Vulnerable groups should have the security of knowing not only that they can safely turn up the heat now, but that they will be able to do so in future.
As regards the allocation of community care grants to local offices, it has always been a mystery to me and others how the level of social fund money is determined locally. I have always assumed that the historical level of claiming is determined and then forms the basis for the allocation, but it is not a real guide to need. Three months after the social fund was introduced in my area, there was a review of the amount paid out. It was an interesting case. My area has high levels of disability, and there are many older people and long-term unemployed, but my office in Portmadoc paid out at the same level as the office in Harrow on the Hill. I could see no comparison between the two communities, and there certainly is none now, because Portmadoc is paying out as much as it can.
On determining local need, I draw the Government's attention to the index of multiple deprivation, which the National Assembly for Wales published last year after commissioning expert research. The index lists electoral districts according to several measures of poverty and gives scores for individual measures and a combined score. Using the index, it would be possible to list every one of the 750-odd electoral wards in Wales according to their relative deprivation, and it has already been used it in respect of stamp duty exemption.
The index is not perfect, but I commend it because it is better than the previous system that we used in Wales. Let me give two examples of that system, which are perhaps well known. First, car ownership was taken as a measure of wealth, and the possession of two cars was presumably a measure of even greater wealth. However, wages in Powys county are the lowest in Wales, while the level of car ownership is the highest. The ownership of two cars is also more widespread than elsewhere. The new measure gets over such ridiculous assumptions.
Secondly, part of my constituency that is known to suffer extreme deprivation would not have shown up under the old measures. One ward, which now shows up as the fourth most deprived in Wales, previously did not show up at all. Another ward, which did not appear in measures of housing deprivation, is now recognised as having the worst housing in Wales. The new system therefore measures deprivation, and I commend it to the Government.
I turn briefly to the level of community care grants and the level of funding year on year. Community care grants are a tiny proportion of the social security budget. I note from paragraph 10 of the Government's response that the level of funding has increased, but given that it was set too low in the first place, we are starting from a very low base. Indeed, 3 per cent. of not a lot is only a little bit more, and we should consider that.

255WH
I want briefly to discuss social fund staff training. When the social fund was introduced, many staff welcomed the possibility of working in a more welfare-oriented style with people who claimed grants and loans. Many social fund staff would welcome that opportunity again, because they do not want to be merely administrators or assessors; they want to work more constructively with people in difficulties. The welfare element should be more prominent, as it sometimes was in the past and certainly should be in the future. To take up an earlier point, additional training might also counter some of the high error rates that we have experienced.
I used to joke with my students——with an element of gallows humour, I am afraid——that the social fund was the poor people's bank. I would show them a leaflet about loans and shield the source of that leaflet. It showed a bright young family loading some rather nice antiques into the back of a Volvo estate. I asked my students whether they thought that that social fund application form was an application form for the poor people's bank. Of course, I then went through the actual application form, looking at the amount of evidence needed and discussing the stigma attached.
The Committee calls for an urgent overhaul and an injection of funds. The Government say in their reply that they are prepared at least to review the social fund, but I do not think that a willingness to review the fund is a sufficiently serious response to the report. Those who cannot work or who, through no fault of their own, cannot find work cannot simply wait for the occasional review. I urge the Minister and the Government to take more radical action.
3.40 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his excellent Budget speech, said that the way in which a country cares for its dispossessed and underprivileged is a clear indication of how civilised that society is and what values it has. Our subject for debate today——the Social Security Committee's recommendations for the reform of a system of benefits that sustains and supports Britain's poorest people, and the Government's response to those recommendations——should be seen as part of such an assessment.
Having read the Committee's third report on the social fund, published last March, and the Government's response to it in Command Paper 5237, published last July, I feel that it is important for me, as a new Member, to make an individual contribution to the debate. I shall focus my remarks on three aspects: community care grants, crisis loans and budgeting loans. As I, like the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), am a new Member, the views that I shall express in this speech have been shaped by my experiences during the past 10 months as a Member for a constituency that has, despite the Government's best efforts, higher than average numbers of people in poverty and need.
256WH
I must point out that although I am——I hope——a reasonably fresh-faced new Member, and a relative newcomer to this aspect of social policy debate, I have had extensive experience in local government. I served as a councillor for 17 years, for six of which I was chair of the housing committee for one of Scotland's largest cities, Dundee. As the convener and chair of that committee, I was glad to introduce a scheme of housing insurance open to tenants on a voluntary basis so that they could make provision for times of disaster in the household when household goods had to be rapidly replaced.
It was often heart-rending when the people who came to my surgeries or to the council chambers needed provision for that sort of thing but had been refused by the social fund, and we had to go through the other charities. That was one reason why we went down that road. I am very much aware of the issues surrounding poverty and housing benefit. The relationship between the social security system and housing benefit provision can be complicated, to say the least.
Considerable areas of Dundee, East have been designated as social inclusion partnership areas, as they are called in Scotland. The term applies to Scottish communities that were once labelled areas of multiple deprivation, and they continue to be the Government's and the Scottish Executive's priority areas for regeneration and Government-funded assistance. The nature of this discourse has also been shaped by discussions that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office and I had this week on the occasion of his visit to Dundee, at my invitation, to meet groups and organisations in the Dundee area involved in tackling poverty.
That is an area of social policy in which I have a particular interest, because of the social and economic composition of the electorate in my area. The Minister of State's visit stemmed from his response to a question that I put to him in the House late last year. I asked him about the joint efforts being mounted by the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office to combat the pernicious blight of poverty in Scottish society. That is still a high priority on the Government's agenda, and rightly so.
The groups that we met during the visit were Dundee's anti-poverty forum, with which I have been acquainted for some time in my role as convener of housing, and a relatively new organisation known as the Bridge project, funded by the Government through Scottish Executive funding and social inclusion partnership money. That project aims to provide advice and, where necessary, temporary bridging finance support to individuals and families who, for whatever reasons, cannot get social fund assistance. The project is closely allied to the Dundee money advice support team, which gave evidence as part of the consultation exercise in the preparation of the document. It is aware of the Committee's work, and hopes that the work will bring results in the end. Although it is funded through the Scottish Executive, the vast majority of its cases stem from problems with national benefits and the social fund.
Those organisations have made many interesting and valid points about the operation of the social fund, and how it fails at times to help those in need. The Minister of State and I expressed our willingness to listen to what

257WH
they had to say, and to take up their points at the earliest possible occasion with the Ministers and Departments responsible. I am therefore glad to have a chance to make my comments and to set their case for change in the system against the backdrop of the Committee's third report and the Government's response to it.
From our discussions, from my constituency work load, and from the findings of the Social Security Committee report, it is clear that we still have some way to go to ensure that we have the best possible system in place to tackle adequately the periods of transition and crisis that have an impact on the lives of the poorest members of British society.
The current social fund, introduced as part of the Fowler reviews of the 1980s, replaced what was felt to be a much fairer system of discretionary grants under the old social security benefits scheme. The Chairman of the Social Security Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made the point that although it was introduced in 1988, it was put on the statute book in 1986. Implementation was delayed because of the general election that the Conservatives had planned for 1987.
There was much controversy and opposition when the social fund was introduced. I remember being involved in the campaigns against it. It was intentionally targeted at a very restricted client group, because the Government were aiming to reduce social security expenditure by imposing strict budgeting and fixed cash limits. It was fairly heavily criticised, to say the least, on its introduction, and although the current Government have done much to make it more accessible, I still feel that it suffers from its Thatcherite origins.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and others have made very persuasive arguments outside this Chamber for the scrapping of the fund. Given the reformist nature of the Government, I feel that it is not beyond their scope to start on that task, and they should begin soon.
Community care grants are the first of my immediate detailed concerns. The groups that we visited were worried, as I am, about the criteria for eligibility. However, the major concerns, which are clearly shared by the Social Security Committee, related to the strict budgetary guidelines that were imposed on a national basis with little account taken of local circumstances. The budget control at local level means that a system of tight priorities has to be imposed. As a result, sometimes the needs of the applicants are not fully met; that was brought to my attention this week. That is the nature of the Bridge project: it tries to supply a bridge until further funding can be found to help people out of their problems.
The organisation with which we had those discussions claimed in its presentation, of which the Minister of State, Scotland Office and I have a copy, that the budget for the community care grant was restricted for the first 10 years of the social fund's life.
In the Tayside district, in which Dundee lies, there was an increase of about 1 per cent. in the real-terms value of the social fund's budget, although according to my hon. Friend's calculations there was an increase of 11 per cent. It is, however, clear that that part of it was
258WH
underfunded during the first 10 years of its life. Although there has been a 3 per cent. increase, underfunding during its early years means that there is still a lot more to do. Until we can push the fund up to a credible level, there will always he cases in which priorities are not met. The Government need to pay attention to that and take steps to alleviate the problem.
I acknowledge the proposals, which are set out in paragraph 6 of the Government response, to carry out a review of the principles underpinning the allocation of community care grants, and to develop proposals for adjusting the criteria for budgets to reflect more accurately the needs of individuals in specific areas. Those who work on tackling poverty in Dundee, and I, will look closely at the budget allocations for this year, which are to take account of those findings. Following yesterday's Budget statement, perhaps the Minister will be able to address some of those concerns in his winding-up speech.
Many people consider the criteria for crisis loans to be too strict, and the current method by which applications are processed is often distressing and time-consuming. I agree wholeheartedly with the Select Committee's recommendations that the eligibility criteria for crisis loans should be increased to make them more accessible. Despite the explicit direction given in April 1999 that Benefits Agency staff should review applications for crisis loans in the light of the circumstances that would be created by the possible refusal of a budgeting loan, it is my impression that problems still exist.
That leads me on to the issue of budgeting loans. The point has been forcibly made to the Minister of State, Scotland Office and me that the requirement that an applicant for such support must have been in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance for a minimum of six months means that many applicants, particularly young single parents, miss out. Some of them attempt to apply for community care grants, where they are relevant, but there are also strict criteria for that funding. Others are left to rely on charity organisations such as the Bridge project or their families to provide them with their most basic requirements. I hope——this is a request from the organisations that I have consulted——that the criteria for awarding budgeting loans will be revisited.
In any benefits structure or Government regulation there are always going to be loopholes; that is one thing that emerges from the report. We are thinking about the ways in which people fall through such loopholes and do not receive the benefits that they deserve. One such loophole that was mentioned to us is the fact that persons in receipt of incapacity benefit are barred from access to budgeting loans and community care grants. That is because long-term incapacity benefit, plus an age addition for those between 35 and 45, produces a figure of about £74.60, which is 15p more than the cut-off point for income support entitlement. Again, that can place incapacitated and vulnerable people in considerable hardship and stress when they are least able to handle them. I know, however, that it is difficult to cater for the borderline cases.
Looking through the Select Committee report, I see that much of the casework was done in the Bridge project. I can supply the Minister with the annual report, which highlights some of the cases; it might be

259WH
useful to him and his officers. A mechanism is needed to cover borderline cases——in the case that I have described, 15p can result in a great income difference.
Although I welcome the Government's open, concerned and responsible approach to the issues raised in the Social Security Committee's report on the social fund, and the increase in real terms of the benefits made available through the social fund this year, I believe that there are issues still to be addressed. I hope that the reorganisation in the Department for Work and Pensions will bring a greater focus to bear on those issues, and lead to a speedy resolution. The Committee and its Chairman are to be congratulated and commended on their report and the comprehensive way in which they handled the investigation. I know that the issues will be raised with the Department and the Minister by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Scotland Office, and given the nature of the Government's commitment to social justice, which was clearly voiced yesterday by the Chancellor, we can be sure that the representations will receive a fair hearing.
3.56 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. It is a great misfortune that it coincides with that part of the Budget debate that focuses on the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. We do not often have debates on such subjects, and when we do they seem to come along together, like London buses. None the less, we must make the best of what we have.
We have heard excellent contributions from the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), and for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), all of whom brought expertise and personal experience to the subject. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for introducing the debate so comprehensively and for chairing the Social Security Committee that prepared the report. Looking at the list of the Committee's members on the second page of the report——the Committee's quorum was 11 members, but it had 26 members during the last Parliament——I am amazed that they ——completed any reports. Of course, the membership was very distinguished——I am sure that that had something to do with the quality of its reports.
The report is certainly important. I remember the introduction of the social fund. The hon. Member for Dundee, East and I were county council——and, therefore, social services authorities——leaders at the time, and I well remember our criticisms of the proposals. However, we are dealing with what we have now and the way in which the present Government operate the fund.
The Committee's criticisms are trenchant. Paragraph 117 of the report states categorically that
"less is being spent on the Discretionary Social Fund today than five years ago with no evidence of diminution of need."
Its conclusions, given in paragraphs (ee) and (11), state:
"We urge the Government to…take a radical look at the Social Fund, so that it may work to enhance the strategy to reduce child poverty, rather than work against it…We have concluded that the scheme in its present format needs urgent overhaul and an injection of funds."
260WH
Those are strong criticisms, and the question is whether the Government response really takes measure of them. I am not sure that the present operation of the social fund works against the strategy to reduce child poverty, as the Committee says it does, but I accept the argument that it does very little to enhance it. That is a key issue.
We are dealing with a fund of last resort. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said that it is one of the last remnants of the Poor Law. In some ways, it is. It is what people turn to when everything else fails. Sadly, it is not always the last action that they take, and that is one of the problems. If they fail to get what they need, either fully or in part, from the social fund, they will inevitably be tempted at a time of crisis or utmost need to seek the necessary funds elsewhere. That is when they find themselves saddled with unsustainable debt, which makes matters worse, not better——a point made by the experts, including citizens advice bureaux, law centres, and people who deal with debt counselling and people in great need. The paradox of the current operation of the social fund is that in many ways the least well off are the least likely to benefit. That is one of the clear conclusions in the report.
The report raises questions about the quality of advice. Let me make it clear that I am not criticising the people who work in the offices and who do the best they can, often in difficult circumstances. However, over the years, the culture of the Benefits Agency combined with budget restrictions that mean that staff must be extraordinarily careful about their decisions have militated against wanting to provide the maximum, not the minimum, at the point of request. I would love to hear the Minister say today that the Government have overturned that and sent clear instructions to staff——and provided appropriate training——that they should work with prospective claimants to enable them to take the best possible avenue and make the best possible application to enable them to receive what they need. Many disappointments would be prevented and the need for many subsequent appeals would be obviated if that positive approach were adopted from day one——from the moment at reception when someone says, "Look, we have a problem and we need your help."
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and his Committee, I am not sure that I agree with the recommendation that appeals should be made direct to the independent review service. Appeal systems work best if appeals are taken within the organisation and then go to review. I am not sure that there would be a clear benefit from another approach, but I may be persuaded by the Government's response.
Turning to the actual components of the social fund, it is clear from what the Select Committee said and the evidence given to it that there is still a lack of transparency in the criteria used to assess applications for community care grants. I note that the Government said that they were working to improve clarity, but we need criteria that are more easily understandable by applicants and assessors and are slightly wider drawn than the current, rather restrictive criteria.
Many commentators have made the sensible suggestion that one criterion that should be included is the need to be able to respond to milestone events. We all recognise in our own families that some events and upheavals require a little extra financial support to allow

261WH
progress to the next stage. Sometimes, that involves significant expenditure; sometimes, it requires less expenditure but over a longer period, which drains the pot. Responding to such events in people's lives would be extremely helpful.
There is also a strong case for extending the benefit of the payments——the same applies to other components of the discretionary social fund——to applicants who are dependent on low incomes rather than on benefits. There is no obvious logic in relating the social fund to the type of benefit received rather than to absolute poverty. It is in any case linked at one remove to means-testing, so a system that did not discriminate on the basis of benefits received would be more sensible.
Important questions have been asked about the repayment of budgeting loans. If repayment demands on people who have received budgeting loans are at the high end of the spectrum, people are——perversely-encouraged to borrow again elsewhere. They then find themselves in the double bind of high——in relative terms——repayments on a restricted income, and having to find extra money to fund additional borrowing, which will almost certainly be at a usurious interest rate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said. That is in nobody's interests, least of all in the interests of those who make applications.
A formal mechanism for rescheduling debt is sensible, as is recognition that rescheduling may often be needed and that the impetus for it can come from the Government agency rather than from the individual. As the tide rises overhead, the agency should start to consider rescheduling and alternative arrangements for debt repayment, as any good bank manager would.
The 26-week qualifying period in respect of budgeting loans has properly been criticised. Our experience of constituency case work suggests that the early part of a life crisis that can put people in a dependent position, for what one hopes will be a short time, is often the most difficult. One can bet that the problem did not come out of the blue, and that before the person or family qualified for initial support, they had already taken budgeting measures. For example, repairs might not have been carried out or spares purchased; things might have been allowed to go to the wall. It is in the early stages of difficulties that people need prophylactic support that will enable them to avoid the spiral in which everything goes wrong and they cannot keep pace. Other hon. Members will understand when I say that often people visit my surgery at the point at which it is difficult to recover the situation. We all know that what little help we can give is as nothing compared with the help from advice agencies that deal so well with such cases daily.
The Select Committee rightly drew attention to the large percentage of crisis loans that are allotted in response to alignment claims. That suggests that something somewhere is going wrong. If a bridge is needed between benefit arrangements and it can only he in the form of a so-called crisis loan, why do we not consider the structures of other benefits to see how they can be better fitted together and so avoid the hiatus that causes damage? The criterion for serious damage or risk to health and safety is narrow, and it is capable of being misinterpreted by an assessing officer. Many situations
262WH
result in serious damage or risk to health and safety, but not to the point of crisis. A sensible assessment should be able to take a medium to longer-term view of what needs to be provided to avoid a more serious crisis. That is not entirely possible under existing arrangements.
We keep coming back to the problem of funding for the discretionary social fund. If it is to be restricted——the Government say in their response that they are not prepared to change it, at least not for the moment——there will always be perverse decisions and over-zealous thriftiness on the part of officers. As a result, people will be denied assistance for which they are probably qualified simply because the funds are not available. Whatever the reason for that——even if it is the distribution of money to local offices, which is based largely on historic use——it is not a sensible way to deal with the problem.
None the less, even if there was a proper distribution system between local offices, it will always happen that a local office has a rush of claims or that local circumstances or even bad luck need to be dealt with. Even if the Government do not increase overall funds, as I would like them to, they should at least provide some form of contingency fund or lump sum from which local offices can draw down enough money to guarantee that high and medium-priority claims will be met if they meet the criteria. Such claims should be met irrespective of the circumstances of the local office. It is of little interest or importance to claimants whether civil servants have the funds in the local account to do the job.
We also need to consider refusal of social loans because of existing debt, because of the multiplication factor. If all we do by preventing access to social fund support because of existing debt is drive people into the hands of less scrupulous lenders and less financially advantageous borrowing, we do no favours either to the system or to the individual. We need to address that problem. However, that raises the question asked by the Committee: whether the social fund could be a vehicle for dealing with wider financial exclusion.
I ask the Minister to consider the relationship, if any, between the social fund and universal banking arrangements. Should there be a relationship between the two? We have developed the one-stop-shop concept not only with Jobcentre Plus, but with the universal bank. Could that be a vehicle for a wider concept of social loans that provide for a wider section of the community and help people in need who cannot access conventional financial institutions?
Might such loans provide a travel or transport element, which is especially important in rural areas? One of the worst aspects of social exclusion of poor people in rural areas is that they cannot get to the places that provide even basic elements of support. As the formal support systems of Government retract from rural areas to town centres, that problem is exacerbated. It is all very well to have a cottage with roses around the doorway if one has money, but a person without money in a rural area is stuck in more intractable poverty than people in cities who have access to at least some support. The Government have not adequately tackled that issue.
My last point relates to fridges. We were discussing fridges in the Chamber this morning during questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural

263WH
Affairs. This country currently has a fridge mountain, owing to the incompetence of the Government——but not of the Minister who is here today. I am not saying that poor people should go down to the local tip and pull a fridge out of it, but we could develop a more active process of recycling electrical goods in this country. That might provide people with opportunities to obtain cheaper household goods, it would be environmentally and socially friendly, and it would help to deal with exclusion. Given that we now have legislation that prevents disposal of fridges——and in future other electrical goods——the Government should act now to enable proper local recycling. That would allow people to have things in their houses that most of us take for granted but which they cannot currently afford.
Winter fuel payments made through the regulated social fund are mentioned in the report. Bizarrely, the Government defend to the death universal winter fuel payments to pensioners on the grounds that they are cheap, administratively easy and reach every pensioner. They use precisely the opposite argument in respect of other elements of pensioner support, saying that such support has to be targeted, cannot be universal and must be paid via the most complicated route possible. The Government are making a significant contribution to pensioners in need, but they could make that contribution to other vulnerable people. The Committee makes that point, but the Government have not properly addressed it.
The Minister is right to say that the home energy efficiency scheme payments scheme makes a new avenue available to people, but he must realise that it does not deal with immediate heating problems. It is a long-term programme of investment. A constituent of mine was on the list for a home energy efficiency scheme improvement to his house. His heating system broke down completely and he could not afford to do anything about it, so he asked to be treated as a priority in the scheme. He was told that he would have to wait until after winter——they might get around to fitting him in at some point, but there was a long waiting list for the scheme. He was vulnerable and needed help with his heating problems but was unable to get it because there was no element of urgency or prioritisation within the scheme. The Minister should consider that problem.
Funeral payments are important, although they do not affect a huge number of people. Those who are affected by them are in the most tragic circumstances. It is wrong to deprive someone of the dignity of an appropriate funeral simply because the funds provided do not match the cost of such a funeral. I understand that the Government do not want simply to pour money into funeral directors' pockets for over-expensive funerals, but there is a minimum cost involved. Funeral directors' costs comprise not only of their own costs, but costs imposed on them by others, such as the medical profession. That should be taken into account in the grant.
At present, the sums do not add up. The Government should make matching the funeral payment with the cost of funeral arrangements a matter of urgency, so that no more people in those circumstances are forced to worry. People should not be put through the indignity of being unable to meet the costs of proper funeral arrangements. I agree with the Committee about widening eligibility. Furthermore, even if next of kin do
264WH
not fall within the narrow confines of the existing arrangements, there should be discretion to provide the payment through them.
The Minister may want to communicate my final point to his colleagues in another Department. There is serious concern in the funeral directors' industry——if that is the proper term——about arrangements between coroners' offices and individual undertaking companies that do not appear to be open to traditional competition or even examination. Coroners represent a strange Crown office, one that is not easy for Members of Parliament to examine. That may be appropriate, given that the office of coroner pre-dates that of Member of Parliament. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Home Office has responsibility, but we must examine that if we are to tackle the point that funeral directors have so forcefully put to me.
I am enormously grateful to the Committee for its report, which should have much greater currency. It certainly deserves a more responsive attitude from the Government, whose reply gives the impression of complacency. It suggests that they are largely making do with the social fund in its present form, and that they are treading water while waiting for something else to come along. I want radical reform, and it is time that we had it. In view of the reforms that are taking place in work and pensions, the time is right now. Most of all, I want the fund to be the opposite of the description given in one of the report's subtitles. I want a fund that likes to say yes——a fund that gives people the support they need in the most appropriate way.
4.21 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I am happy to take part in the debate, which, as hon. Members have observed, coincides with other debates on work and pensions and with statements on the Floor of the House. As a member of the Committee that is presently considering the State Pension Credit Bill, I have had an embarrassment of riches this afternoon, if that is the right phrase to use in the context of work and pensions.
The report is important and deserves careful scrutiny. I congratulate the Select Committee on its hard work in preparing its submission, which goes back to the previous Parliament. I also offer many congratulations to the Chairman of the Committee on his leadership of it and on the part that he has clearly played.
When debating such reports, it is worth noting the contribution made by voluntary organisations, which give evidence and the benefit of their experience and wisdom. Clearly, many bodies have given the Committee written and oral evidence, and I should single out citizens advice bureaux, which provide constituents with good help, as I and all hon. Members know from experience in our constituencies. Their evidence to the Committee was particularly valuable and helpful and gave many insights. It reminded us, if we needed reminding——hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon clearly have a good deal of knowledge about this subject——that people who use the fund are often highly vulnerable. They
"are usually extremely poor. They often face other problems such as long term ill health, poor housing or family break-up (including domestic violence)."

265WH
When one reads some of the case histories in the report, it is noticeable just how many times people have turned to the social fund as a result of family break-up and domestic violence. Indeed, that theme runs throughout the report.
We are trying to help vulnerable people who suffer from many disadvantages, but there are constraints on funding for the social fund. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the report about how well the money is spent. Different views have been expressed about the adequacy of the funding, but I am sure that everyone wants to ensure that it is spent as well as possible. I therefore want to draw out from the report four points about how well the money is being spent. Only one relates to the regulated social fund——the others relate to the discretionary social fund.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned funeral payments. I agree with him that there are some important conclusions in the report about such payments. I wish to stress the points in the report about the eligibility rules. They are contained in paragraphs 9 and 13 of the report, which I mentioned briefly. Paragraph 9 refers to
"consistent evidence from claimants that they perceive the process as unfeeling and overly-bureaucratic."
Paragraph 13 recommends that
"there should be greater flexibility in the rules governing eligibility for funeral payments".
I do not think that the Government's response did justice to those recommendations, and I hope that the Government will be able to reflect on them more carefully and consider whether there is any way in which the process can be made more flexible.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is right. It is obvious that people applying for such payments are going through a distressing time and that they want things to be as easy as possible. There are a number of other formalities that people have to go through at that time. However, one would hope that, where there is a shortage of money and people are trying to give their loved one a dignified farewell, they would not find too many difficulties in the application process.
I turn now to the discretionary social fund. Again, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome touched on a point that I know to be of interest to other hon. Members present, particularly the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). The point concerned alignment funds, and needs to be considered in some detail. There are some important considerations.
Paragraph 64 concerns the increasing proportion of crisis loans that are used to deal with crises resulting from problems with other payments. A crisis loan is one of the three types of loan available from the discretionary social fund. It is available, we are told, to people facing an emergency or disaster where there is a serious risk to health or safety, whether they are in receipt of benefits or not. Hon. Members have spoken of various situations in which people come to apply for crisis loans, including examples in which the applicants are the victims of crime or find themselves in other emergency circumstances.
266WH
The loans that go towards what is described as "alignment" arise in a different way. Alignment is defined by the Department as involving loans that are intended to tide people over when there is a gap until their first payment is due and they are without funds. It claims that it is a question of alignment to payday and that it does not mean that there is an administrative delay.
That is the Department's definition, but the contention that alignment does not mean that there is an administrative delay does not sit easily with the evidence taken by the Committee. Most people would regard these loans, which are being made to tide people over as a result of difficulties with their payments, as being made as a result of delay. The Department's view is flatly contradicted by the written evidence taken by the Committee from Suffolk county council, which is specifically mentioned in the report and is worth repeating. The council says:
"We also have concerns about Crisis Loans. Not only do these become an arena for conflict between Benefits Agency and Social Services staff, but our staff frequently come across situations where it should not be necessary to have to apply for a Crisis Loan in the first place. For example, crises can arise because of delays in processing benefit, lack of flexibility with the new National Insurance number requirement (this is particularly a problem for young people who have had unsettled lives and may be without a National Insurance number) and the trend to pay benefit in arrears."
Those conclusions are borne out by the evidence of a number of individual cases cited in evidence to the Committee, including a number of those referred to by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Against that background, the Committee is right to draw attention, as it does in fairly strong terms, to the substantial and growing proportion of crisis loans that are being used to meet alignments. I note that in the later stages of the report, further evidence came from the Department, which was requested by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. It showed that the proportion of gross expenditure on alignment has risen from 31.7 per cent. to 37.3 per cent. during the past three years.
We have all heard of the constraints on the social fund's expenditure and on crisis loans, but if money is going to people who are in an emergency because of problems in receiving their benefit, it must be that officials are having to make decisions to give loans to those people and that they are being diverted from people suffering from other types of emergency. Money is being diverted from what many people might regard as the proper purpose for such a system——to help people deal with unforeseen emergencies, but not ones resulting from the administration of the Department.
The Government will have to pay a little more attention to that situation. The Committee is right to call for further analysis of it. It would be useful if the Minister could provide us, if not today then at some time in the future, with the most recent figures on alignment. A little more than 37 per cent. is a substantial proportion of the fund to be spent on dealing with such issues.
In their response, the Government say:
"The Benefits Agency and the Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices aim to minimise administrative delays and to ensure that people receive their full benefit entitlement as soon as possible."

267WH
That is all well and good, but it would also be good also to hear from the Minister whether there is any evidence that those arms of the Department are in fact affecting the situation. I should like to know also the Government's attitude towards the fact that such a large proportion of crisis loans are going on alignment. I think that that has been touched on already. The Committee was right to call for an analysis of that and to reach the conclusions that it did. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point.
The process of applying for discretionary social fund payments has not yet been mentioned here, but it is mentioned in the report and its conclusions. Before 1999, each application was considered for all three types of discretionary social fund. Since 1999, there have been separate claim forms for each type: community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans. The Department told the Committee that it regarded that as a success on the ground of saving of staff time and the simplification of application forms, among other things.
However, it would be interesting to hear the Minister's response to evidence submitted to the Committee to the effect that that has created difficulties and delays for many applicants, especially those who apply for one type of loan when it might be more appropriate or advantageous to apply for another, and that in some cases that causes delay while a fresh application is made or for applicants to go without because they have not applied for the most advantageous or appropriate form.
NACAB says, on that:
"Social fund staff are supposed to consider whether a different payment from that applied for would be in the applicant's interest, but we have seen little evidence that this actually happens very much."
The Select Committee report refers to a series a case histories cited by NACAB, in which people apparently eligible for community care grants are claiming budgeting loans or crisis loans instead. What is the Minister's response to that? Are measures being taken to help people deal with the multiplicity of application forms?
My final point is more general, although it encompasses that which I have just made. It is the need for good quality advice to be tendered to applicants. We all appreciate that the staff in question do a very good job in many cases and that they sometimes work under much pressure. I have seen that for myself. However, we must continue bearing in mind the need to give them training and to help to enable them to give the best possible quality advice to applicants. Paragraph 79 of the Committee's report says:
"The evidence that we received suggests that, in reality, the quality of advice to Social Fund applicants is not always of a good standard."
That leads the Committee to its recommendations in paragraph 85 about improving advice. I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on that than was the case in the Government's response to the report. I note the point made in strong terms by the Chairman of the Committee about the Government's response, and I hope that the hard and detailed work of the Committee will inform the Government over the longer term, when it has had time to reflect on its conclusions.
268WH
We must remember that we are talking about people who have reached a difficult time in their lives. There may be other factors in their lives that put them at a disadvantage. They are our fellow citizens and members of society. The social fund exists to help them. They are entitled to the same consideration and quality of help as other people. It is good for the Committee to consider how they can be helped to their best advantage and given the service that they deserve.
4.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): This has been a useful and thoughtful debate. I pay tribute to the work of the then Social Security Committee and its helpful report on the social fund. I particularly acknowledge the role played by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) who chaired that Committee with great authority and much diligence—I know that from my membership of it—over the last five years. I have yet to appear before the new Work and Pensions Committee that he now chairs.
Mr. Kirkwood: We are waiting for you.
Malcolm Wicks: I suspect that, notwithstanding the onerous nature of being a member of a Select Committee, it might be even more difficult being on the other side of the table. That experience is perhaps to come.
I underline what the hon. Gentleman said on his own behalf, and perhaps on behalf of the Committee, too. We must consider the social fund in the context of what society must do to attack inequalities, and poverty in particular. The Government's wider programme based on the principle of work for those who can, which has much support in the House as a whole, is absolutely vital. We have had much success, and cause for some confidence about the future——but not, of course, for complacency.
Throughout the United Kingdom, we are approaching the point of having 75 per cent. of people of working age in jobs. That is a record level, which puts us close to the top of the European league tables. As the Chancellor announced yesterday, since 1997 the number of people in work has increased by 1.5 million. Those are remarkably encouraging figures. That is important because the more people who are in work, the fewer will depend on the safety net of benefit——now called income support——or jobseeker's allowance.
I recall that many years ago, a former professor of mine, Richard Titmus of the London school of economics——a great authority on such matters, who was once deputy chairman of the then Supplementary Benefits Commission——said that the problem with supplementary benefits in terms of regulation, as opposed to discretion, was that too many customers were dependent on it. I think he was implying that there were too many people for us to provide the more individual tailor-made service that is required.
I hope that as we move towards work for those who can, through the Jobcentre Plus programme, we will be able to give more personal advice and understand the individual circumstances of the poor and desperate people who have been a feature of this debate, and

269WH
whom we are trying to help. That is my Department's objective. I hope that we are doing more both for those who cannot work at present and those who may not be able to work at all. From October this year, income support rates for children under 11 will be 99 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1997. That is something that we should be proud of, and we must defend the need to resource that kind of improvement, now and in the future.
Another important example is the fact that we have increased the disabled child premium in income-related benefits by £5 per week on top of the normal uprating from this month, helping about 80,000 children in the families in most need, and there will be a further £5 increase from April next year. I hope that that enables me to say to all hon. Members, particularly the Chairman of the Select Committee, that we have not forgotten those who cannot work at the moment——far from it. I am sure that there is more to do, and I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with that statement. Similarly——I will not labour the point——we are doing more for pensioners and older people in the community, particularly and significantly for those in the greatest need, through the minimum income guarantee and other measures such as free television licences.
As has been acknowledged, the Government and the Department are now involved in a major reorganisation of how we deliver services to older people and pensioners——I do not know why we refer to that demographic group by its benefit entitlement, but we all do it as shorthand, although I am not sure that that is forgivable. The introduction of the Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus is a major organisational change involving the combination of Jobcentre Plus, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to create a new service. We reckon that, along with the IT changes that are so desperately needed to modernise computer facilities, those are among the most important organisational changes happening not only in this country but across the European Union, and those changes are vital to the debate.
It is important that we think about the future relevance of a social fund, or whatever it may be called, to the Pension Service and the needs of pensioners, and the relevance of a social fund to people of working age. How can we ensure that our social fund is part——part but not all——of our endeavour to help people move from benefit dependency into work? Similarly, we need to understand better the needs of older people for access to a social fund, given the issues facing them. It is partly for that reason that we have commissioned some research into pensioner attitudes to, and experiences of, the social fund from the personal finance research centre at Bristol university. I am certainly interested in——more strongly, I am concerned about——the fact that relatively few older people are making use of the social fund, and we need to satisfy ourselves about the reasons for that.
Of course, any modern social security system requires something like the social fund. References have been made to the poor law; I do not know about that, but ever since the National Assistance Act 1948 there has been something like the social fund——its name has changed over time. That acknowledges poorer people's need to
270WH
access lump sums of money, which the rest of us can acquire either through saving or through calling on recognised forms of credit.
One issue that has been a feature of today's debate——it is also a feature of the wider debate——is grants versus loans. My conclusion, and the Government's conclusion, is that we need both grants and loans in the system. Some hon. Members, along with others outside the House, have suggested that we should abolish loans and return to grants. My response to that is that we have the community care grant scheme; I shall say a little more about that in a moment. Interest-free loans allow for the efficient use of available resources to help large numbers of people. They have proved an effective and fair way of enabling the social fund to help those on low incomes cope with budgeting for short-term emergencies. They might otherwise be prey to loan sharks and other expensive moneylenders. All of us have found in our constituencies terrible examples of how the poorest are prey to evildoers such as loan sharks.
It is not a realistic option to make all social fund payments non-repayable grants, as happened under the single payment scheme. That led to poor targeting and uncontrollable expenditure, and it may be unfair to people in work. Under the single payment scheme, we found that 80 per cent. of the grants went to only 17 per cent. of the recipients. By contrast, the budgeting loan scheme has provided almost 11 million loans worth more than £3 billion since its inception at a net cost of just over £400 million. It is an efficient form of financial inclusion for poor people.
Returning to grants would be very expensive. We estimate the cost to be about £1 billion per year. Those who call for the overthrow of loans——in favour, presumably, of grants——are calling for something that is very expensive. In Budget week of all weeks, we must carefully consider the implications of that. One hon. Member said that he would scrap the social fund, and had urged that on his students. I hope that I weighed the arguments more objectively when I taught social policy. He did not clearly spell out what he would replace the social fund with.
Non-repayable community care grants are special payments to help people in a wide variety of adverse, sometimes appalling, circumstances. They are used to meet urgent needs in helping to rehabilitate offenders in the community, in helping people who are leaving mental hospitals re-establish themselves in the community and in helping the victims of domestic violence. Again, we know from our constituencies what terrible evil remains in our society.
Community care grants are important. I believe that both Government and Opposition Members have argued that more money should be spent; I understand the argument. However, we have increased the budget four times since 1997—it had been frozen since 1994——including an above-inflation rise of almost 5 per cent. for the year 2002–03. I do not want to make too much of this, but I am thankful to say that the welfare-to-work strategy has also meant that the claimant population on income support and jobseeker's allowance decreased by about 10 per cent. between 1997 and 2001, so the funds available were shared among a smaller population. That point may be too precise for the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire to appreciate, but in an age of evidence-based policy, we must make it.

271WH
We have reviewed the way we allocate grant budgets to districts from this year. The new allocation method aims to improve consistency of outcome for clients, irrespective of where they live. We have heard about the postcode lottery. Guidance on priority is currently being rewritten and will be introduced in the next amendment to the "Social Fund Guide". The guidance will increase transparency and consistency of the prioritisation process, without fettering the discretion of the decision maker. Clarity concerning who should receive help, as opposed to discretion, has been the theme of our discussion today. It is important to get the balance right and we can all be guilty from time to time of arguing for one or the other depending on circumstances. It has certainly been a long-standing theme in our social security debates since the inception of the welfare state.
As for community care grants, we must think more in the future about the words "community care" and the origin of community care grants. I am anxious that we think through how we might relate the granting of the money, often in appalling circumstances, to the wider objectives of community care services, whether they be to help an ex-offender to re-establish himself, or to help a victim of domestic violence or someone leaving a mental health institution. I would be interested in hearing the advice and thoughts of hon. Members on how we might do that, but time does not permit that now. Some good practice already exists, and I know that social fund officers sometimes have good contacts with local voluntary organisations, but we must think that through a little more.
In April 1999, as was acknowledged, we radically transformed the costly and cumbersome budgeting loan scheme and replaced it with a simpler, speedier and more objective decision-making process. That was the first major change in the social fund since it started in 1988. As a result, in 1999–2000 for the first time more than 1 million people received a budgeting loan, and the upward trend is continuing. In 2000–01, the number of successful applicants rose by a further 13 per cent. Under the changes introduced in 1999, the scheme limits access to further budgeting loans to some extent while previous loans are still being repaid. That is important because it would be unfair to allow a cash-limited budgeting loans budget to be monopolised by people who continually top up their loans to the maximum at the expense of other applicants.
The Committee recommended a number of further improvements to the budgeting loan scheme. In response, we have included in relevant social fund leaflets information on what to do if customers are having difficulty making their repayments as originally agreed. We have clarified guidance to staff, and since February we have improved the standard of notification letters and have provided clients with calculation sheets for budgeting loan and funeral payment decisions, which set out in clear stages how the decision has been reached.
I listened carefully to what hon. Members said about repayment rates. Clearly, there is a judgment to be made about the percentage of repayment——I understand what hon. Members are saying—as opposed to the inevitable consequence of the loan having to be repaid, if the rate is lowered, over a longer period. That discussion was useful.
272WH
Crisis loans were, not surprisingly, a feature of our debate and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made some comments about them. On alignment, the more we can improve, through Jobcentre Plus, on the speed with which we assess claims for mainstream benefits, the less need there may be for alignment. However, sometimes a claim will have been assessed, but an alignment payment may be needed before the benefit comes into payment, to help with that budgeting. It may be helpful if I write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify my response to some of the points that he made.
On the regulated fund, one or two hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), commented on funeral payments. It is important to get them right, for obvious reasons, not least because of the grief and sensitivity surrounding such occasions. About 40,000 funeral payments are made each year at a cost of £35 million, and in 2000–01 the average award was £892. I recently met the representatives of funeral directors, and I am awaiting evidence from them in support of their claim that the current payments are not sufficient. I have also studied the Office of Fair Trading report into the funeral industry——if that is the appropriate term——which was published last July. The report does not demonstrate conclusively that the existing £600 element of the funeral payment is inadequate for people to arrange a decent funeral. However, my mind is open on that question and I await further evidence.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome discussed the important element of winter fuel payments as part of the regulated social fund. He may have slipped into the fault of being slightly unfair to the Government. On pensions, we need to get the balance right between targeted benefits and universal provision such as the main pension itself, winter fuel payments and so on—the free television licence, of course, is based on age rather than on means. We believe that we get the right balance with the important targeted benefits.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, the Chairman of the Select Committee, made some important points about ethnic monitoring. Race relations legislation requires my Department to monitor its customer service ethnically. We are therefore scoping the work necessary to build on our present ethnic monitoring in order to ensure that we monitor all our customers. Once we have accurate information, we shall be able to provide information about social fund applicants. The point has been well taken.
My next comments must to some extent be made at random, as we have only a few minutes left. The Chairman of the Select Committee made some important points about loan sharks. That is why we have announced a major review of the Consumer Credit Act 1975, and will shortly consult on specific proposals to update the Act's provisions on extortionate credit bargains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made some important points about the interface between the social fund and housing. I shall want to reflect on those with my noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. The question of home contents insurance was also raised, and I want to think further about that.

273WH
The gatekeepers to our system have been mentioned. In my experience, the staff who deal with social fund applications—I have met many of them—do an extraordinarily good job, often in difficult circumstances given the serious needs that confront them. It is not appropriate that gatekeepers should simply turn away customers, and I suspect that it happens very rarely, but I will look at the guidance given to staff and the implications for training staff in order to ensure that it does not happen in future.
If I have left some significant points unanswered, I shall write to hon. Members and give further information.
The Government have responded to the Select Committee report, and we continue to keep the social fund under review. I am not merely using the usual phrase: the drum beats on the social fund in my
274WH
Department, and our thoughts are active on its future. I am proud of the progress that we have made on the annual community care grant budget, which has been increased. Other parts of the scheme are also helpful, including the budgeting loan scheme, and the sure start maternity grant is now £500——a significant lump sum. Much good is done by the social fund.
We have had a useful debate. I have not responded to the earlier point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee about J. K. Rowling. My bedtime reading consists of reports from his excellent Committee. However, I understand that the books have something to do with a person called Harry Potter. I think that they relate to a fantasy playground of childhood, with many japes——a magical and comfortable world. I can see why a Liberal Democrat would find that helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the provision of a catering service for the British Library by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49670]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Corporate Bibliographic Service for the British Library by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49663]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Pembroke Lodge for the Royal Parks Agency by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49664]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (David Laws), of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 741, and also to my letter to him of 18 November 2001, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the cost was to her Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated; [49106]

  (2) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49148]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council yesterday Official Report, column 929W.

  "Pride of Place"
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of the publication of the Arts Council's publication "Pride of Place" was. [48875]

  Dr. Howells
  "Pride of Place" cost the Arts Council £78,000. I understand that this figure includes authors' fees, photography, production of the accompanying CD, design and print. The Arts Council have produced 7500 copies of the report in partnership with the media company August at a cover price of £12. Complimentary copies have been offered to all the projects who received an award under the first capital programme.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 8 March 2002,Official Report, columns 574–76W, on statutory instruments, what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of each of the statutory instruments listed. [50325]

  Mr. Caborn
  Of the statutory instruments listed, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) was published for the Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 28 June 2001. The text can also be viewed on the following website at: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/act/made2.htm#Special as Annex C to the Explanatory Document.

  RIAs were not required for the other statutory instruments and an assessment of the cost effectiveness of each could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery Distribution
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average amount of Lottery money awarded to constituencies was in the last 12 months. [50592]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the National Lottery database, which is based upon the data provided to us by the Lottery distributers, the average amount awarded to UK constituencies is currently around £15.2 million. This includes large-scale projects of national and international significance. The median level awarded to constituencies is £7.1 million to date.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in her Department and the areas which it is used in; and what discussions she has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within her Department. [50476]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: My Department does not currently make any use of smart card technology.

  Smart cards are used in a number of the areas for which my Department has responsibility as membership cards and payment cards among other things. My Department has also been involved in the establishment of the Connexions Card, a DIES initiative, which provides a range of services for 16 to 19-year-olds in England.

  Any plans which my Department may develop in the future will obviously take account of the smart card framework developed by the Office of the e-Envoy.

  I have not had any discussions with private companies about the use of smart card technology within my Department.

  ITV Digital
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on
  1039W
  the discussions she has had with football authorities on the impact on Nationwide League football clubs of ITV Digital's entry into administration. [50675]

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the football authorities on the financial impact on Nationwide Football League clubs of ITV Digital's entry into administration. [R] [50846]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have stayed in close touch with both the Nationwide League and ITV Digital throughout the negotiations. We met the League's chairman, Keith Harris, and chief executive, David Burns, yesterday evening (17 April).

  PPS 17
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what involvement her Department and Sport England have had in the redrafting of PPS17. [50979]

  Mr. Caborn
  Both Sport England and my Department have been extensively involved in the redrafting of Planning Policy Statement 17 (PPS 17). PPS 17 is one of the key mechanisms by which my Department and sports organisations are able to influence planning for sport and recreation, including the introduction of further measures to protect playing fields. The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions will issue the guidance.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to include private sector and schools facilities in the forthcoming national audit of sports facilities in the UK. [50980]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on sports facilities in England is currently held by a variety of organisations and a single database will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities which are most important. My Department is continuing discussions with Sport England on the scope, content and cost of the proposed database and how the project will be taken forward.

  Football
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she has made of the economic contribution of Football League football clubs to the(a) local and (b) English economy; [50667]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the financial impact on football clubs playing in the Football League of ITV Digital's entry into administration. [50665]

  Mr. Caborn
  The 72 Nationwide Football League clubs play significant roles in local economies, both directly by providing employment and indirectly by providing opportunities for local businesses. Collectively, the Nationwide League also adds significantly to football's contribution to the national economy. These 1040W
  wider economic benefits cannot be quantified, but should be considered alongside football's substantial non-financial contribution to society.

  The Nationwide League is discussing the future of its broadcasting contract with the Administrators of ITV Digital. While these negotiations continue, it is not possible accurately to forecast the possible financial effects on the League's clubs.

  National Stadium
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) whether she will have received, analysed and based a decision on the advice identified as being necessary to address the four issues to which she referred in her statement of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 292, by 30 April; [51082]

  (2) pursuant to her oral statement of 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 292, on the National Stadium, if she will make a statement on the four points to be addressed by the FA and WNSL, with special reference to a decision to build the stadium at (a) Wembley and (b) Birmingham; and what deadline she has imposed for receiving answers on the four points. [50929]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 309W.

  School Sport (Bristol)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on the provision of sports in schools in Bristol; [51076]

  (2) how many letters Ministers in her Department and officials have received about the provision of sports facilities at Cotham School, Bristol. [51075]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has received 50 letters about the provision of sports facilities at Cotham School. Bristol City area recently received a provisional allocation of just under £4.5 million from the New Opportunities PE and Sport Programme. It is for the local education authority, working with partners and schools, to determine the priorities for this funding in Bristol, based on its assessment of greatest need. The New Opportunities Fund will be assessing the strategies and initial portfolio of projects submitted to it by the LEA to ensure they are based on local consultation and evidence of local need.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date she(a) received the first report from the Digital Television Action Plan project and (b) will publish it. [51070]

  Dr. Howells
  I receive regular reports on progress by Government and digital television stakeholders in delivering the tasks set out in the Digital Television Action Plan. With Douglas Alexander, I chaired the first quarterly meeting of the Digital Television Steering Board on 10 April. This meeting reviewed progress to the end of March, and
  1041W
  considered future developments. An updated version of the Action Plan recording progress will be available on the digital television website www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk shortly.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  "Continuing the Reform"
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when he will respond to the report from the Public Administration Select Committee, 'Continuing the Reform'; and if he will make a statement. [50862]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government have today sent a memorandum to the Public Administration Select Committee with an interim response to their report 'The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform'.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of the services of her Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50321]

  Clare Short
  Four out of seven service functions have been reviewed as part of our BQS programme. The remainder, for accounts, internal audit and office services, are expected to be reviewed during 2002–03. The timing and scope of future BQS work are currently under consideration.

  Reproductive Health
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of the withdrawal of United States funds for reproductive health services in the developing world; and what steps have been taken to make up any shortfall. [48998]

  Clare Short
  Despite the decision of the US to withhold funds from certain organisations, the US remains a major source of support for services aimed at improving reproductive health.

  Sexual and reproductive health care in developing countries continues to be a key priority for my Department. Achieving universal access to reproductive health for all by 2015 underpins our approach. Good reproductive health is of course also vital to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) related to lowering maternal mortality and combating HIV/AIDS. We are working in partnership with national Governments and key organisations to strengthen the capacity of health systems to deliver good reproductive health care and services.

  My Department's total bilateral expenditure on sexual and reproductive health activities, including HIV/AIDS, has risen from £38.4 million in the financial year 1997–98 to £206.6 million in 2001–02. We also provide significant levels of funding to UNFPA, UNAIDS and WHO to support their work to improve the quantity and availability of reproductive health services.
  1042W
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development under the Global Health Fund for fighting AIDS, what role the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services will play. [48996]

  Clare Short
  The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria will consider applications against the principles, scope and purpose laid out in its framework documents, which can be found at www.globalfundatm.org.

  The UK believes the fund should support applications for funding for reproductive health services only where these are clearly focused on preventing or treating one or more of the three diseases. It will be important for the fund to focus on supporting interventions where global financing will be most effective and where it can add most value to existing national and international efforts. Other channels of support will be more appropriate for wider efforts against the three diseases and for support to reproductive health services more broadly.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the adequacy of supplies of condoms in fighting AIDS in the developing world; and what steps are being taken to improve the supply. [48999]

  Clare Short
  Ensuring the accessibility of affordable condoms is a key priority for my Department. The UK is one of the leading bilateral providers of condoms and other forms of contraceptives in developing countries. We are also supporting a number of condom social marketing programmes which aim to make condoms accessible and affordable to the poorest. It is important that efforts meet the current and increasing need for condoms and to promote demand for condom use.

  We are working closely with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to help them develop a global strategy to help governments strengthen their capacity, to ensure that by 2015 all primary health care and family planning facilities are able to provide the widest achievable range of safe and effective family planning and contraceptive methods, including condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS.

  In January 2001, we provided UNFPA with a grant of £25 million to help meet immediate needs for reproductive health commodities, including condoms, in a range of countries facing shortages.

  Iraqi Refugees
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving UNHCR for anticipating the arrival of refugees from Iraq to Iran. [48728]

  Clare Short
  We are not currently providing any support to UNHCR for this purpose. No appeal has been launched by the UNHCR. We will give consideration to any appeal as and when one is launched.

  Afghanistan
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the flow of refugees out of Afghanistan into Pakistan; in which areas this is occurring and at what
  1043W
  level; what the reasons for this are; and what is being done by the international community to counteract this. [49004]

  Clare Short
  While voluntary returns to Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran continue to gather momentum, some Afghans continue to leave their country. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that approximately 40,000 Afghans are gathered in the Killi Faizo transit camp at the Chaman border crossing between Balochistan Province in Pakistan and Kandahar Province in Southern Afghanistan. Many of the group have been in the area since late February 2002. The majority of Afghans at Chaman are fleeing the effects of drought, while others are ethnic Pushtuns claiming to have been targeted by bandits or other armed groups in the north of Afghanistan, where they are a minority group. UNHCR are in discussions with the Pakistani authorities to urge them to allow those seeking refuge and assistance to be registered and transferred to existing refugee camps in Pakistan. At the same time, UNHCR and its partners are working to improve conditions——including water and sanitation and health facilities——in the waiting area; and the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) are carrying out distribution of emergency food supplies.

  Pakistan
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken by the Government of Pakistan and representatives of the international community to address tensions between local residents and refugees in the Balochistan area of Pakistan. [49005]

  Clare Short
  Balochisan has suffered a prolonged drought and refugee crisis. The Government of Pakistan and international donor are working to alleviate both aspects of this crisis.

  The UK has provided support to both refugees and host communities. UN agencies are assisting with the voluntary repatriation of refugees, and are currently considering packages of assistance to help Balochistan and NWFP with the post-refugee rehabilitation effort. The Asian Development bank and the World bank have provided assistance to alleviate the impact of the drought, and the World Food Programme has just launched an appeal for Balochistan.

  Overseas Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Technical Co-operation Training Services: India 1999–2000 project in India. [49178]

  Clare Short
  Between 1999 and 2000, individual programmes under the Technical Co-operation Training (TCT) Programme in India were evaluated following DFID's normal project review procedures, including assessments of the overall performance of each programme. DFID and the Government of India jointly undertook the last review of the India Technical Co-operation Training Programme in November 1997. This focused on public administration training and addressed impact as well as value for money issues.
  1044W
  Based on the review and individual programme assessments, it was agreed with the Government of India that the TCT Programme should be phased out by March 2002 on the grounds that it was not sufficiently poverty focused. We have since agreed with the Government of India to provide more strategic capacity-building support for government initiatives aimed at improving public policies and services. Such support would fit well with the Government of India's recognition that fundamental improvements in governance are a pre-requisite to effective poverty eradication.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Support for the Environment and Management Project in Egypt; [49168]

  (2) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Project Co-ordinator Support for Environmental Assessment and Management Project Phase 2 in Egypt. [49184]

  Clare Short
  The Support for the Environment and Management Project (SEAM) project, which will continue until spring 2004, aims to improve environmental planning and services for the poor in Egypt. A full economic and financial justification was prepared for the project prior to the second phase of the project being approved in 1999. Since then the project has been monitored on a regular basis with the next Review planned for May 2002.

  Reviews to date have shown that the project is having a significant impact.

  Methodologies for environmental planning piloted under the project have been adopted as the model at a national level in Egypt. Focusing on community participation the project has also enabled cost effective environmental services such as solid waste management to be developed that respond directly to the needs of poor people.

  The performance of the Project Co-ordinator on the Support for the Environment and Management Project (SEAM) is regularly monitored and assessed as part of the regular reviews of the whole SEAM project. He has played a key role in ensuring the positive impact of the project to date.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Public Administration Institutional Development Project in the west bank and Gaza. [49198]

  Clare Short
  The Public Administration Institutional Development project began in February 2000. Activities were put on hold in December 2000 following the outbreak of the intifada. An inception phase had been successfully completed. The environment since has not been conducive to progressing towards the project's objectives. We will explore ways to recommence activities once the circumstances permit.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the long-term interim technical assistance to Centenary Rural Development Bank in Uganda. [49176]
  1045W
  Clare Short
  An independent project review of DFID's support to the Centenary Rural Development Bank was undertaken in August 2001. It reported that the bank had achieved all the goals set out in the project in terms of business growth (loans outstanding; value of deposits; reduced arrears). Outreach to rural areas had also increased through additional branches, and a positive relationship established between growth of the private sector through prudent lending and a reduction in poverty.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the community forestry development project Phase II in Cameroon. [49206]

  Clare Short
  The community forestry development project phase two (CFDP II) has been monitored regularly by DFID and the Government of Cameroon against its objective of supporting community based forest resource planning and management. Studies have shown that community forestry provides significantly higher benefits to local communities than existing systems.

  Recent reviews have concluded that the project has been instrumental in helping establish the legal basis for communities to manage their forests, and in making the community forestry process more accessible. The project has also provided training for the Ministry of Environment and Forest and helped integrate community forestry training into the curriculum at the university of Dschang.

  Part of the project completion work, to be undertaken prior to the end of the project (December 2002), will be to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis of project inputs.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Support to Rural Feeder Roads Project in Ghana. [49192]

  Clare Short
  My Department's support for feeder roads in Ghana commenced in December 1999 and a review of the project is scheduled to be undertaken in mid-May. Implementation of the physical works of the project has only recently commenced and was delayed while a new Roads Prioritisation method for Ghana's feeder roads was developed. This method involves full community participation and takes into account both social and economic factors leading to a cost-benefit analysis of the roads being considered for construction and repair under this project.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Shapla: Organisation and Management, Human Resource and Hospital Management projects in Bangladesh. [49172]

  Clare Short
  There are three components of our support for the Government of Bangladesh's health sector reforms. They are subject to on-going monitoring by our Bangladesh office and have in addition had two independent external reviews, one in May 2000 and one in May 2001. The costs of the inputs are highly competitive and the standard of work is consistently high. DFID is thus satisfied that they are achieving good value for money and have produced demonstrable results, despite the high-risk nature of this kind of work.
  1046W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Agricultural Service Innovation and Reform Project in Bangladesh. [49174]

  Clare Short
  This project is intended to re-orientate agricultural extension services to better meet the expressed needs of farmers. It started in July 1999. In addition to regular monitoring by DFID, biannual Joint Supervision Missions with the World bank and the Government of Bangladesh have taken place throughout the project. The most recent review was undertaken in November 2001.

  The main findings of the November 2001 review noted that substantial progress had been made and institutional strengthening activities have improved management structures and procedures. DFID has, in addition, recently conducted a detailed review of project financing, inputs and expenditures as part of the preparation for an 18-month extension.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Strengthening and Modernising Value Added Tax Administration Project in Bangladesh. [49164]

  Clare Short
  The objective of this project is to contribute to increasing VAT income by helping the Government of Bangladesh to establish a more effective VAT system. The project commenced in November 1999.

  In addition to close monitoring by the DFID office in Bangladesh, it is subject to annual review, the last of which was carried out in January 2002. The review carried out a detailed review of project financing and expenditures and concluded that the project has made excellent progress in its first two years. Although many activities are still on-going it is reasonable to predict that the project purpose is likely to be substantially achieved.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the construction of Bhairab bridge Phase 2 project in Bangladesh. [49190]

  Clare Short
  This project supports the construction of a major crossing at Bhairab, over the river Meghna on the main road between Dhaka and Sylhet. The bridge will replace the existing ferry crossing, which currently acts as a major constraint in the efficient transport of goods to and from the north-east and the rest of the country. DFID funding of a total of £21 million out of a total expected cost of the bridge of £71 million, including the cost of land purchase and resettlement of project affected persons.

  At the mid-term review of the project carried out in May 2001, it was confirmed that the objectives of the project were expected to be achieved and construction will be completed by mid-September 2002, compared to a completion date set at the commencement of the project of 4 August 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the fourth fisheries project in Bangladesh. [49181]
  1047W
  Clare Short
  This project is jointly funded with the World bank with the objective of supporting sustainable and equitable growth in the benefits generated from increased fish and shrimp production. It started in September 1999. In addition to monitoring by DFID, biannual joint review missions have taken place with the World bank and the Government of Bangladesh. The most recent review was undertaken in November 2001. This review noted that there have been significant achievements in project implementation, with 93 per cent. of a target of villages and beneficiaries having so far been reached.

  The report concluded that the project would largely achieve its overall objectives but continues to face significant challenges. It is too early to revisit the issue of cost-effectiveness but this will be addressed in a major review to be undertaken in May 2003.

  Overtime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49119]

  Clare Short
  DFID staff are not encouraged to work long hours and every effort is made to avoid overtime working and to help staff balance work and private life. No member of staff has been asked to opt out of the limits prescribed by the working time regulations.

  Where overtime working is unavoidable, staff generally have the choice of overtime payments or time off in lieu. Overtime payments vary according to when overtime is worked and the grade of the staff concerned——payments are normally at plain time, time and a half or double time, depending on the circumstances and whether staff wish to take time off in lieu. The rules are complex and we are currently in the process of simplifying them. Two groups of staff are presently not entitled to overtime payments——senior civil servants and staff in Band A1 (equivalent to Senior Principal). We propose to review overtime entitlements for Band A staff by March 2003.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in her Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions she has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within her Department. [50472]

  Clare Short
  My officials keep under constant review the progress with smart card technology and in early 2001 they held extensive discussions with a range of private companies in preparation for introducing appropriate systems to our office. We installed and commissioned a fast lane smart card system in November 2001 in our 1 Palace street office and will be utilising the same technology following an upgrade of our Abercrombie House office in East Kilbride, which will commence later this year.

  We keep under review expansion of our systems to take advantage of the potential benefits that smart card technology can bring.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Berlin Embassy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Berlin Embassy by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49659]

  Mr. MacShane
  The PFI contract for the construction of the Berlin Embassy delivered a cost saving of £1.2 million over the public sector comparator.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last requested the Spanish Government to produce evidence of smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain; what evidence was supplied by the Spanish authorities; and what assessment he made of the Spanish evidence. [49984]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the Minister for Europe, to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 633W.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to the Afghan interim administration in halting the drugs trade. [50514]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has taken the lead in co-ordinating international efforts to assist the Afghan Interim Administration to tackle drugs. Sustainable drug control in Afghanistan will require a range of measures, including the creation of alternative legal livelihoods, the reconstruction of infrastructure and the establishment of effective law enforcement and good governance. We have also been working with the interim administration to implement the decree banning opium production issued by Chairman Karzai on 3 April. We have been encouraging other members of the international community to provide similar support.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authorities to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 governing wartime and occupation. [48951]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: We support the ICRC's call for all parties to respect international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. We have made clear to the Israeli Government that we expect medical and humanitarian organisations and Consular staff to have uninterrupted access to those in need. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stressed our concerns to Israeli Foreign Minister Peres in a telephone call on 10 April. We have called

  1049W
  for an immediate and full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1402.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government to uphold the terms of the Geneva Convention with reference to(a) attacking civilian populations and (b) destroying objects indispensable to their survival. [48950]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer of 15 April 2002]: We have grave concerns for the safety of civilians and about the destruction of property and infrastructure in the Occupied Territories. We have called repeatedly on the Israeli authorities to comply with the terms of the Geneva Convention and to take all necessary precautions to spare civilians and civilian property.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Kosovo. [50588]

  Mr. MacShane
  Much progress has been made since the elections to a Kosovo Assembly took place on 17 November 2001. On 4 March 2002, Kosovo's first freely-elected and multi-ethnic provisional self-government was formed and Dr. Irahim Rugova was elected President of Kosovo. The majority of governmental functions are being transferred from the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to the government, with the exception of powers reserved under the terms of the 2001 Constitutional Framework, such as external affairs, security and law and order. These will remain in the hands of the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative. Most of the Ministers are now in place, and are establishing their departments and defining their priorities.

  All of Kosovo's minorities are represented in the Assembly, and one Ministerial post has already been filled by parties representing the non-Serbian minorities. A further Ministerial post has so far been left unfilled, pending a nomination by the Serbian minority. Following positive recent statements from their representatives and the Belgrade government, I hope that this will soon be filled.

  Old target

  Revised target

  Reason

  Increase in the global audience of the BBC World Service to 153 million by 2002 and then maintained throughout the period.

  Increase in the global audience of the BBC World Service to 157 million by 2004.

  Original target was subject to final confirmation; subsequent discussions between BBC World Service and FCO resulted in a higher target being set. Target refers to weekly radio audience and is calculated annually from independent surveys.

  The upward revision of this target was published on the FCO website last year.

  No new PSA targets have been set for the FCO since the publication of the 2001 departmental report.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many staff were

  Yasin Malik
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the arrest of Yasin Malik, Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, on 25 March at Srinagar. [50998]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have received a number of reports about the detention of Yasin Malik. We have raised our concerns about the condition of Yasin Malik's detention with the Indian Government. We will continue to monitor the case closely.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he sought advice from HM ambassadors to(a) the Irish Republic and (b) Kazakhstan in connection with the takeover of Sidex by LNM/Ispat. [50455]

  Peter Hain
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or I sought advice from either ambassador.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50288]

  Mr. MacShane
  No PFI projects have been subject to refinancing.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [43250]

  Mr. MacShane
  The table sets out revised Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets since the publication of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 2001 departmental report.

  involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions; [49139]

  (2) what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49097]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council office, on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published; and if he will make Explanatory Notes on the Bill's clauses available to hon. Members. [51627]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is expected that the Finance Bill will be published on Wednesday 24 April, the day after the conclusion of the debate on the Budget Resolutions. Explanatory Notes on the Bill's clauses will be available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies of the Explanatory Notes from the Treasury; these will also be available on the Treasury's website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51120]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Income Tax (Indexation) (No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51118]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Friendly Societies (Modification of the Corporation Tax Acts) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51107]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments and Savings) (Industrial Assurance) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51094]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Partly Completed Procedures) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51089]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Individual Savings Account (Insurance Companies) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51108]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (UK Depository/Interests in Foreign Securities) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51115]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Law Applicable to Contracts of Insurance) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51085]

  (9) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Savings, Modifications and Consequential Provisions) (Rehabilitation of Offenders) (Scotland) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51098]
  1052W
  (10) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Personal Equity Plan (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51117]

  (11) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Prescribed Markets and Qualifying Investments) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51126]

  (12) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Taxes (Interest Rate) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51111]

  (13) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Misleading Statements and Practices) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51096]

  (14) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51091]

  (15) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51112]

  (16) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Variation of Stamp Duties Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51123]

  (17) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51087]

  (18) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) (Taxes) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51100]

  (19) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 6) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51125]

  (20) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Friendly Societies Act 1974 (Seal of The Financial Services Authority) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51124]

  (21) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51122]

  (22) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Friendly Societies (Provisional Repayments for Exempt Business) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51109]

  (23) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions and Savings) (Information Requirements and Investigations) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51095]
  1053W
  (24) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Bankruptcy (Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) (Scotland) Rules 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51090]

  (25) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Protection of the Euro against Counterfeiting Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51110]

  (26) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Market Act 2000 (Scope of Permission Notices) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51119]

  (27) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Dissolution of the Board of Banking Supervision) (Transitional Provisions) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51086]

  (28) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions and Savings) (Business Transfers) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51099]

  (29) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Value Added Tax (Cars) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51121]

  (30) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Control of Business Transfers) (Requirements on Applicants) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51102]

  (31) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51113]

  (32) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51084]

  (33) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Money Laundering Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51097]

  (34) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments and Repeals) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51092]

  (35) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Enterprise Management Incentives (Gross Asset Requirement) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51114]

  (36) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Confidential Information) (Bank of England) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51093]

  (37) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51088]
  1054W
  (38) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Individual Savings Account (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if he will make a statement; [51116]

  (39) what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Control of Transfers of Business Done at Lloyd's) Order 2001; and if he will make a statement. [51101]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him yesterday,Official Report, columns 976–82W.

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government received advice from legal counsel regarding the eligibility of Arthur Andersen for Government contracts; and if he will make a statement. [32606]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  In February 1997, prior to the general election, the Treasury Solicitor was asked to review the on-going action against Arthur Andersen. Following the report of this review, the Government received advice from counsel on 9 June 1997 on the question of whether, in the context of the action to determine if the case should be heard in New York, it would be beneficial to relax the embargo against Arthur Andersen for Government contracts. The embargo was relaxed on 24 June 1997, and was fully lifted when the final settlement was agreed on 12 November 1997.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47196]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 49W.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible 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. [49604]

  Ruth Kelly
  We do not have this information.

  Government Commerce
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information was gathered from the Office of Government Commerce e-tendering pilot scheme for a system for use across Government, with particular reference to the Department for Education and Skills. [49928]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The recently concluded pilot covered all the key aspects of an e-tendering system, including the procurement process, functionality and
  1055W
  operational activity. It successfully addressed security issues, which had been a particular concern to both Departments and suppliers.

  The Office of Government Commerce is working with Departments to use the information gathered from this pilot and other on-going e-pilots to develop the Government's overall approach to the effective and efficient use of e-tendering.

  Although the Department for Education and Skills did not take part in the pilot, it will be able, together with all Government Departments and agencies, to use the knowledge gained when undertaking future e-tendering activity.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 862W, on PFI, what were the changing requirements which accounted for the difference in cost between preferred bidder stage and the final contract price. [50327]

  Ruth Kelly
  The changing requirements vary from the addition of new properties on the portfolio PFI (STEPS) to changes in the service specifications on the single site PFIs.

  Consultants
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts HM Treasury has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50836]

  Ruth Kelly
  The effort required to establish the current contracts the Treasury has with consultants would incur disproportionate costs.

  The level of indemnity insurance is not fixed. The value and nature of the contract and the size of the company/firm employed to carry out the work are taken into consideration when determining the level of indemnity insurance required.

  There have been no recent discussions with other Government Departments about professional indemnity insurance.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [51189]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Plastic Bags
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for reducing the use of plastic bags; and if she will make a statement. [46510]
  1056W
  Mr. Meacher
  Packaging waste, including plastic bags, is covered by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, which include incentives both to reduce the amount of packaging handled by businesses and to increase the amount of packaging reused. I am aware that the Irish Government have recently introduced a levy on plastic bags from supermarkets and of the effectiveness of this approach.

  Peak District (Access)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of progress in implementing the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in the Peak District. [46519]

  Alun Michael
  On February 11, the Countryside Agency concluded consultation on a draft map of open country and registered common land in the lower north-west, including the Peak District. The Agency is now considering comments made on the draft map, and plans to issue a provisional map in September this year.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on steps she has taken to combat cruelty to badgers, with specific reference to the protection of setts. [46526]

  Mr. Morley
  It is an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to interfere with a badger sett without an appropriate licence. The maximum penalty for such an offence under the 1992 Act is a fine of £5,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both.

  The protection provided under the 1992 Act, which is unique for an unendangered animals, reflects the concern which is felt by the Government about the gratuitous acts of cruelty to which badgers have been subjected to all too often in the past.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates have been made of how many badgers there were in each constituency in each of the last 20 years. [48548]

  Mr. Morley
  No annual data on the number of badgers exist either at county, constituency or national level.

  Based on two surveys the number of badgers in Great Britain is estimated to be between 300 and 400 thousand. The latest survey which was conducted in the mid-1990s revealed an increase in badgers numbers of around 70 per cent. compared with the first survey which was undertaken in the mid-1980s.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons will be employed by the State Veterinary Service in 2002–03; and what the equivalent figures were in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [R] [46527]

  Mr. Morley
  As at February 2001, 301 veterinary surgeons were employed, of which 261 were field veterinary staff.
  1057W
  As at 31 March 2002, 311 permanent veterinary surgeons were employed, of which 275 are field veterinary staff.

  No further recruitment of veterinary surgeons expected to take place in 2002–03.

  Footpaths (Lincolnshire)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning the reopening of footpaths in Lincolnshire. [46528]

  Alun Michael
  We received a number of comments which suggested that Lincolnshire was slow or reluctant to reopen footpaths despite the fact that there were no cases of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the county. The amount of correspondence was low with four letters from members of the public in favour of reopening footpaths and one against. There was one letter from an hon. Member early in the outbreak, urging strict enforcement of access prohibitions. Lincolnshire county council wrote last July objecting to my decision to revoke remaining blanket rights-of-way closures. That decision was taken in the light of the veterinary risk assessment which showed that the risk of walkers spreading FMD was extremely small and the fact that a small number of local authorities were being over cautious without good reason. The FMD outbreak demonstrated the importance of rights of way to tourism in rural areas in England, and most local authorities were keen to reopen them as soon as it was safe to do so.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance her Department is giving farmers to diversify their businesses. [46529]

  Alun Michael
  The Department provides grants for farmers in England seeking to pursue good diversification projects under the Rural Enterprise Scheme and the Vocational Training Scheme, which form part of the England Rural Development Programme. DEFRA also offers assistance in the form of free planning consultancy advice to farmers who intend to pursue an eligible RES diversification project. Funds are also available from the regional development agencies to renovate redundant farm buildings. Technical assistance is provided by the Rural Development Service and through the Farm Business Advice Service.

  Llama Trekking
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ease the restrictions upon llama trekking businesses. [46530]

  Alun Michael
  A licensing scheme for llama trekking was introduced on 28 March 2002 which allows treks to take place, while minimising the risk of disease spread. Controls are needed over this activity, as llamas are susceptible to foot and mouth disease and could become infected or could infect other susceptible livestock by crossing grazing land.

  British Beef (Import Ban)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of is State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the French ban on imports of British beef. [46531]

  Mr. Morley
  The ban is illegal and the European Commission have written formally to the French Government. This is the first stage in a process which may lead to a further European Court case against France.

  Genetically Modified Plants
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Royal Society's updated report on GM plants. [46532]

  Mr. Meacher
  To assist the screening of non-GM and GM food, research should continue to develop technologies to define the 'normal' composition of conventional plants.

  That the Government and the European Commission should ensure that current regulations and guidelines for infant formulas and follow on foods and GM foods complement each other.

  That the current decision-making process for screening conventional and GM foods should be expanded to encompass inhalant as well as food allergies.

  The Government are taking the following steps to address these issues.

  On the first recommendation, the Food Standards Agency has undertaken a research programme which is looking at new and emerging techniques to define the normal composition of conventional plants and how these techniques can be applied to refine the current safety assessment of GM foods.

  On the second recommendation, the FSA shares the Royal Society's view that GM and infant formulae regulations should be complementary. The FSA is pursuing this issue in Europe as these are EU regulations.

  And on the third recommendation, the Royal Society acknowledges that, at present there is no evidence that commercially available GM foods cause allergenic responses. The safety assessment for all applications for bringing GM foods on to the market includes a detailed risk assessment with consideration of all aspects of allergenicity including through inhalation.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's priorities for the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development. [46533]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's overarching strategic objective is to make globalisation work for sustainable development, especially for the poorest. These priorities are: poverty eradication, emphasising capacity building and education; the opportunities presented by resource productivity including the application of science and technology; energy; freshwater and oceans; and sustainable development initiatives for Africa.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on steps her Department is taking to address the recent reductions in electricity generated from combined heat and power; and when she will publish her Department's report on CHP. [46534]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government believe that the major factor impacting on the economic position of CHP is relatively high gas prices combined with relatively low electricity prices. Under DTI's lead, it is continuing to pursue its strategy to address high gas prices. The Government are also aware of continuing concerns about the impact of the new electricity trading arrangements on smaller generators, including CHP. On 4 April 2002, DTI published the Government Response to its consultation on NETA and smaller generators which identifies action to help smaller generators operate more effectively under NETA. A draft Government CHP Strategy will be published for consultation shortly.

  Climate Change
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact of global climate change. [46535]

  Mr. Meacher
  Impact studies undertaken by DEFRA show that by the 2080s, if action is not taken to tackle climate change, global temperatures could rise by about 3 deg C, leading to 3 billion people suffering increased water stress, and around 80 million extra people at risk of flooding each year due to rising sea levels.

  Euro
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what preparations her Department is making for possible UK entry into the euro. [46536]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of changeover planning in the public sector were set out in the Fifth Report on Euro Preparations, published in November 2001. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Foot and Mouth
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers who suffered financial losses resulting from the foot and mouth epidemic have not been compensated. [46537]

  Mr. Morley
  All livestock farmers will have suffered some degree of financial loss as a result of the restrictions imposed on the movement of livestock and other foot and mouth disease related controls. It has been the policy of successive Governments only to pay compensation for the market value of livestock which is compulsorily slaughtered to control the spread of disease. However over the course of the last year the Government made available some £155 million of agrimonetary aid and more than £210 million in payments under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme and light lambs schemes.
  1060W
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will respond to the conclusions of the Northumberland county council inquiry into the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak. [46539]

  Mr. Morley
  The report of the Northumberland county council inquiry into foot and mouth disease provides a welcome local perspective on what happened during the outbreak. I understand that the county council has sent the report to the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Lessons Learned Inquiry and they will doubtless take it into account in making their report, to which we shall respond fully in due course. The Northumberland inquiry report also outlines a medium term recovery plan for rural Northumberland to be developed within the policy framework of the Rural Action Plan produced by One North East. We have assured the leader of Northumberland county council that DEFRA stands ready to play its part alongside the other players, public, private and voluntary, which need to work together if such a plan is to be successful.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of her inquiries into foot and mouth. [46546]

  Mr. Morley
  On 9 August 2001 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced two independent inquiries into the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001, namely the Lessons Learned Inquiry and the Royal Society Study. The Lessons Learned Inquiry aims to report by mid 2002. The Royal Society Study should be completed by summer 2002.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money she has applied for from the European Commission in connection with meeting the costs of compensation paid to farmers for the disposal of livestock during the foot and mouth outbreak, and what response she has received from the Commission. [48557]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The total UK claim for reimbursement of the costs incurred in the foot and mouth outbreak is £998 million. The claim includes compensation payments to farmers for animals slaughtered, and destruction of contaminated feeding stuffs of £735 million. The other element of the claim is for cleansing and disinfecting of the farms and transport and haulage and disposal of livestock of £263 million.

  The Commission's auditors are auditing the claim. They have not yet issued their audit report. The Department on 28 February 2002 received an advance payment of the claim of £216,904,990 from the Commission.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the basis on which compensation rates for slaughtered animals were calculated during the foot and mouth outbreak. [48559]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Animal Health Act 1981 stipulates that for the purposes of compensation, the value of an animal shall be its value immediately before it became affected with foot and mouth disease or, if not so affected, its value immediately before it was slaughtered. Animals are valued by professional valuers. From 22 March to 30 July

  1061W
  2001 standard valuations were set out in regulations to help ensure rapid slaughter of livestock, but farmers retained the right to request an individual valuation of their stock.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the farming community that officials acting for her Department be given(a) greater powers to enter farm property and (b) wider scope for ordering the slaughter of farm animals. [12345]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: I have received representations from a range of organisations and individuals from the farming community. Some, including the NFU were not opposed to the principle of officials being given (a) greater powers to enter farm property and (b) wider scope for ordering the slaughter of farm animals in clearly defined circumstances.

  Recycling
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress made by local authorities in improving recycling rates. [46538]

  Mr. Meacher
  Provisional figures from the Department's latest Municipal Waste Management Survey show that the proportion of municipal waste recycled or composted has continued to increase, from 7 per cent. in 1996–97 to 12 per cent. in 2000–01. Local authorities are required to further improve their recycling rates in order to achieve the statutory targets the Government have set for them, to double their recycling rates within three years and treble them in five. The recently announced £140 million fund for waste minimisation and recycling will help them to do this.

  Farm Administration
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of how many forms her Department required on average a farmer in England to fill out in 2001; and what efforts are being made to reduce this. [46540]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to make such an assessment. The number of forms completed by farmers depends on the nature and size of individual enterprises. As far as statistical forms are concerned, in 2001 more than half of the main holdings in England received no forms and the average number of forms issued to the other 68,638 holdings was 1.39. Only 319 holdings received more than four forms during the year and of the 95,125 survey forms issued more than one third were in respect of voluntary surveys. Many of the forms the Department issues to farmers relate to particular schemes such as CAP subsidy and rural development schemes. The number will vary widely depending on which schemes they participate in.

  The Department is committed to reducing paperwork. Electronic forms for IACS applications have already been introduced. The Government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan published in February contained a number of measures which will reduce the burden for farmers. These include for example enabling livestock producers to
  1062W
  submit electronic claims for livestock premium schemes and removing unnecessary duplication of information. In the longer term the possibility of a whole farm approach to regulation should enable information required in forms to be rationalised.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals the Government have to control the disposal of ash and other toxic residues from waste incinerators. [46541]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ash and air pollution control residues which are disposed of from waste incinerators are subject to the waste management controls in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including the requirement that these wastes are disposed of in accordance with a waste management licence, and handled in accordance with the duty of care.

  The Environment Agency is carrying out a thorough investigation into the destinations of solid residues from all current municipal waste incinerators and any implications this may hold for the environment or human health. I am expecting the report to be completed later this month and I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library of the House.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the funding of research into animal diseases. [46542]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department funds a substantial programme of research into farm animal diseases. The current spend is some £33 million annually. Details of our research projects can be found on the DEFRA website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/research/researchfrm.htm).

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her strategy for handling outbreaks of serious animal diseases. [48564]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Strategies for handling outbreaks of serious animal diseases vary in detail according to the characteristics of each disease, notably the means of spread and the species affected. Policies for dealing with the main diseases are set out in EU and UK legislation. Many elements of animal disease control contingency planning are common for a range of diseases. These include surveillance, reporting and investigation procedures; import controls; tracing and diagnosis; eradication options such as slaughter and vaccination; valuation and compensation procedures; controls over animal movements; and the principles of biosecurity, including cleansing and disinfection of premises and vehicles.

  The findings of the Royal Society and Lessons Learned Inquiries following last year's FMD outbreak will be taken into account in keeping our strategies for handling animal disease outbreaks up to date and effective.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests for disease are carried out on live animal imports. [R] [46516]
  1063W
  Mr. Morley
  Post import checks are carried out by the State Veterinary Service for a range of diseases according to the species and the country from which the animal originated.

  Illegal Foodstuffs (Importation)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on measures in place to restrict the importation of illegal foodstuffs. [46543]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government published an action plan on 28 March, which has a range of measures aimed at reducing 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 action plan will be placed in the House Libraries and it can also be viewed on line at http//www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde/prod-im/prod-im.htm.

  Organic Produce
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to standardise criteria for produce to be described as organic. [46544]

  Mr. Morley
  Common EU standards for the production and marketing of organic produce are prescribed by Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91. However, the Regulation does not prevent an individual inspection body approved under it from applying more restrictive standards to operators it registers.

  Farm Produce (Local Sales)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to assist farmers to sell their produce locally. [46545]

  Alun Michael
  The England Rural Development Programme provides grant aid for a range of activities that may be of benefit to farmers seeking to sell produce locally. We have also assisted various local projects under the Agricultural Development Scheme as well as supporting the National Association of Farmers' Market's training and accreditation programmes and the development of the South West Food and Drink Organisation.

  Through Food from Britain we contribute to the funding of a network of regional food groups which provide trade development services to regional and speciality food producers, some of whom will be farmers. Food from Britain has been active in encouraging supermarkets to stock more local produce.

  We have actively encouraged the development of farmers' markets, as has the Countryside Agency which we grant-aid. Farmers may also derive benefit from the Countryside Agency's "Eat the View" programme which seeks to achieve more favourable market conditions for local products that support sustainable land management.

  Illegally Logged Timber
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to tackle the importation of illegally logged timber. [46547]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK has shown leadership under the G8 Action Programme on Forests in promoting bilateral arrangements with timber producing countries whereby countries work together to tackle illegal logging and associated trade. We are currently negotiating the first of these with Indonesia. We hope that bilateral agreements will lead to regional and, eventually, an international agreement that will have a big impact on illegal trade.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many seizures of illegally logged wood have been initiated by her Department in total in the last three years. [48205]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: International trade in some woods is controlled under the terms of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Those species of wood listed in Appendix I & II of CITES, require import permits from the UK before they can be imported. These are issued only where the UK Management Authority (DEFRA) is satisfied that the wood has been legally obtained in the country of origin and has the necessary permit for export from that country. Species listed in Appendix III of CITES do not require import permits. For these species a self-completed import notification form must be presented to HM Customs prior to the arrival of the specimens, together with the relevant export permit(s) or certificate(s) of origin issued by the Management Authority in the exporting country. It is for the Management Authority in the country of origin to decide whether the import has been legally logged. On the basis of these procedures the Department has not initiated any seizures of wood in the past three years.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the percentage of rainforest timber entering the United Kingdom which derives from illegal logging. [48320]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Combating illegal logging requires effort from both timber producing and consuming countries. Timber producing countries are responsible for defining and enforcing the national legislative and regulatory frameworks that define legality.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) is working with a number of timber exporting countries to help them improve governance and strengthen forest law enforcement. We are also working to develop capacity for the implementation of timber certification schemes in some producing countries.

  Domestically, the UK is working to ensure that the import of endangered timber species is in full compliance with CITES, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species. We are also implementing a new Government timber procurement policy that seeks to procure forest products only from legal and sustainable sources.
  1065W
  We estimate that of the total UK timber and timber product imports, less then 10 per cent. is from tropical timber. A reliable estimate of rain forest timber entering the UK that is derived from illegal sources can only be made once chain of custody systems are in place in exporting countries that can verify legal compliance. The Government is in discussion with some exporting countries about the introduction of such systems.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's estimate of costs to farmers of the proposed nitrate vulnerable zones regulations. [46548]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department's consultation document issued in December 2001 outlines relative costs to farmers of two options for completing implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.

  Total annual cost to English farmers are:

  Option 1 (whole of England approach)——£32 million.

  Option 2 (targeted NVZ approach)——£23 million.

  We are currently considering these figures in the light of responses to our recent consultation. We will publish a revised regulatory impact assessment, containing updated compliance costs, in due course when we are in a position to announce a decision on how the directive is to be implemented.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has undertaken into the proportion of nitrates leached from arable land which derive from atmospheric deposition. [48199]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, from the air pollutants nitrogen oxides (mainly from vehicle exhausts and industry) and ammonia (mainly from livestock manure), is measured across the UK by the National Acid Deposition Network.

  Most of the nitrogen deposited in arable areas is taken up by crops during the growing season, but in late autumn and winter, a proportion is vulnerable to leaching. Studies at the Institute of Arable Crops Research have shown that atmospheric deposition usually contributes around 20 to 30 per cent. of the nitrate leached from arable land.

  Atmospheric deposition is a major cause for concern in upland semi-natural habitats which are naturally adapted to receiving low supplies of nutrient nitrogen. Atmospheric deposition is largest in the uplands, where rainfall is highest. Excessive deposition can lead to adverse changes in plant diversity and, in some cases, to nitrate leaching.

  Under the UNECE Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone, and the European National Emissions Ceilings Directive, the UK is committed to further significant reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions, and to curbing ammonia emissions, from 2010. Achieving these emission reduction targets will cut the amount of nitrogen deposited onto agricultural and semi-natural land. We will publish a consultation this year seeking views on how to curb ammonia emissions.
  1066W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will(a) determine and (b) regulate closed seasons, under the nitrate directive, on a regional basis. [48201]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information requested is as follows.

  (a) Determination of closed periods:

  Annual closed periods in existing NVZ areas are:

  For nitrogen fertilisers:

  On arable land——1 September to 1 February

  On grassland——15 September to 1 November

  For slurries, poultry manures and liquid-digested sewage sludge:

  On arable land without autumn sown crop: 1 August to 1 November

  On grassland or arable land with autumn sown crop: 1 September to 1 November.

  The current Action Programme does not include variations on a regional basis in England. We are considering responses received to our recent consultation on completing implementation of the Nitrates Directive which have raised this issue.

  (b) Regulation of closed periods:
  The Environment Agency will be responsible for enforcing compliance in the new areas where farmers are required to take action to reduce nitrate pollution, as well as in existing Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. The Agency propose to develop a risk based approach to enforcement, for instance by relating the frequency and nature of inspection to the risk of pollution.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy with respect to nitrate vulnerable zones. [46522]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the Department's recent consultation on how England should complete implementation of the nitrates directive, I hope to be able to announce a decision in May.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 240W, regarding the estimated cost and value of empty properties, if all surplus empty properties have been sold within the three year guideline set down by HM Treasury. [50335]

  Mr. Morley
  No. Some surplus properties have been retained for more than three years so that planning issues which significantly enhanced the sale value could be resolved. Disposal of some other properties has been delayed because buyers have not been forthcoming.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1161W, on refurbishment, what her estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department in 2001–02. [50393]
  1067W
  Mr. Morley
  Refurbishment work carried out in 2001–02 has an estimated value of £6,198,500 (estimated because final accounts have not yet been agreed on all projects). The largest project undertaken last year was the refurbishment of floors two to six of Ergon House in London (£4,300,000).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1161W, on refurbishment carried out by her Department, what her estimate is of the cost of refurbishment carried out as part of landlord lease obligations in each of the last four years. [50394]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not keep records of work carried out as part of landlords' lease obligations separately from general maintenance work. In many cases the distinction is blurred and it would be difficult to assign the work to one category or the other.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1161W, on refurbishment, for what reason the cost in 2000–01 increased by £655,000 over the previous year. [50397]

  Mr. Morley
  Refurbishment programmes vary from year to year depending upon departmental needs and available funding. In 2000–01 significant projects were undertaken on behalf of the British Cattle Movement Service in Workington and the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (now part of the Rural Development Service) at Leeds and Wolverhampton.

  Surplus Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 240W, how many surplus properties have been sold in each year since 1997–98; and what is the sum of the proceeds to public funds resulting from the sales. [50334]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of properties sold

  Total sales income £ million

  1997–98

  12

  19.5

  1998–99

  7

  7.7

  1999–2000

  17

  15.4

  2000–01

  10

  13.1

  2001–02

  8

  18.0

  Overtime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on overtime payments for staff in her Department. [49120]

  Mr. Morley
  In the Department and its agencies the procedures set out below are followed with regard to overtime:Prior approval to work overtime must be obtained in all cases;
  Managers are asked to make every effort to avoid overtime working and, as far as possible, ensure that it occurs only at times of exceptional pressure of work;
  1068W
  Wherever possible, volunteers are sough! and weekend overtime avoided;
  A 'long hours culture' is not encouraged nor are regular calls on particular groups of staff; and
  As an alternative to payment, time off in lieu may be taken.

  Staff in the senior civil service, and those who do not work set conditioned hours, or whose pay already includes payment for working overtime, and fee paid staff are not eligible for overtime payments.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49592]

  Mr. Morley
  The 2002 departmental reports will be published in spring 2002. The dates will he announced shortly.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she expects the overall cost of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers in the financial year 2001–02 to be higher or lower than the level of 88 billion euros per year specified in the 2001 departmental report. [47908]

  Mr. Morley
  The estimate in the departmental report is drawn from a range of international sources and recent changes in the operation of the CAP have made it difficult to compare current estimates directly. However latest provisional estimates on a consistent basis show the cost of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers in 2000 was euro 85 billion.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 730W, regarding people employed by her Department under the new deal for young people, what discussions she has had with ministers in the departments of Trade and Industry and International Development regarding central collection of statistics on the destinations of new deal participants. [50426]

  Mr. Morley
  To date there have been no discussions with Ministers in the Departments of Trade and Industry and International Development regarding central collection of statistics on the destinations of new deal participants.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1191W, on industrial action, what assessment she has made of the effect of the lost days on the service provided by her Department to the public. [50553]

  Mr. Morley
  The main impact of industrial action has been on the Arable Area Payments Scheme where a little over 50 per cent. of payments were made in the first 2 or 3 weeks of the payment window as compared to the normal 60–70 per cent. within that time.
  1069W
  In other areas of DEFRA's work the effects of industrial action on services to the public were more limited. There were however small delays in administration of the National Scrapie Plan and in administration and payments under the Agri Environment, ERDP, livestock and organic farming schemes.

  With regard to foot and mouth disease, the action did not significantly jeopardise animal health. PCS agreed local dispensations to allow members employed on the FMD Helpline and Licensing Sections to remain working, although in other sections there were some small delays to payment processing.

  Telephone calls to some local DEFRA offices were operated on a reduced service. The Department always took into account the needs of the customers, the taxpayer and the long term working relations in DEFRA.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many visits have been made by the State Veterinary Service to broiler units since September 2001. [48555]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: In the period from 1 September 2001 until 31 March this year, the State Veterinary Service have visited 73 broiler and broiler breeder units.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the welfare of broiler chickens; and if she will make a statement. [48561]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: As part of its inspection programme, the State Veterinary Service visits broiler units to assess all aspects of welfare.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish new recommendations for the welfare of broiler chickens. [48556]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]. A new welfare code of recommendations specifically for meat chickens and breeding chickens will shortly be presented to Parliament.

  River Bailiffs
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of river bailiffs. [48325]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Environment Agency has advised that it will continue to employ officers with the powers of water bailiffs to meet its statutory duty under the Environment Act 1995 to help maintain, develop and improve salmon, trout and freshwater and eel fisheries.

  EC Regulation 2037/2000
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of old fridges which will be shipped to Germany for dismantling in compliance with EC Regulation 2037/2000. [48321]
  1070W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: So far, the Environment Agency has authorised the shipment of approximately 94,500 units for export to Germany. Of these, approximately 3,275 units have been received in Germany and a further 9,615 are in the process of being shipped to Germany for treatment in compliance with EC Regulation 2037/2000. Further applications for 170,350 units have been received by the Environment Agency and these are awaiting a decision.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of(a) the cost and (b) the environmental impact of shipping old fridges to Germany for dismantling in compliance with EC Regulation 2037/2000. [48322]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The cost of shipping fridges to Germany is a commercial decision, although costs of £18 to £24 per appliance for export is reasonable. The environmental impact of shipping fridges will be minimal because high standards are imposed at the treatment facilities and the materials are recovered for recycling.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been paid to farmers under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. [48546]

  Mr. Morley
  The total payments made to farmers in each of the years since 1991, when the scheme was introduced by the then Countryside Commission, are as follows:

  £ million

  Annual expenditure

  1992–93

  5.3

  1993–94

  8.5

  1994–95

  10.5

  1995–96

  11.6

  1996–97

  10.9

  1997–98

  15.7

  1998–99

  19.9

  1999–2000

  23.4

  2000–01

  28.9

  2001–021

  47.3

  Total expenditure2

  182.0

  1Estimated

  21992 to 2002

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what monitoring systems have been put in place to ensure that farmers participating in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme are managing their land to the standards expected by the programme. [48541]

  Mr. Morley
  To ensure that farmers in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme are managing their land in accordance with their agreements, technical staff from DEFRA's Rural Development Service operate a programme of care and maintenance visits. The programme is structured so that agreement holders are visited in the first year of the agreement and further visits are undertaken where required.
  1071W
  All our agreement holders are in addition subject to compliance monitoring inspections by staff from the Rural Payments Agency. These inspections are carried out to meet EU and our own audit requirements.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many special advisers there were in her Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46953]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: DEFRA has two special advisers. As regards their salaries, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 11W.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with regional development agencies regarding environmental issues. [47968]

  Alun Michael
  I regularly attend meetings with the chairs of regional development agencies and ministerial colleagues and the Department are frequently in discussion with regional development agencies on a range of issues. If my hon. Friend has a particular concern in mind, I shall be pleased to address it.

  Television Sets
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) analogue and (b) integrated digital television sets her Department has purchased in each of the last 24 months; and if she will make a statement. [38176]

  Mr. Morley
  From information held centrally, since DEFRA's creation on 8 June 2001, the Department has acquired nine analogue television sets. No digital television sets were acquired. In making decisions on television purchases the Department is required to consider whole life cycle costs when making any purchasing decisions. Whole life costs take account of possible future obsolescence.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by her Department in each of the last 24 months; and if she will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33235]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: From information held centrally, since DEFRAs creation on 8 June 2001, the Department has acquired nine analogue television sets. No digital television sets were acquired. In making decisions on television purchases the Department is required to consider whole life cycle costs when making any purchasing decisions. Whole life costs take account of possible future obsolescence.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many members 1072W
  of staff at her Department are justices of the peace; and if she has a strategy for her Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44550]

  Mr. Morley
  Available records show that 12 members of staff are justices of the peace.

  The Department actively supports its staff in giving more time to their communities. Staff are allowed varying amounts of paid time off for voluntary public duties (for example, serving as magistrates or school governors). We aim to raise the profile of volunteering and make it easier for staff to give their time and effort to voluntary work.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Minister of State will reply to the letter of 18 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) about the Hampshire Avon, abstraction and the Habitats Directive. [42508]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent on 7 March.

  Thames Barrier
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the public cost associated with the collision of the Sand Lite with the Thames Barrier. [49916]

  Mr. Morley
  The dredger Sand Kite collided with one of the piers of the Thames Barrier and deposited a quantity of gravel on one of the operating gates. I understand that the remedial works costs to date have been reimbursed to the Environment Agency from the vessel's insurers and have not therefore resulted in any public cost. I further understand that there is some additional remedial painting and removal of gravel from inside the gate recess, to be carried out this summer, that may not be covered by the insurers and may result in a public cost of some £100,000. This is expected be met from Environment Agency's operational budget with a contribution from the Port of London Authority.

  Council of Ministers (Fisheries Meeting)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who attended the fisheries meeting of the EU Council of Ministers on 27 November 2001 on behalf of the UK; and who led the UK delegation. [51035]

  Mr. Morley
  I attended and led for the UK, supported by officials from DEFRA, the Scottish Executive and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to launch a consultation on the future of the landfill tax credit scheme. [51626]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government published on 17 April 2002 a consultation paper on the future of the landfill tax credit scheme. It seeks views on the priorities for funding from revenue currently spent through the landfill tax credit scheme, the merits of different funding mechanisms
  1073W
  and any transitional arrangements. The results will feed into the decisions to be made as part of Spending Review 2002.

  Copies of the consultation paper are available from the House Libraries or from the DEFRA website: www.defra.gov.uk.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the transfer of responsibility for the movement of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom from the Director General Equipment Support (Air) to the Warship Support Agency. [51497]

  Mr. Ingram
  The transfer of responsibility for the movement of nuclear weapons from the Director General Equipment Support (Air) to the Warship Support Agency was completed on 26 March 2002. The Ministry of Defence's commitment to nuclear safety and security was maintained throughout the transfer process.

  Medical/Dental Staff Pay
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. [51498]

  Mr. Hoon
  The supplement to the 2002 report of the armed forces pay review body making recommendations on the pay of service medical and dental officers has been published today. Copies of the supplement are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and members of the review body for their work in producing this supplement.

  The Review Body recommends an overall pay increase of 4.6 per cent. for all Defence medical services medical and dental officers with the exception of qualified general medical practitioners who will receive an increase of 6.8 per cent. The review body also recommends a 4.6 per cent. increase to the sustained quality payments for general medical practitioners; an increase in trainer pay and a small increase in the value and numbers of distinction awards. In addition, there is a recommendation, which will be reviewed next year, for the introduction of an out-of-hours supplement of £5,000 applicable to junior doctors.

  The additional cost to the Defence budget will be £7.7 million. This will be met within departmental expenditure limits.

  The review body's recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2002.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the shortfall is in the number of pilots for(a) Sea Harriers and (b) RAF Harriers; and what steps the Department is taking to reduce this number. [50869]

  Mr. Ingram
  The position as at 1 April 2002 is set out in the table.
  1074W

  Force

  Established flying posts

  Strength

  Sea Harrier

  172

  48

  Harrier GR7

  267

  63

  1This reflects the overall commander, lieutenant commander and junior officer requirement for Sea Harriers, including cockpit manning (front line and training), naval broadening within fleet appointments, staff appointments and exchanges for commanders and below.

  2Comprises wing commander, squadron leader and junior officer posts on front line squadrons, operational conversion units, operational evaluation units and wing appointments. In addition to the established flying posts, fast jet pilots are required for instructional duties within the RAF's flying training system, overseas exchange posts, the RAF Acrobatic Team and a number of ground duties shared by all General Duties Branches.

  Addressing the current aircrew shortfalls is a key priority and a number of actions have been taken to reduce the impact of these shortfalls. These include increasing the number of fast jet pilots entering into productive service, returning some middle ranking officers to flying duties and recruiting trained pilots released by the Royal New Zealand Air Force. To improve retention two new financial retention incentives were introduced on I April 2002, each linked to a commitment to five years further service.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) FA2 Sea Harriers and (b) GR7 RAF Harriers are in service. [50868]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 16 April 2002, there were a total of 54 RAF Harrier GR7s and 29 Sea Harrier FA2s in the Actual Operating Fleet. The Actual Operating Fleet is the total number of aircraft available to undertake the defined military task, and may vary day to day.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Harrier force will leave service; when the joint strike fighter will enter service; and how many JSF aircraft will be procured. [50872]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1451–52W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), the Sea Harrier FA2s of Joint Force Harrier will be withdrawn from service by 2006.

  The Harrier GR9s of Joint Force Harrier will be withdrawn from service as they are replaced by the future joint combat aircraft (FJCA) and, on current plans, this will be completed in 2015.

  The joint strike fighter has been selected as having the best potential for meeting our FJCA requirement and is currently planned to enter UK service in 2012. Work is currently on-going on numbers required, but our current planning assumption is for some 150 aircraft.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the reduction in the number of RAF Nimrod patrol aircraft. [50871]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1452–53W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of aircraft used by the RAF; and how many of each are operational. [50873]
  1075W
  Mr. Ingram
  On 16 April 2002, there were 821 fixed wing aircraft and 162 rotary wing aircraft in the RAF's Actual Operating Fleet. The breakdown of this figure by aircraft type and number is detailed in the following table.

  Aircraft type

  Number of aircraft

  Fixed wing aircraft

  BAe 125 ccMk3

  6

  BAe 146 ccMK2

  2

  C-17

  4

  Canberra

  5

  Chipmunk

  2

  Dakota

  1

  Dominie

  11

  Firefly

  45

  Harrier GR7

  54

  Harrier T10

  8

  Sea Harrier FA2

  29

  Sea Harrier T8

  4

  Hawk

  115

  Hercules C-130J

  23

  Hercules C-130K

  26

  Islander

  1

  Jaguar

  43

  Jetstream TMk

  11

  Nimrod MR2

  18

  Nimrod RI

  2

  Sentry E-3D AEW Mk1

  6

  Tornado F3

  90

  Tornado GR1/4

  112

  Tristar

  9

  Tucano Mk I

  76

  Tutor

  99

  VCIO

  19

  Rotary Wing Aircraft

  Chinook Mk 2/2a

  31

  Griffin

  9

  Merlin Mk 3

  9

  Puma

  35

  Sea King Mk 3/3a

  25

  Twin Squirrel

  41

  Wessex HC2

  12

  The RAF also operates the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, which comprises eight fixed wing aircraft. The breakdown of this figure by aircraft type and number is detailed in the following table.

  Aircraft type

  Number of aircraft

  Hurricane

  2

  Lancaster B1

  1

  Spitfire

  5

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier aircraft will operate under the Joint Force Harrier; and what improvements will be made to the GR9 Harrier to allow the separate Harrier forces to integrate. [50870]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume my hon. Friend to be asking for the number of Harrier aircraft that will operate under Joint Force Harrier following the withdrawal from service of the Sea Harrier by 2006 and that he is referring to improvements planned to the Harrier GR7 aircraft when he asks what improvements will be made to allow the separate Harrier forces to integrate.
  1076W
  Following the withdrawal from service of the Sea Harrier, the Required Operating Fleet of the Joint Force Harrier is expected to be 51 aircraft. The Required Operating Fleet is the theoretical number of aircraft required by the operational squadrons to undertake the defined military task.

  Thirty Harrier GR7 aircraft will be upgraded to GR7 a standard by the integration of the Pegasus Mk 107 engine. This will provide improved performance, particularly for carrier borne operation. Furthermore, all Harrier GR7 and Harrier GR7a aircraft will receive avionics and weapons upgrades to provide the aircraft with a much improved capability, in particular the ability to deliver the new generation of smart weapons that are about to enter service. These aircraft will be designated Harrier GR9 and Harrier GR9a.

  PFI Programmes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are employed in connection with MoD PFI programmes. [50789]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a small central team with 15 civilian personnel that is responsible for developing policy and best practice for the Ministry of Defence's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) programme and other types of Public Private Partnership. The central team is supported by smaller teams within the Defence Procurement Agency, Defence Logistics Organisation and other management areas, which are responsible for managing the programmes within their own areas.

  The management and delivery of the PFI programme also involves managers, both military and civilian, at all levels as members of project boards, scrutiny and approving authorities, commercial advisers and customer representatives. MOD legal and finance staffs are also involved, although they usually do not work on PFI programmes full-time.

  PFI projects are run by dedicated integrated project teams, the size of which varies with the size of the project and the stage it has reached in the procurement cycle. The teams can include civilian and military personnel, as well as industry representatives. External consultants may be engaged by project teams. A small number also sit on project boards.

  Once contracts have been signed, they are monitored and are managed by MOD personnel, both civilian and military depending on the services concerned. But contractors' personnel deliver the services themselves and it is up to the contractors to determine the size of the civilian workforce necessary to meet our requirements.

  A substantial number of civilians within and outside the MOD is employed on MOD PFI programmes, full and part-time, in a variety of roles. Information on the number of civilians employed in managing and delivering the programme and individual projects is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Fleet's fully operational destroyer and frigate strength will be in December 2002, excluding vessels held at states of low readiness. [49759]
  1077W
  Mr. Ingram
  In December 2002, on current plans, of the Fleet's 32 Frigates and Destroyers, 26 will be operational or engaged in preparing for service, conducting trials or training. The remaining six will be either undergoing docking periods or refit or held at a low level of readiness.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will be made from the early withdrawal of HMS Fearless. [49765]

  Mr. Ingram
  The earlier than previously planned withdrawal of HMS Fearless will accrue savings of at least £2 million. This will be achieved by cancelling a previously programmed assisted maintenance period and through the reduction in operating costs. Moreover, HMS Fearless is nearly 37 years old and is in poor material condition. The unique nature of much of her machinery such as boilers and steam plant make repairs and maintenance difficult and it is highly probable that further unprogrammed and potentially costly work would have been required to maintain her at the previously assumed readiness state.

  HMS Illustrious
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the main elements will be in the refit of HMS Illustrious; how long the refit was originally planned to take; and how long it is expected to take. [50874]

  Mr. Ingram
  The main elements of HMS Illustrious's refit concern maintenance, repair and improvements to ships systems and equipment to overcome obsolescence, meet safety and environmental legislation and enhance capability in command, control and communications systems and in aviation facilities.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 14W which indicated that the refit was originally planned to take about 23 months. Detailed negotiations with the refitting contractor are currently under way, and may result in some programme adjustment.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of the refit of HMS Illustrious is. [50815]

  Mr. Ingram
  The refit of HMS Illustrious is estimated to cost approximately £110 million excluding costs attributable to Ministry supplied material and naval manpower.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 14W, on Navy vessels, how many (a) officers and (b) crew will remain on HMS Illustrious until her refit commences; what their duties will be; how often officers and crew will be redeployed; how many officers and crew will remain with HMS Illustrious during her refit; and what HMS Illustrious's reduced state of readiness will be until October. [50777]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Illustrious remains fully staffed as the Fleet Flagship until 27 May 2002. Following this her role changes to Standby Preservation by Operation. She requires 15 officers and 196 ratings in this role, whose duties will be essential safety checks, low level maintenance and preservation checks at her reduced state 1078W
  of readiness. On commencement of her refit the crew numbers reduce to nine officers and 36 ratings. Personnel will then be employed as required in support of the refit. They will be subject to normal drafting and appointing notice, but as a reduced manned ship will, as far as possible, be protected from short notice movement of personnel. HMS Illustrious will then gradually build up to achieve full manpower by October 2004.

  Helicopter Hangars
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans there are to provide temporary helicopter hangars on HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark; [50816]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact the absence of hangars on landing platform docks will have on the serviceability of helicopters. [50817]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to provide temporary helicopter hangars on the landing platform dock (replacement)s (LPD(R)s HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark although these could be incorporated without fundamental modification of the vessels.

  The lack of hangars on the LPD(R)s will have an impact on the serviceability of helicopters. This impact was taken into account when the decision about a hangar was made and assessed as manageable. HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless, which HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will replace, were not fitted with helicopter hangars.

  Future Rapid Effects System
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Army's Future Rapid Effects System project. [50004]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The Army's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) is in the concept phase. The operational requirement that FRES is expected to meet is close to being finalised. Initial Gate for the programme is planned for the end of 2002. We continue to review our existing armoured fighting vehicle programmes to ensure that they are coherent with the requirement for 'rapid effect'.

  Ammunition Stocks
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what ammunition stocks are held in the UK; [50931]

  (2) how the level of stocks of ammunition has changed since 1997. [50932]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has a stockpile of munitions held against the risk of short notice conflicts. The method of calculating the size and composition of this stockpile has undergone significant development in the last three years, and it now reflects more accurately the likely nature of the conflicts that the UK armed forces could become involved in. Specific information relating to ammunition stock levels is withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has classified the secure supply of ammunition as being of strategic importance. [50934]
  1079W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has always considered security of supply and value for the taxpayer's money to be key criteria in the procurement of safe and reliable munitions for the armed forces. The issue of security of supply was examined in detail by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee in 1999 and the committee recognised that in balancing security of supply against cost, it is likely that there are very few capabilities that must, on strategic grounds, be retained in the UK.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances it is the Government's policy to subsidise ammunition manufacturers in the UK to ensure its supply. [50935]

  Dr. Moonie
  The framework partnering agreement between Royal Ordnance Defence and the Ministry of Defence provides the company with contracted ammunition requirements for a rolling three-year period, firm requirements for a further two years, and a best forecast up to the 10-year point. The agreement is not a subsidy; it is intended to provide a vital link to industry to help ensure the supply of safe and reliable munitions for our armed forces.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contractual guarantees exist to safeguard the supply of ammunition by overseas manufacturers in(a) peace and (b) war. [50933]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the past year the Ministry of Defence has only obtained around 8 per cent. (by value) of its ammunition from overseas manufacturers. Supply and re-supply arrangements are taken into account when letting contracts. There is no difference in contractual arrangements for re-supply in peace or war. The supply of military stores and components for the UK armed forces from overseas is not a new venture, as our many collaborative projects demonstrate. Such contracts can meet both our requirements and demonstrate added value for money.

  Pilots
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the intake of pilots has been to the(a) RAF and (B) Fleet Air Arm in each year since 1997. [49744]

  Mr. Ingram
  The intake of pilots into the RAF and Fleet Air Arm (FAA) are shown in the table.

  Year

  RAF

  FAA

  1997

  110

  62

  1998

  122

  50

  1999

  177

  29

  2000

  157

  12

  2001

  151

  41

  The FAA figures do not include any Royal Marines pilot entrants who did not enter the FAA.

  Decoy Systems
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Active Off-Board Decoy System will become operational on Royal Navy warships. [50787]
  1080W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Active Off-Board Decoy System is expected to reach operational service in the Royal Navy from early 2004 once sufficient Active Decoy Rounds have been produced. It will be fitted to all major Royal Navy warships, improving their ability to counter anti-ship missiles.

  Surface Torpedo Defence System
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest in-service date for the new Surface Torpedo Defence system is; and if he will make a statement on progress on the programme. [50786]

  Dr. Moonie
  The planned in-service date for Surface Ship Torpedo Defence is 2004. Following competition, a lead-in contract was placed with Ultra Electronics, Greenford, Middlesex in November 2001. The contract includes an option for the development, manufacture and support of ship systems.

  Multi-role Survey Ship
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to place an order for a third multi-role survey ship. [50781]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no plans for a third multi-role survey ship.

  Submarines
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which submarines will be fitted with the Submarine Acoustic Warfare Command System; and when the system will be operational. [50785]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Submarine Acoustic Warfare Command System is planned to be fitted to all Vanguard, Trafalgar and Astute class submarines and those Swiftsure submarines with sufficient remaining life. This capability enables the deployment of defensive countermeasures and will be operational from mid-2002.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the cost was to his Office of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated; [49101]

  (2) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49143]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W.

  Overtime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his office. [49131]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office today.

  Romania
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he has taken since January 2001 to persuade British companies to invest in Romania; and how many letters he has written for this purpose which were published in the United Kingdom. [50463]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–11W.

  Transport Links (Devolved Assemblies)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department has responsibility for maintenance of air and sea transport links(a) between those parts of the United Kingdom with devolved Assemblies and (b) between those areas and England. [51041]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions is responsible for air and sea transport policy in the United Kingdom. There is a liberalised air and sea transport market within the European Community and the Government do not normally intervene to maintain services, except in the case of certain economically vital 'lifeline' services which would not be commercially viable without subsidy. Any subsidies paid, subject to state aid rules, are the responsibility of the relevant devolved Administrations or local councils.

  Overseas Hospitality
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since May 1997 when he has benefited from the hospitality of an overseas Government(a) when on official business and (b) otherwise. [51042]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 986W.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many contracts his Department has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50837]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I am unable to give the hon. Member the answer to the first part of this question as this information is not centrally held, and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  DTLR's contracts require contractors (including consultants) to take out and maintain such insurance as is necessary to cover their liabilities under the contract. The Department has been involved in interdepartmental
  1082W
  discussions with the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), who issued guidance in April 2001 to all Departments. The guidance encouraged a more flexible approach to contractors' (including consultants) total liability when undertaking Government contracts. DTLR has adopted this approach and either sets a realistic cap on liability (relative to the risks involved) when inviting tenders or is prepared to consider caps proposed by tenderers.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his Department's annual report; and if he will make a statement on the timing of publication. [48805]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 774W.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date his Department expects to publish its annual report for 2002; and if he will make a statement. [50905]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49585]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.

  Creches
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 984W, regarding creche facilities, when the review of child care provision in his Department will be concluded; and when its recommendations will be announced. [50398]

  Dr. Whitehead
  It is expected that the initial stage of the review of child care provision (outlining options) will be concluded during autumn 2002.

  Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50297]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total salary costs of each non-departmental public body currently sponsored by the Department for each of the last five years is as follows.
  1083W

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  NDPB

  Audit Commission

  40.36

  43.32

  55.72

  70.63

  1n/a

  English Partnerships2

  20.58

  22.26

  14.03

  12.21

  n/a

  Health and Safety Commission

  0.23

  0.23

  0.25

  0.27

  30.28

  Health and Safety Executive

  94.56

  96.94

  100.27

  104.37

  3109.24

  Housing Action Trusts:

  Castle Vale

  2.30

  2.21

  2.33

  2.27

  32.23

  Liverpool

  2.42

  2.47

  2.24

  2.09

  32.03

  Stonebridge

  1.40

  1.65

  1.81

  1.62

  31.24

  Tower Hamlets

  1.42

  0.48

  0.39

  0.36

  30.36

  Waltham Forest

  0.83

  0.35

  0.39

  0.41

  30.36

  Housing Corporation

  15.42

  15.20

  16.27

  17.51

  18.88

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  5.48

  5.17

  5.57

  5.66

  35.92

  Standards Board for England

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  0.99

  Strategic Rail Authority

  ——

  ——

  ——

  13.64

  3107.00

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  9.50

  9.65

  9.53

  9.63

  9.89

  Tribunal NDPBs

  Rent Assessment Panels

  1.65

  1.64

  1.68

  1.55

  1.85

  Traffic Commissioners

  4.79

  4.98

  5.30

  5.30

  5.68

  Valuation Tribunals

  5.06

  4.77

  4.47

  4.36

  4.38

  1 The Audit Commission's financial year ends on 31 October.

  2 English Partnerships is a national body for regeneration and development bringing together the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for New Towns for which salary costs is provided.

  3 Forecast

  4The Strategic Rail Authority was created on 1 February 2001. The figures also cover the Rail Passengers' Council/Committees and the British Transport police.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49617]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 contains a sunset clause that will make the provisions expire at the end of 2015. The clause also allows for the Act's provisions to be extended, by secondary legislation, if there is a case for doing so in 2015.

  In accordance with the Government manifesto commitment, DTLR will continue to explore the possibility of time limiting new regulations where appropriate. We are also looking at other ways of ensuring legislation is kept up to date such as reviewing major legislation after it is implemented.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and if the target was met. [49636]

  Dr. Whitehead
  All executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are required to provide information about the performance and efficiency targets agreed with their sponsoring Department and performance against those targets in their annual reports, copies of which are normally available in the library of the House. These details are not available for advisory and tribunal NDPBs.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated; [49099]

  (2) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49141]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Leader of the House on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list for each of the last five years the total amount of money spent by Ministers in his Department on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes; [47212]

  (2) how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for official entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [46839]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The cost of entertainment, expenditure incurred by Ministers. Private Offices, the Permanent Secretary's Office and special advisers was £13,000 for 1999–2000; £16,000 for 2000–01 and £21,000 for 2001–02.

  The remainder of the information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many special advisers there were in his Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years; [46961]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the number and expected cost to his Department of special advisers in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [43280]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At 13 March, there were two special advisers in my office. On cost. I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 11W.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50290]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Three of my Department's Private Finance Initiative road contracts have been refinanced. These are listed, together with the value of the share received from the companies concerned.

  Project

  Operating company

  £ million

  A19/A168 Di shforth-Tyne Tunnel

  Autolink Concessionaires A19 Ltd.

  1.5

  M1-A1 Link

  Yorkshire Link Ltd.

  ——

  M40 Denham-Warwick

  UK Highways Ltd.

  1.6

  Local Government
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are being taken to update the former Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Indices of Deprivation, by local government ward basis. [48856]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department has just issued an invitation to tender to a number of consultants for a research project to explore updating the Indices of Deprivation 2000. The contract has five broad objectives. These are:To produce options for strengthening the ID 2000. This will be based on a conceptualisation of how multiple deprivation should be measured. It needs to build on proposed areas for further development identified in the 1999 review. It should include a review of literature on the measurement of deprivation since 1999.
  To assess how practical it will be to implement these options by investigating the availability of data that have, or are about to, come on stream since the 1999 review including availability of 2001 Census data.
  To assess the potential to provide a general updating both to the current indicators and the 1998 ward boundaries that underpin the ID 2000.
  To assess the potential of further developing the ID 2000 to a sub-ward geography.
  To revise the ID 2000 as appropriate.

  The methodology for indices of deprivation was subject to an extensive review in 1999. This project builds on this review and consideration of methodological issues is focused on introducing new domains or better data and
  1086W
  the review of literature on the measurement of deprivation since 1999 which should inform ideas on how the ID 2000 may be strengthened.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many employment tribunal cases have been brought against his Department and its predecessor in each year since 1997; and how much his Department has spent on defending employment tribunal cases in this period. [49446]

  Mr. Byers
  Information is not held in a manner which would allow the question to be answered without disproportionate expense.

  Disciplinary Action
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 982W, how many members of staff have been the subject of disciplinary action as a result of the internal leak inquiry; [49789]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002, Official Report, column 986W, if Ian Jones is (a) still employed by his Department, (b) still suspended on full pay and (c) the subject of disciplinary action. [49792]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Staffing and disciplinary matters are handled within the Department in accordance with the DTLR staff handbook. Within that framework personnel matters relating to individuals are a confidential matter between them and the Department.

  Former Press Officers
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the contractual position is of his Department with(a) Martin Sixsmith and (b) Jo Moore. [47033]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement the Permanent Secretary of my Department made on 25 February 2002, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has sought counsel's advice on his Department's position in relation to his Department's employment of Mr. Martin Sixsmith. [49448]

  Mr. Byers
  It is not the normal practice to disclose whether legal advice has been taken (paragraph 7 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information refers).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when(a) he and (b) the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions last met the First Division Association to discuss the status of (i) Jo Moore and (ii) Mr. Martin Sixsmith. [49447]

  Mr. Byers
  I have had no such discussions. The Permanent Secretary exceptionally described some discussions in his statement of 25 February 2002. It is
  1087W
  not the practice to provide details of any such discussions (paragraph 7 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information refers).

  Blue Badge Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will introduce a temporary blue badge scheme; and if he will make a statement. [50927]

  (2) what plans he has to speed up the processing of applications for blue badges. [50926]

  Ms Keeble
  The administration of the blue badge scheme is the responsibility of individual local authorities. When they have received the information they require to process an application they should be expected to do so without delay.

  A comprehensive review of the blue badge scheme is currently being undertaken by my Department, which will look at the administration of the scheme and will also consider the case for temporary badges. Consultation on a discussion paper, which was issued to the main stakeholders, including disability organisations and local authorities, ended recently. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC- our statutory advisers on the transport and mobility needs of disabled people) are considering responses and are due to report their recommendations to the Secretary of State around the end of this month. In the light of those recommendations we aim to decide on the way forward with the scheme over the summer.

  Parish Councillors
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many parish councillors have resigned in each month since 1 January. [50604]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department does not collect information on the number of councillors who resign from local authorities.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what resources his Department make available to local authorities to help them combat drug abuse. [48857]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government provide general grant for revenue expenditure through the local government finance settlement. It is for the local authorities themselves to determine how much of these resources they direct towards combating drug abuse. Government also provides the following ring-fenced grants to local authorities:A grant to support local Young People's Substance Misuse Planning (set at £4.5 million for 2002–03);
  A grant for drug prevention in schools, provided through the Schools Standards Fund (£9.5 million for 2002–03).

  The majority of earmarked funding for combating drug abuse is provided to local Drug Action Teams, within which the local authorities have a key role. Details of this funding were given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Anti-Drugs Co-ordination
  1088W
  and Organised Crime in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 29 January 2002, Official Report, columns 295–96W.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on the housing market of vacant dwellings(a) in England and (b) in the local area. [50652]

  Mr. Byers
  In our assessment, in areas where the housing market is functioning well, vacant dwellings may lead to increased pressure on the housing stock and for development on greenfield land. They may also blight neighbouring properties. In areas of low housing demand, where the proportion of vacant dwellings may be more highly concentrated, they can escalate the decline of an area, act as a magnet for crime, vandalism, arson and antisocial behaviour and create negative equity problems for those living in adjacent dwellings.

  Local authorities are responsible for assessing the effect of vacant dwellings on the local housing market and for developing strategies to minimise their number, as part of their wider housing strategy.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vacant dwellings there were and how many vacant dwellings were privately owned in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority area. [50653]

  Mr. Byers
  I have placed the information requested in the Libraries of the House. The table presents data showing the total number of vacant dwellings and how many of these were privately owned at 1 April in each local authority area in England for the last five years (1997–2001).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vacant dwellings that have been(a) vacant for more than six months, (b) vacant for between three to six months and (c) vacant for less than three months, are waiting to be (i) sold, (ii) let and (iii) redeveloped. [50651]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many vacant dwellings there were and how many were privately owned in each of the last five years; and how many were vacant(a) for more than six months, (b) between three to six months and (c) for less than three months. [50650]

  Mr. Byers
  The number of vacant dwellings in England on 1 April in each of the last five years is shown in the table, together with the number that were privately owned.

  Number of vacant dwellings in England at 1 April

  Total vacant

  of which: Privately owned

  2001

  755,100

  622,600

  2000

  760,500

  623,200

  1999

  767,000

  637,000

  1998

  753,300

  623,300

  1997

  767,200

  640,200

  1089W
  Information on the length of time dwellings were vacant is not available in the form requested.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure mobile telephone masts should receive positive planning permission, regardless of their height. [50030]

  Ms Keeble
  On 22 August last year we introduced changes that significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development. The changes, which included, amendments to the 1995 Order:strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are the same as for planning applications;
  increased the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days;
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; and
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

  We have no plans to amend further the planning arrangements for telecommunications development.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will define the phrase "sustainable development" as used by his Department. [49723]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department's approach to sustainable development is consistent with the Government's overall sustainable development strategy "A better quality of life" (Cm 4345) published in May 1999. The strategy has four main aims:

  Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;

  Effective protection of the environment;

  Prudent use of natural resources;

  Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 228W, on the cost of rescues by the fire service, what is the most recent guidance he has given to chief fire officers on recording the costs of (a) fires attended, (b) rescues from road traffic accidents and (c) other rescues by their fire authority. [46609]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Following the introduction of Best Value, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy published revised accounting guidance "Best Value Accounting——Code of Practice" for local authorities. Best Value authorities, including fire authorities, are subject to the revised guidance from 1 April 2001. The Code is reviewed on an annual basis. It contains sections on service expenditure analysis, including one on the provision of fire services.

  Shopping Centres
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy(a) towards new out of town shopping centre developments and (b) on new shopping centre developments within existing towns. [49002]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's planning policy for town centres and retail developments, which is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Town Centres and Retail Developments (PPG6), seeks to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of our existing city, town and district centres to make them the focus for retail and other investment. The policy contributes to delivering the urban renaissance, securing more sustainable patterns of development and promoting social inclusion.

  Proposals for new developments within existing city, town and district centres are not subject to the main policy tests in PPG6. They should, however, be in accordance with an up-to-date development plan and of a scale that is appropriately related to the size and function of centre, and its catchment, that they seek to serve.

  Development proposals for new shopping centres outside city, town and district centres, or extensions to existing ones, are subject to the policy tests in PPG6. Where proposals are not in accord with an up-to-date development plan there is a requirement to demonstrate the need for any additional retail provision and to apply a sequential approach to selecting the location, starting with town centre sites, followed by edge-of-centre and only then out-of-centre sites in locations which are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Applicants must also be able to demonstrate that in considering more central locations they have been flexible about the format, scale and design of their development proposals and the amount of car parking.

  A shopping centre proposal which a local planning authority is minded to permit and which is not in accord with the development plan for the area should be referred to my Department in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999. The Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No.2) Direction 1993 requires referral of applications for retail proposals above a prescribed size. In the case of referral under either Direction, the Secretary of State will then decide whether the proposal should be called in for his own determination.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department has to alter planning guidance and regulations relating to shopping centre developments;and if he will list the changes to planning guidance and planning regulations relating to shopping centre developments since 1997. [49001]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: We have no plans to alter planning guidance and regulations relating to shopping centre developments.
  1091W
  There have been no changes to the policy since 1997, but it has been clarified through the following official statements and documents:
  the Government Response (July 1997) to the House of Commons Environment Committee's report, "Shopping Centres" (1996–97), which reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the policy in PPG6:
  the parliamentary answer of 5 December 1997 (Hansard Vol. 302, columns 401–402) by the Minister for Planning, clarifying that extensions to existing retail developments would be subject to the same policy tests as new development;
  the statement of 11 February 1999 by the Minister for Planning, clarifying that the need for new retail development should be taken into account in assessing development proposals; and
  the Government Response (May 2000) to the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report on "The Environmental Impact of Supermarket Competition" (1999–2000), which among other issues, clarified how the sequential approach should be used to assess new retail development.

  The revision of PPG13: "Transport", published last year, supports PPG6 in identifying preferred locations for key town centre uses, including offices. It introduced maximum parking standards for shopping and other town centre developments.

  The Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation)(Departures) Directions 1999 reduced the floorspace threshold under which local planning authorities are required to refer to the Secretary of State planning applications involving retail and other commercial uses, from 10,000 to 5,000 square metres.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a list of shopping centre planning applications that have been called in by his Department and the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions since 1997. [49003]

  Mr. Byers
  Since 1997, 30 shopping centre applications have been called in for the Secretary of State's determination. These are listed by region. For the purposes of the question shopping centres are developments involving 5,000 square metres or more of floorspace, including factory outlet centres. They do not include retail warehouse parks, individual freestanding retail warehouses, warehouse clubs or supermarkets.

  Date of call-in

  Location of application

  North-west

  January 1998

  Town Square Centre, Oldham, Greater Manchester

  December 1999

  Linkway, Bolton, Greater Manchester

  September 2000

  Ashton Road, Denton, Tameside, Greater Manchester

  May 2001

  Frontierland, Morecambe, Lancaster, Lancashire

  North-east

  June 1997

  Backworth, Tyne and Wear

  January 1999

  Dalton Flatts, Murton, Easington, Co. Durham

  March 1999

  Red Quadrant, Metrocentre, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  April 2001

  Dalton Flatts, Murton, Easington, Co. Durham

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  May 2000

  Gannex Mills, Elland, Halifax, West Yorkshire

  April 2001

  Castlegate/Piccadilly, York

  West Midlands

  January 1999

  Arena Central, Birmingham

  July 2000

  Overross, Ross On Wye, Herefordshire

  East Midlands

  April 2000

  Springfields Gardens, Spalding, Lincolnshire

  May 2001

  Springfield Business Park, Grantham, Lincolnshire

  1092W

  Date of call-in

  Location of application

  East of England

  July 2001

  Belvedere Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk

  London

  September 1998

  Brent Cross, Hendon Way, London

  South-west

  October 1997

  Broadmoor Farm, Saltash, Cornwall

  October 1998

  Victoria Park, Roche, Cornwall

  July 1999

  Flowers Brewery Site, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

  January 2000

  Aldermeads, Wincanton, Somerset

  October 2000

  Symes Avenue, Bristol

  South-east

  May 1998

  Bracknell Town Centre, Berkshire (two applications)

  October 1998

  Main Square, Camberley, Surrey (three applications)

  March 1999

  Bietigheim Way, Main Square, Camberley, Surrey

  October 1999

  Main Square/Park Street, Camberley, Surrey (two applications)

  February 2001

  Westgate Shopping Centre, Oxford

  Planning
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will deposit in the Library copies of the responses to the Planning Green Paper. [49889]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I will place a list of respondents in the Libraries of the House. Because of the large number involved, over 14,000, copies of the responses will be made available for public inspection in my Department's library once they have been analysed.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will assess the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of including demolition as part of the planning process. [48840]

  Ms Keeble
  Demolition of buildings is already part of the planning process. Generally speaking, the demolition of non-residential buildings does not constitute "development" (as defined in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), and consequently no planning permission is required. However, the demolition of a residential building does constitute development for which a permitted development right has been granted by Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This means that, instead of having to submit an application for planning permission for the demolition of a residential building, a developer has to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the proposed method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. Planning authorities also have powers——subject to approval by the Secretary of State——to require planning applications for demolition of residential property, where amenity would be seriously threatened.

  In addition, listed building consent is required for the demolition of any listed building, and conservation area consent is required for the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area.

  We are considering whether to introduce any changes to the existing demolition controls as part of our current review of the planning system and in taking forward work arising from the Government's Heritage Statement "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future".
  1093W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require planning permission for buildings as part of the planning process; and if he will make a statement. [48841]

  Ms Keeble
  Putting up a building usually amounts to "development", for which planning permission is required. However, Parliament has granted a general planning permission or "permitted development right" to carry out certain types of minor development without the need to submit an application. This removes a large burden of unnecessary planning work from local authorities.

  Leasehold Advisory Service
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding has been granted to the Leasehold Advisory Service in each of the last five years; and what the appointment arrangements are for members of the LEASE board. [50649]

  Mr. Byers
  Funding for the Leasehold Advisory Service for each of the last five financial years has been as follows:

  1997–98
  £309,885 (Including £1,000 from the Welsh Office and £38,326 from the private sector.)

  1998–99
  £268,322 (Including £1,000 from the Welsh Office and £26,622 from the private sector.)

  1999–2000
  £315,582 (Including £2,000 from the National Assembly for Wales and £12,700 from the private sector.)

  2000–01
  £398,000 (Including £2,000 from the National Assembly for Wales.)

  2001–02
  £489,700 (Including £4,700 from the National Assembly for Wales.)

  The Leasehold Advisory Service is a private sector company, limited by guarantee. The arrangements for the appointment of its board members are governed by its memorandum and articles of association, copies of which are available from Companies House.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many homeless people there were(a) in absolute terms and (b) as a proportion of the population in each local authority district or unitary authority in England and Wales, at the latest date for which figures are available. [49037]

  Ms Keeble
  Summary information on activity under statutory homelessness provisions is reported to the Department each quarter by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need.
  1094W
  National and some regional information on local authorities' activity is provided in a quarterly Statistical Release published by the Department. Key summary information at local authority and regional level is set out in associated supplementary table; this includes the number of households accepted, and this number is also expressed as a rate per thousand households living in the local authority area. Copies are available in the Library, and also via the Department's website. The latest version, published on 14 March, presents statistics for the period October to December 2001.

  For corresponding information about Welsh authorities, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funding will be available to local authorities in order to help them to implement the new duties imposed on them by the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Priority Needs Order. [50528]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have provided an additional £8 million per annum (through the local government finance settlement, with effect from 2001–02) to compensate local authorities for the revenue costs of implementing the Homelessness Act and the priority needs order.

  In response to the homelessness report, 'More than a roof', I confirmed that the Government will allocate additional resources in order to help local authorities deliver the priority needs order. A further announcement on this will be made when the election purdah period is over.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funding will be available to the National Homelessness Directorate over the next three years; and how much money will go to(a) the BBU, (b) the RSU and (c) the Hostels Inspectorate. [50529]

  Mr. Byers
  The DTLR has allocated £35 million to the Bed and Breakfast Unit and £30 million to the Rough Sleepers Unit for this financial year. Funding from April 2003 onwards is dependent on the outcome of Spending Review 2002.

  As was stated in the document 'More than a roof' we are currently exploring the feasibility of establishing a hostels 'inspectorate'.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the incidence of commercial property companies offering local authority tenants a cash incentive to exercise the right to buy their home; and if he will make a statement. [49915]

  Ms Keeble
  We are aware of concerns that the right to buy scheme is being exploited in various ways. We have commissioned research into what is happening, including the effect on the housing market. The results will be made publicly available when the work is completed.
  1095W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council properties were sold under the right to buy in each year since 1980. [49913]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest information on right to buy sales by local authorities and new towns in each year since the scheme's introduction in October 1980 is presented in the table:

  Total sales completed under RTB

  1980–81

  2,300

  1981–82

  106,600

  1982–83

  168,700

  1983–84

  107,500

  1984–85

  78,500

  1985–86

  72,600

  1986–87

  77,400

  1987–88

  94,600

  1988–89

  137,000

  1989–90

  134,900

  1990–91

  76,600

  1991–92

  48,500

  1992–93

  37,900

  1993–94

  44,900

  1994–95

  43,300

  1995–96

  31,500

  1996–97

  33,200

  1997–98

  41,300

  1998–99

  40,300

  1999–2000

  54,300

  2000–01

  52,000

  20011

  23,800

  Total

  1,507,600

  1April to September.

  Note:

  Includes sales under shared ownership arrangements;

  Excludes sales under rent to mortgage.

  Source:

  DTLR PI(B) quarterly housing activity returns, and new town returns.

  Tables showing reported information on right to buy and other sales and stock transfers by each local authority in England, along with national and regional summaries, for each year since 1979–80, are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Heathrow
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what restrictions on night flights at Heathrow airport apply; what information he has collated on the rules that apply at other European hub airports; and what assessment he has made of the effect of such restrictions on Heathrow's competitive position. [48922]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The present night restrictions for Heathrow are as we announced on 10 June 1999,Official Report, columns 378–380. These restrictions came into effect on 31 October 1999 and apply until the end of the summer season 2004. Information on assessments made prior to the introduction of these restrictions and a comparison of the principal night flight restrictions at major international airports were published in "Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted: Second Stage Consultation Paper" in November 1998, of which copies were placed in the Libraries of the House, Official Report, columns 492–493.
  1096W
  Appropriate up-to-date information will be published in a consultation paper when we put forward proposals for the next night noise regime for the BAA London airports.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has sole responsibility for drafting and presentation of certificates of registry; and which office within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has authority to draft certificates of registry. [49962]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's Registry of Shipping and Seamen at Cardiff is responsible for issuing all certificates of registry for UK vessels.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has made regarding the proposed EU directive on minimum conditions of service and wages for seafarers on intra-community ferry services. [50576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have made representations in support of the proposed EC directive on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between member states.

  Transport Links (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans his Department or its agencies have for the improvement of transport links between the Isle of Wight and the mainland of Great Britain. [51069]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Improvements to the transport links between the island and the mainland are primarily for the Isle of Wight council to consider as part of their local transport plan work and in liaison with mainland local authorities and private sector ferry and hovercraft operators. My Department has frequent discussions with the council about its local transport plan, including recent proposals to improve interchange facilities at Ryde.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has received for improvements to the railway network of the Isle of Wight. [51068]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will make recommendations regarding the future of the rail network on the Isle of Wight in due course. The current franchise will expire in September 2003, and the SRA is currently working to define what it would expect a new franchise agreement to deliver.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of services facilitating the carriage of passengers or goods by rail from Scotland to the continent by way of the Channel Tunnel, pursuant to the provisions of the Transport Act 2000. [49960]
  1097W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 741W.

  Overturned Lorries
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many lorries overturned on British roads in each of the last five years; and how many overturned on the(a) A 12, (b) A 14, (c) A 140 and (d) B 1113 in each of the last five years. [50647]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Scheme

  Actual/Estimated Date of Start of Construction

  Estimated Date Available For Use

  A27 Polegate Bypass

  October 2000

  2002–03

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  February 2001

  2002–03

  A43 Whitfield Turn-Brackley Hatch Improvement

  February 2001

  2002–03

  A6 Great Glen Bypass

  April 2001

  2002–03

  A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass

  July 2001

  2002–03

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  May 2001

  2003–04

  A500 Basford, Hough, Shavington Bypass

  June 2001

  2003–04

  A650 Bingley Relief Road

  July 2001

  2003–04

  A120 Stansted-Braintree Improvement

  July 2001

  2003–04

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass

  August 2001

  2003–04

  A63 Selby Bypass

  October 2001

  2003–04

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass

  March 2002

  2003–04

  A6 Rothwell-Desborough Bypass

  2002–03

  2003–04

  A6 Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass

  2002–03

  2003–04

  A46 Newark-Lincoln

  October 2001

  2003–04

  A6 Alvaston

  2002–03

  2004–05

  A10 Wadesmill-Colliers End

  2002–03

  2004–05

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  2002–03

  2004–05

  A5 Weeford-Fazeley Improvement

  2003–04

  2004–05

  A1(M) Wetherby——Walshford

  2002–03

  2005–06

  A421 Great Barford Bypass

  2004–05

  2006–07

  A1(M) Ferrybridge to Hook Moor

  2002–03

  2006–07

  A30 Bodmin-Indian Queens

  2004–05

  2006–07

  A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass

  2004–05

  2006–07

  A595 Parton-Lillyhall Improvement

  2005–06

  2007–08

  A38 Dobwalls Bypass

  2005–06

  2007–08

  A11 Fiveways to Thetford

  2005–06

  2007–08

  A419 Blunsdon Bypass

  2006–07

  2007–08

  A47 Thorney Bypass

  2006–07

  2008–09

  A483 Pant—Llanymynech Bypass

  2006–07

  2008–09

  A3 Hindhead

  2005–06

  2008–09

  A46 Newark-Widmerpool

  2006–07

  2008–09

  A303 Stonehenge

  2005–06

  2008–09

  Of the 76 local road schemes approved (or approved subject to statutory procedures) through the local transport plans process, 33 are bypasses. Start and completion dates are subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures which are currently being taken forward by the relevant local authorities.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to prevent new buildings being erected adjacent to motorways to ensure that the costs of future motorway widening are kept to a minimum. [49262]

  Ms Keeble
  Where the Secretary of State intends to build a new road, or improve an existing one, he has powers to require the relevant local planning authority to notify him of any planning application affecting the line of that road.

  New Bypasses
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the status of the 100 new bypasses outlined in the 10-year Transport Plan; and if he will list the(a) start and (b) completion date for each. [50042]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-year plan provided funds for up to 30 trunk road bypasses and up to 70 bypasses on local roads over the 10-year plan period. 24 schemes which bypass settlements were in the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) when the plan was published. Nine further such schemes have been added to the TPI since then and 17 more trunk road bypasses are subject to on-going multi-modal and other studies. Of these schemes 16 have started.

  To avoid unnecessary blight, these powers are exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Highways Agency usually when the preferred route is announced. He then has a further power to direct that planning permission shall not be granted if the proposed development would prejudice the road proposal.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to reduce congestion on the northbound carriageway of the M1 Motorway at its junction with the M25. [49940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The London to South Midlands Multi Modal Study is examining current and future travel problems between London and the South Midlands, including congestion on the southern section of the M1 Motorway.

  Congestion
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what is the average length of time per day, in hours per car, that cars are stationary on each road of the trunk road network; [50517]

  (2) what the average road speed is on each trunk road in the UK in (a) the rush hour, (b) non rush hour periods, (c) over the course of a week, (d) over the course of a whole week day and (e) over the course of the weekend. [50516]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure to through traffic of roads in London on congestion levels since 1992. [49021]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not collect such information centrally. Assessment of the traffic impacts of road closures is a matter for the relevant highway or police authorities in each particular case.

  Environmental Targets
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment has been made of progress towards the environmental targets set as part of the 10-year plan; and if he will place it in the Library; [50521]

  (2) what environmental targets have been set as part of the 10-year transport plan. [50520]

  Mr. Byers
  The 10-Year Plan for transport will contribute to the achievement of a number of the Government's environmental targets. "Transport 2010: The 10-Year Plan", Annex 2, lists the principal targets in the plan. Copies are in the Libraries of the House. In July we intend to publish the first report on the 10-Year Plan for Transport. The report will allow us to update the plan and take account of new developments, as well as reporting on our progress to date.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessments he has made of the environmental effects of electricity generation for rail use; and what comparisons he has made with the use of diesel locomotives. [49706]

  Mr. Byers
  The SRA commissioned work on the railway's environmental impact during 2001. The results are sensitive to factors such as the mix of sources of electricity generation, the type of diesel traction, and operational factors such as speed or loading. Given the current mix of fossil fuel, nuclear and other generative sources, carbon dioxide emissions per passenger km attributed to electric long haul express trains are about half those of some comparable diesel trains currently in operation. It is likely that the on-going introduction of more modern diesel trains will reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
  1100W
  With the exception of sulphur oxides, most of rail's emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds are from diesel trains. Again, the on-going introduction of more modern diesel locomotives offers benefits——for example, reducing the level of emissions per tonne-km of these pollutants.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated environmental benefit is of increasing the number passenger kilometres of rail use by(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent. and (f) 60 per cent. by 2010–11. [49703]

  Mr. Byers
  The environmental effect will vary depending on how the increase in rail passenger kilometres is achieved. An increase in rail use will, in general, cause an increase in emissions from the rail sector. However, to the extent that this is achieved through modal shift from more environmentally damaging modes, and accompanied by greater use of more fuel efficient rolling stock, there will be offsetting benefits.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made as to the danger resulting from particulate emissions from road vehicles. [49449]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) is charged with advising the Government on the effects of pollutant types on human health. Their 'Statement on Long-Term Effects of Particles on Mortality' published in April 2001, gave a detailed assessment of the effects of particulate emissions on human health, including those from road transport. This can be seen at the Department of Health's website at www.doh.gov.uk/comeap/.

  A summary of COMEAP's findings was also included in the Government's 'Air Quality Strategy Consultation Document on Proposals for Air Quality Objectives for Particles, Benzene, Carbon Monoxide and Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds', published in September 2001. Both reports were placed in the Libraries of the House on publication.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average level is of(a) carbon dioxide, (b) carbon monoxide, (c) benzene, (d) nitrogen oxide, (e) hydrocarbon, (f) lead, (g) sulphur dioxide and (h) particulate emissions, per mile, from (1) cars, (2) motorcycles, (3) vans and (4) HGVs travelling at (i) five mph, (ii) 10 mph, (iii) 20 mph, (iv) 30 mph, (v) 45 mph, (vi) 60 mph, (vii) 70 mph and 1 (viii) 80 mph. [49456]

  Mr. Byers
  Detailed information on the emissions of key pollutants by various road vehicles running at different drive cycles is available from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) website at http://www.naei.org.uk/emissions/index.php.

  Raw data for emissions of pollutant species at different speeds are also available on a separate website http://www.stanger.co.uk/airqual/modelhlp.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the average level is of(a) carbon dioxide, (b) carbon monoxide, (c) benzene, (d) nitrogen oxide, (e) hydrocarbon, (f) lead,

  1101W
  (g) sulphur dioxide and (h) particulate emissions, per hour, from (1) cars, (2) motorcycles, (3) vans and (4) HGVs, at rest with the motor running; [49457]

  (2) what the average level is of (a) carbon dioxide, (b) carbon monoxide, (c) benzene, (d) nitrogen oxide, (e) hydrocarbon, (f) lead, (g) sulphur dioxide and (h) particulate emissions resulting from vehicle use of the fuels (i) Cngas, (ii) Lpgas, (iii) biodiesels, (iv) LNG, (v) E10 bioethanol blends and (vi) E85 bioethanol blends; and if he will place in the Library details of the supporting scientific evidence. [49452]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Chiltern Franchise Renewal Agreement
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on clause 44 of the Chiltern Franchise Renewal Agreement. [47386]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Clause 44 of the Chiltern Franchise Renewal Agreement refers to miscellaneous provisions. The items covered are: variations in writing; waivers; disregard tolerances; change of framework; time limits; payments to be free and clear; partial invalidity; further assurance; rights of third parties; relationship with previous franchise agreement; and Authority's consent or approval.

  Railway Use
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many railway journeys have a standard single fare of less than £10; and how many such journeys were undertaken in the last year for which information is available. [51067]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many passengers per year travel between Waterloo and(a) Southampton Central station, (b) Lymington Pier station, (c) Portsmouth and Southsea station, (d) Portsmouth Harbour station and (e) stations on the Island line; [51066]

  (2) what information he collects on the number of journeys between different railway stations. [51065]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) annual report provides details of train miles, passenger miles, passenger journeys, route miles operated and the number of stations operated by each train operating company. The SRA's publication "National Rail Trends" provides quarterly figures on passenger kilometres and passenger journeys by ticket type and sector. Copies of the Annual report and "National Rail Trends" are placed in the Library of the House. Further information on particular journeys may be available from train operators.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the estimated reduction in passenger kilometres travelled by road resulting from increasing the number passenger kilometres of rail use by(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent. and (f) 60 per cent. [49704]
  1102W
  Mr. Byers
  The reduction in road passenger kilometres resulting from an increase in the number of rail passenger kilometres will vary with the factors which have brought about the increase in rail passenger kilometres.

  Rail Investment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what private investment in railway infrastructure projects has been made since the start of the 10-year plan and into which projects; and what private investment is forecast for(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004. [R] [49030]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Nearly £7 billion of private sector investment has already been committed for the 10-Year plan period covering renewals and enhancement investment, rolling-stock investment and the CTRL. Over £1 billion has come since the turn of the year alone, through the GNER extension, Chiltern refranchise and South Central rolling stock order. Private sector investment will continue to be levered in through the franchising process, special purpose vehicles and specific funding schemes such as the Rail Passenger Partnership fund.

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many railheads there are in the Greater London area. [49720]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) on 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 663W.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on Network Rail's plans for developing services on the West Coast mainline. [49272]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans exist for(a) electrification of lines from Hurst Green to Uckfield, (b) electrification of lines from Hastings to Ashford, (c) station improvements on the South Central line, (d) increased depot capacity, (e) platform lengthening, (f) the refurbishment of all power-door rolling stock on the South Central line, (g) enhancements at Gatwick airport for performance and capacity gains, (h) infrastructure work on the Brighton main line, (i) infrastructure facilities to allow faster trains to overtake slower stopping services on the Coastway route, (j) upgrade of the Arun valley line and (k) upgrade of the Sutton route, on the South Central route; and what is the expected (i) start date and (ii) completion date for such work. [49724]

  Mr. Byers
  The Heads of Terms for a new 20-year South Central franchise, signed by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and Govia on 24 October 2000, include these commitments. I expect the SRA to be able to sign a new franchise agreement with Govia later this year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) Govia, (b) the SRA, (c) Railtrack plc and its administrators and (d) Network Rail, with respect to the SPV being developed by Govia to upgrade infrastructure around London and the south coast. [49459]
  1103W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I have received no such representations.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what funds are available as part of the SRA plan for the development of additional railheads in the Greater London area; [49722]

  (2) what assessment has been made as to the number of additional railheads required in the Greater London area in order to meet the growth targets for rail freight in the SRA plan and the 10-year transport plan. [49721]

  Mr. Byers
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Freight Strategy, published last year, explains in detail the authority's funding strategy and its assessment of the future need for rail freight interchanges.

  A copy of the SRA's Freight Strategy is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Second Railway package. [49815]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Commission published its second railway package on 23 January. It includes formal proposals to complete liberalisation of rail freight markets, on safety, interoperability, the creation of a European Rail Agency and Community accession to the COTIF convention (the convention concerning international carriage by rail).

  The Communication also outlines the Commission's strategy for the next five years, including consideration of proposals on the quality of rail freight services; overcoming the barriers to entry to, and providing high-quality infrastructure for, European rail freight; improving the environmental performance of rail freight; extending liberalisation of international passenger services; and improving passenger rights.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department had with Swiftrail between 7 October and 25 March. [49868]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the terms of reference are of the study commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority into a high speed rail link from London to the north. [48747]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA are conducting a feasibility study to determine the need for, and viability of a new north-south high speed passenger line. The study, which will report by the end of the year, will consider and compare a wide range of rail capacity enhancement options which may be required to satisfy the long term growth in demand for north-south passenger movements.

  Rail Safety
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, ref. 45304, on rolling stock, if the Railway Safety
  1104W
  Regulations 1999 prohibit steam locomotives from operating on the main network unless protected by TPWS or a similar system. [49821]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 prohibit steam trains from operating on the mainline network at speeds above 25 mph after the end of 2003, unless they are protected by a suitable train protection system. I understand from the Health and Safety Executive that a train protection and warning system (TPWS) suitable for use by steam trains is currently under development.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those organisations consulted by his Department prior to the agreement of a grant to Network Rail for bringing Railtrack out of administration early. [49791]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Discussions took place with HM Treasury and the SRA before the Department indicated to Network Rail that it was willing to offer a grant payment to reflect the public benefits of an earlier exit from administration than would otherwise be the case.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the sale of railway assets by the company that succeeds Railtrack. [49840]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This a matter for the Rail Regulator, who set out his policy in chapter 12 of the October 2000 Periodic Review and condition 26 of Railtrack's network licence.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what provision exists in European law for the extension of state aid support to Railtrack in administration beyond 7 October; [49864]

  (2) what factors underlay the comments made by his Department to Bloomberg on 22 March about state aid rules relating to Railtrack; [49866]

  (3) what advice his Department has received about state aid rules relating to support for Railtrack beyond 7 October. [49865]

  Mr. Jamieson
  If the Network Rail bid were to be successful, any state aid provided to the company would be notified as permanent financial support that would bring the administration of Railtrack plc to a close. But if administration were to continue, state aid clearance would be sought as necessary as an extension of the existing clearance or as a separate notification if more appropriate.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 956W, if he has set aside contingency funds to cover an unexpectedly high periodic review. [49814]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The regulator has a statutory duty under section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by section 224 of the Transport Act 2000, to have regard to the SRA's budget when undertaking a review. The Government would consider any appropriate budgetary adjustments as and when any such review takes place.

  Rail Regulator
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the future of the Rail Regulator. [49871]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 100W.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place(a) written guarantees and (b) letters of comfort for financiers issued by his Department or the Strategic Rail Authority to Network Rail in the Library. [48180]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The normal notification procedures will be followed.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what timeframe the proposed standby loans from the SRA to Network Rail will be available to the new company. [48186]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This will depend on whether Network Rail's bid for Railtrack Group's shares is successful, when Railtrack plc comes out of administration and the terms of any loan when agreed.

  London Underground PPP
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the total potential liabilities to the Exchequer which will arise from underwriting the contingent liabilities of the public-private partnerships for London Underground, as proposed in the letters of comfort and Minute from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to the partners in the PPP presented to Parliament on 21 March 2002; and how those liabilities will be treated and presented in the national accounts; [47961]

  (2) if he will publish the calculations and underlying assumptions which he has made to calculate the potential liabilities to the Exchequer which will arise from underwriting the contingent liabilities of the public-private partnerships for London Underground, as proposed in the letters of comfort and Minute from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to the partners in the PPP presented to Parliament on 21 March 2002. [47960]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 April 20021: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Minute to Parliament explained that the proposed comfort letters would cover a wide range of obligations on London Underground under the PPP contracts. In normal circumstances, the letter recognises the annual payments that will be made by London Underground to the infrastructure companies for the successful delivery of the required services, However, it also recognises that, in the unlikely event of an infrastructure company persistently and materially defaulting on its obligations in a way which leads to a termination of the PPP, then any funds put up by shareholders in the infrastructure company would be wholly at risk. In addition, an 'underpinned amount' would become payable to the lenders to the infrastructure
  1106W
  company concerned. This is capped at the total value of the third party debt and has a floor of 95 per cent. of that amount.

  The contingent liability will be to repay some or all of the debt that has already been invested in the improvement of the Tube. The potential size of the payment will therefore depend on the amount of debt that has been invested at the time the underpinned amount becomes payable.

  The Department's Resource Accounts are drawn in accordance with the Treasury Resource Accounting Manual, which takes account of all financial reporting standards pronounced by the Accounting Standards Board. The contingent liability arising from any letters of comfort would therefore be recorded as a Note to the Department's Resource Accounts.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now decided to extend the consultation period for the comfort letters to provide the customary notification period.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what is the estimated increase in use of diesel trains for rail freight use over the lifetime of the 10-year plan; [49712]

  (2) what the estimated change is in use of electric trains for rail freight use over the lifetime of the 10-year plan; [49713]

  (3) what volume of rail freight traffic is hauled by (a) electric and (b) diesel locomotives. [49711]

  Mr. Byers
  The Strategic Rail Authority does not keep data on the form of traction used by freight operating companies.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the estimated number of journeys made per month by road hauliers(a) to transfer freight onto the rail network and (b) to transfer freight from the rail network to its final destination in each of the last five years. [49716]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not available on a monthly basis.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what compensation is being given to rail freight operators as a result of disruption to rail freight facilities through the Channel tunnel. [R] [49033]

  Mr. Spellar
  The companies affected should, in the first instance, be exploring the remedies available to them under their contracts and under EU law on the free movement of goods.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on his ten-year transport plan of the rail freight disruption through the channel tunnel since November 2001; and if he will revise his estimated increase of rail freight. [R] [49026]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 957W.
  1107W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the increase of freight by rail within the Greater London area. [50587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) Freight Strategy proposes a number of initiatives for increasing use of rail freight in Greater London. The SRA is also working with Transport for London and its London Sustainable Distribution Partnership to identify opportunities for sustainable urban distribution.

  The SRA will be focusing on London when it produces its regional freight strategy for London and the south-east later this year.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated environmental benefit is in increasing the volume of rail freight traffic by(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent. and (f) 60 per cent. by 2010–11. [49705]

  Mr. Byers
  The environmental effect will vary depending on how the increase in the volume of rail freight traffic is achieved. An increase in rail freight will, in general, cause an increase in emissions from the rail sector. However, to the extent that this is achieved through modal shift there will be some offsetting benefits, reducing the impact of transport on the environment.

SCOTLAND

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1 May 1997(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; and if she will list the total cost, including (i) travel, (ii) accommodation and (iii) subsistence allowance, for each occasion. [37984]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 February 2002]: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  Between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001 no special advisers in my Department travelled abroad in an official capacity. Information for the last financial year is not yet available.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the functions of her 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. [42993]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department has not market tested or outsourced any function during this period.

  Public-private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total external spending by her Department was 1108W
  on public-private partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [43204]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department has had no expenditure on public-private partnership consultants.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts her Office has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether she can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions she has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50838]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department currently has no contracts with consultants. On discussions with other Departments, I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 689W.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will list the functions of her 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. [42988]

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

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions she has been formally consulted by the Scottish Executive in each of the last two years. [45358]

  The Advocate-General
  I have not been formally consulted by the Scottish Executive because that is not my role. As Law Officer I give legal advice to the Government. The Scottish Executive receives legal advice from its Law Officers——the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland.

  Leggatt Review
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Advocate-General what assessment she had made of the implications of the Leggatt Review for UK tribunals operating in Scotland. [45785]

  The Advocate-General
  The Government will publish their response to the Leggatt Report later in the year. There is ongoing work on this matter which will be subject to collective minister al decision. As regards the implications for UK tribunals operating in Scotland, the Lord Chancellor's Department have been considering this
  1109W
  together with the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive and the results of this consideration will be included in the Government's response.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates of the meetings and contacts that(a) special advisers and (b) Ministers in his Department have had with (i) Mr. Roy Parker, (ii) Sir Richard Needham and (iii) Mr. Shaun Harte since 2 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34326]

  Dr. John Reid
  There is no record of any such meetings or contacts taking place with either Mr. Parker or Mr. Harte.

  Sir Richard Needham is a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland and it is possible that he might have had some contact with my Department in the course of these visits. However, we have been unable to find any record of any formal meetings or contacts with Sir Richard at ministerial or special adviser level.

  Mackie Ltd.
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates and subjects of meetings that(a) special advisers and (b) Ministers in his Department have had since 2 May 1997 with representatives of Mackie Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [34324]

  Dr. John Reid
  On 9 September 1998, the Minister of State dealing with economic development matters met Sul Sahota and Jim Gilmore, respectively chief executive and chairman of Mackie International Group plc. The Minister of State was accompanied by officials, but there was no special adviser present. The meeting was held at the request of Mr. Sahota to discuss financial difficulties that were being faced by Mackie International Group plc. We have no record of any other such meetings, although there was frequent contact with representatives of Mackie International Group at official level from May 1997 until the company collapsed.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment his Department has made of the reasons for the collapse of Mackie; and if he will make a statement. [34320]

  Dr. John Reid
  Mackie International Group plc following its failure to raise additional funding of £15 million to acquire another engineering group and restructure its balance sheet. The company had incurred substantial trading losses of over £25 million from 1996 to 1998 due to a decline in the textile machinery market and a lack of orders. These losses significantly weakened the company's liquidity.

  Mr. Shaun Harte
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what role Mr. Shaun Harte played on behalf of the British Government; if he will place the terms of reference for his appointment in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [34321]
  1110W
  Dr. John Reid
  There is no record of Mr. Harte having been employed by the British Government at any time.

  Shaun Harte was employed by the Northern Ireland Development Agency, a statutory agency, from 1978 to 1979. During that period, he was nominated by the Northern Ireland Development Agency to serve as a non-executive member of the De Lorean Motors Ltd. board. We are informed by the devolved Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that, given the passage of time since then, Mr. Harte's employment records are no longer available. He died in 1999.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates of the meetings and contacts that(a) special advisers and (b) Ministers in his Department have had with Mr. Shaun Harte since 2 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34325]

  Dr. John Reid
  There is no record of any such meetings or contacts having taken place.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library the information that his Department received from Mr. Roy Parker regarding Mr. Shaun Harte; and if he will make a statement. [34322]

  Dr. John Reid
  Roy Parker made a number of allegations against Shaun Harte and former directors of Mackie International Group. These were investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, who found no evidence of any impropriety which could lead them to take any action against the company, its former directors or its auditors.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to consult on the measurement of child poverty. [51496]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Today I have published "Measuring Child Poverty: a consultation document". Copies have been placed in the Library.

  This consultation document aims to promote debate on how best to build on the Government's existing indicators to measure child poverty in the long term. The paper describes and seeks views on a range of approaches proposed by academics and poverty experts from the UK and overseas.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many companies have been(a) investigated and (b) fined by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority for breaking the rules governing stakeholder pensions. [46474]

  Mr. McCartney
  Stakeholder pension schemes started in April 2001. Up to 1 March 2002, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) has investigated 299 cases where an employer has failed to designate a stakeholder scheme and 144 cases of employers failing to pay contributions on time.
  1111W
  No companies have as yet been fined. Opra's focus is on getting employers to comply. Compliance has been achieved in 219 of the cases investigated. No breach was found to have occurred in 88 cases. The remainder are under continuing investigation.

  Hospital Travel
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many grants were made to assist with the cost of travel to hospital, and of what mean and upper and lower decile values, in each(a) county, (b) health authority and (b) travel-to-work area in the last 12 months. [43243]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Patients admitted to hospital for NHS treatment can apply for help towards their travelling costs through the Hospital Travel Costs Scheme which is the responsibility of the Department of Health.

  Hospital visitors can apply for a social fund community care grant to help with their travelling costs. Separate figures for the number and value of grants made in respect of these costs are not available.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Social Fund cold weather payments have been made in each of the last 10 years; and what was value of these payments for(a) each Government Office region in England and (b) Wales. [39525]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Cold weather payments: 1991–92 to 2000–01 England and Wales

  Number of payments made

  1991–92

  13,800,000

  1992–93

  12,500,000

  1993–94

  12,100,000

  1994–95

  10,969

  1995–96

  6,537,914

  1996–97

  4,543,665

  1997–98

  42,615

  1998–99

  14,512

  1999–2000

  97,469

  2000–01

  2,720,117

  Leaside benefits agency district: Social Fund grants

  Financial year

  Number of grant applications

  Amount applied for1 (£)

  Annual budget (£)

  Amount spent (£)

  1995–96

  7,508

  7,288,166.25

  630,008

  629,426.43

  1996–97

  7,305

  7,581,050.72

  630,008

  628,075.05

  1997–98

  7,330

  8,006,455.55

  630,008

  630,007.46

  1998–99

  7,340

  8,240,722.22

  657,214

  657,207.32

  1999–2000

  4,027

  4,826,411.49

  636,976

  635,852.23

  2000–01

  3,426

  4,134,400.08

  644,904

  644,372.63

  Leaside benefits agency district: Social Fund loans

  Financial year

  Number of grant applications

  Amount applied for1 (£)

  Annual budget (£)

  Amount spent (£)

  1995–96

  14,628

  9,100,636.61

  3,188,322

  3,170,058.26

  1996–97

  14,800

  9,966,148.00

  3,712,051

  3,629,559.60

  1997–98

  17,014

  10,505,600.90

  4,127,058

  4,050,358.03

  1112W
  Notes:

  1. Information before 1994–95 is only available rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  2. Information on the value of these payments is not available by Government Office Region.

  Source:

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance Computer Systems.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is being done to reduce the backlog of those people who received the incorrect winter fuel payment in(a) December 2001 and (b) January and February 2002; and if he will make a statement. [48550]

  Mr. McCartney
  When the Department becomes aware that a winter fuel payment has been issued at an incorrect amount, remedial action is taken as a soon as possible. There is no current backlog.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people received the incorrect winter fuel payment of £100 in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [48633]

  Mr. McCartney
  Anyone who received a £100 winter fuel payment was advised to contact the Department immediately if they thought that they should have been entitled to £200. Where it was found that the higher rate was appropriate, a top-up payment of £100 was made as soon as possible. In winter 2000–01, a total of 43,962 top-up payments were issued; so far, around 38,500 have been made for winter 2001–02.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure on (i) grants and (ii) loans from the Social Fund in the Leaside district in each year since 1990 indicating the number and amount of applications in each case for each year; and if he will make a statement. [25750]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since April 1997 the gross discretionary Social Fund budget has increased by £153.1 million from £467.5 million to £620.6 million, an increase of almost 33 per cent. The Community Care Grant budget, previously frozen since 1994 at £97 million, has increased three times since 1998 to its current level in 2001–02 of £103 million. There is no cash limit on the amount a person may apply for initially.

  The available information is in the tables.
  1113W

  Leaside benefits agency district: Social Fund loans

  Financial year

  Number of grant applications

  Amount applied for1 (£)

  Annual budget (£)

  Amount spent (£)

  1998–99

  18,803

  11,434,358.20

  4,143,626

  4,032,679.15

  1999–2000

  20,583

  12,579,494.70

  4,662,581

  4,604,114.43

  2000–01

  20,702

  13,968,691.70

  5,240,918

  5,046,020.83

  1 The "amount applied for" column includes applications which were unsuccessful.

  Note:

  Reliable data at district level is not available prior to 1995–96.

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy and Budget Management Information System.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the budget was for the Social Fund in 2000–01; and what the final outturn of expenditure was. [47763]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the Social Fund budget are in the 'Annual Report by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Social Fund: 2000–01' and the outturn of expenditure is in the 'Social Fund Account: 2000–01'. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for social fund payments have been subject to(a) an internal Benefits Agency review and (b) a review by the Independent Review Service in each year since 1992; what proportion of the reviews was successful; what the average waiting time was for each type of review; and if he will break down the applications by each type of social fund payment. [51044]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the annual reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund and the Social Fund Commissioner's annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for improving the training of Benefits Agency staff who deal with social fund applicants. [51050]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All staff engaged in administering the social fund undertake comprehensive training. We regularly review this training and it was last updated in January of this year. A further review of training is due to take place at the end of the year.

  In addition, guidance on the social fund is regularly updated and social fund awareness training is provided to other staff not directly involved in social fund administration.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the guidance issued to Social Fund staff on the administration of the Social Fund since 1997. [51048]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Prior to January 1999 guidance to staff administering the Social Fund was in nine separate guides:

  The Social Fund Guide——Volumes 1 and 2;

  The Social Fund System Reference Guide volumes 1 to 7;

  The Social Fund Customer and Application Detail Guide;

  1114W

  The Social Fund Printed Output Guide;

  The Social Fund Decision and Review Guide;

  The Social Fund Breakdown of Recovery Guide;

  The Social Fund Review Officers Guide;

  The Social Fund Risk Management Guide; and

  The Social Fund Funeral and Maternity Guide.

  The guidance was restructured in January 1999. From that date, guidance on Social Fund legislation and the Secretary of State's directions for the non-regulated fund are set out in the new Social Fund Guide. Operations and procedural guidance is set out in the following volumes:

  The Social Fund Budgeting Loan Guide;

  The Social Fund Community Care Grant and Crisis Loan Guide;

  The Social Fund Customer Guide;

  The Social Fund Enquiry Guide;

  The Social Fund Payment Guide;

  The Social Fund Recovery Guide;

  The Social Fund Regulated Fund Guide;

  The Social Fund Review and Complaints Guide; and

  The Social Fund Management Guide.

  New guidance is circulated to staff in bulletins which are then incorporated into the main guides. 108 bulletins have been produced since January 1997.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received on the home responsibilities protection for foster carers. [48697]

  Mr. McCartney
  We regularly receive representations on all aspects of state retirement pension entitlement from a variety of organisations and interested individuals.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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 to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [44902]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the destinations of people entering the New Deal for Young People in all of the Department and its agencies is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been employed by his Department in each of the last three years under(a) the

  1115W
  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. [44922]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. Figures before that date are for the former Department of Social Security and the Employment Service.

  Such information as is available is as follows.

  Information follows on the number of people who have started on the new deal for young people in the Department and its agencies.

  People who have started on the new deal for young people

  Number

  1998–99

  347

  1999–2000

  207

  2000–01

  158

  2001–021

  22

  1 Up to October 2001

  Note:

  These figures show people who have joined the Department on the new deal fixed term appointment (NDFTA) programme. They include some people recruited from the new deal for lone parents who also join the NDFTA on entering the Department. These cannot be identified separately.

  The Department has also taken on 2,875 new deal jobseekers under its normal recruitment processes. This figure includes people who have been on the new deal for young people and new deal 25 plus and cannot be broken down. People recruited by the Department under the new deal 50 plus cannot be identified separately from new deal 25 plus recruits.New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The cost of the latter cannot be readily identified. The subsidy cost is approximately £1.3 million.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals in(a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Delyn have benefited from the New Deal. [48917]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Total number of people entering jobs (up to the end of January 2002)

  Programme

  Alyn and Deeside

  Delyn

  New Deal for Young People

  484

  359

  New Deal 25 plus

  111

  96

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  250

  218

  New Deal 50 plus

  93

  106

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Information at constituency level is not available for the New Deal for Disabled People and the New Deal for Partners.

  Back Pain
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what studies he is collating in conjunction with the Department of Health into(a) the incidence of
  1116W
  low back pain among those of working age and (b) its implications for loss of working time and costs to the benefit system. [48823]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: The Department has played an important role in raising awareness of back pain disability as an issue; in promoting best clinical practice to health professionals; in supporting the development of guidelines for managers and employees; and in devising more objective and rigorous assessment methods.

  A Chief Medical Adviser bulletin has recently been issued to all General Practitioners which specifically mentions the management of low back pain and the need for doctors to follow the Royal College of General Practitioners management guidelines when treating this condition. The Department continues to work very closely with external experts in the field of back pain in developing policies, guidance and procedures.

  An innovative approach to work preparation——the "From Back Pain to Work" project——has recently been piloted in at the main hospitals in Salford and Bristol. This involved Jobcentre staff working in partnership with medical practitioners to reintegrate people with back pain into employment. The project used a programme of psychological, physical and occupational elements to help people back into work.

  Results from the initial trials have been encouraging and there are now plans for further expansion and evaluation of the pilots in additional locations starting in late summer 2002.

  Medical Assessment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Department has agreed the extended contract for medical assessment services with SchlumbergerSema; and if modifications take into account the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee's twenty seventh report (HC683). [48822]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 17 April 20021: The extension of Contracts with SchlumbergerSema, announced on 30 November 2001 has not yet been confirmed. The decision to confirm or revoke the extension will be made by 31 May 2002.

  Since the Public Accounts Committee hearing in March 2001 significant progress has been made towards addressing the Committee's concerns and improving the standard of services delivered by SchlumbergerSema.

  Savings Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the proportion of expenditure on the savings credit element of the pension credit that will be attributable to(a) single male pensioners, (b) single female pensioners and (c) married pensioners; [47582]

  (2) how many (a) single women, (b) single men and (c) pensioner couples are expected to be entitled to (i) the guarantee credit only, (ii) the savings credit only and (iii) both the guarantee credit and the savings credit in October 2003; [47583]
  1117W
  (3) what percentage of claimants entitled to the state pension credit are expected to be entitled to (a) housing benefit, (b) council tax benefit and (c) both housing and council tax benefit. [47584]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information requested is in the tables.

  Table 1: Proportion of total savings credit expenditure for which it is estimated that single men, single women and pensioner couples will be eligible

  Per cent.1

  Proportion of savings credit expenditure

  Single men

  16

  Single women

  50

  Couples

  35

  Total

  100

  1Percentages are given to the nearest per cent.

  Table 2: number of single men, single women and pensioner couples estimated to be entitled to the pension credit in 2003–041

  millions

  Guarantee credit only

  Guarantee and savings credits

  Savings credit only

  Total pension credit

  Single men

  0.15

  0.25

  0.20

  0.60

  Single women

  0.40

  1.15

  0.55

  2.10

  Couples

  0.35

  0.35

  0.50

  1.20

  Total

  0.90

  1.75

  1.30

  3.90

  1 Numbers rounded to the nearest 0.05 million.

  Table 3: Proportion of total pension credit case load entitled to council tax benefit, housing benefit or both

  Per cent.1

  Pension credit case load

  No housing benefit/council tax benefit

  8

  Council tax benefit only

  46

  Housing benefit only

  2——

  Both housing benefit and council tax benefit

  45

  1 Percentages are given to the nearest one per cent.

  2 Denotes a figure less than 0.5 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Pension credit figures have been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model for Income Related Benefit. This models the benefits system and is based on data from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1999–2000. The model has been uprated to model benefits in 2003–04.

  2. The figures are based on entitlement to pension credit.

  3. The figures do not include pensioners in residential care or nursing homes (RCNH). This is because the FRS does not contain information on RCNH cases. It is estimated that 200,000 pensioners in RCNH will be eligible for pension credit, and the majority of these will be in single pensioner benefit units. Therefore the total case load estimated to be entitled to pension credit in 2003–04 is around 4.1 million households.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for each of the last 10 years, how many new claims have been made for industrial injury benefit; how many claims have been paid; and what was the total cost of benefits paid (i) in cash terms and (ii) at December 2001 prices. [51039]
  1118W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB), Reduced Earnings Allowance (REA) and Retirement Allowance (RA) claims and awards

  New claims received (IIDB, REA and RA)

  Awards (IIDB)

  Awards (REA and RA)

  1990–91

  1——

  16,800

  12,600

  1991–92

  1——

  17,300

  5,000

  1992–93

  1——

  20,400

  3,600

  1993–94

  1——

  26,300

  4,600

  1994–95

  1——

  23,600

  4,400

  1995–96

  73,000

  28,400

  7,700

  1996–97

  70,600

  25,400

  6,300

  1997–98

  96,400

  29,800

  3,800

  1998–99

  73,200

  21,500

  3,800

  1999–2000

  68,800

  17,100

  2,700

  1 Information on the number of new claims made prior to 1995–96 is not available because data are unreliable and inconsistent with the current method of data collection.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures may be subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. A customer may be in receipt of either IIDB or REA/RA or both.

  4. Awards may be in respect of a claim made in an earlier period.

  Source:

  10 per cent. sample of annual statistical returns from disablement benefit offices.

  Benefit expenditure on IIDB, REA and RA

  £million

  Cash terms

  Real terms at 2001–02 prices

  1990–91

  520

  711

  1991–92

  587

  756

  1992–93

  601

  750

  1993–94

  616

  750

  1994–95

  645

  776

  1995–96

  670

  783

  1996–97

  685

  776

  1997–98

  690

  758

  1998–99

  710

  759

  1999–2000

  700

  730

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Source:

  Figures are consistent with Social Security departmental reports

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the crisis loan expenditure on living expenses (alignment) in each year since 1996; and what such expenditure was expressed as a proportion of crisis loan expenditure. [51043]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Social Fund crisis loan expenditure— alignment payments

  Year

  Total crisis expenditure (£ million)

  Alignment payment expenditure (£ million)

  Alignment payments as a payment percentage of crisis loan expenditure

  1996–97

  52

  14

  27

  1997–98

  54

  17

  32

  1998–99

  59

  20

  33

  1999–00

  62

  18

  30

  2000–01

  65

  18

  28

  1119W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  2. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-compliant pension schemes have been named by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, broken down by the different types of offence. [50036]

  Mr. McCartney
  Under pensions legislation, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) may publish the details of particular cases as they think fit. Up until June 2001, Opra used its discretion to name six of the most serious cases. Since June 2001, it has decided to publish the names of all schemes against which a penalty has been imposed. 201 such schemes have been named to date.

  The table shows a breakdown of offences.

  Type of offence

  Before June 2001

  After June 2001

  No auditor

  3

  32

  No actuary

  2

  1

  No statement of investment principles

  2

  0

  Breach of disclosure regulations

  3

  0

  No internal dispute resolution

  2

  2

  No member nominated trustee or director

  1

  2

  No or late payment schedule

  ——

  3

  Late accounts or auditors statement

  ——

  125

  Late contributions

  ——

  118

  No minimum funding requirement valuation

  ——

  5

  Note:

  The data are shown by offence and not simply by named schemes. About 40 schemes have been named in connection with more than one offence——for example one scheme had committed five different offences. Consequently the total of the figures in the table is more than the total number of schemes that have been named.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the take-up of means-tested benefits has changed(a) since 1997, (b) since 1998, (c) since 1999 and (d) since 2000. [44245]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates of take-up of income-related benefits for the financial years 1999–2000 and 1998–99 were published in "Income Related Benefits——Estimates of Take-Up 1999–2000". Estimates for 1997–98 were published in "Income Related Benefits——Estimates of Take-Up 1998–99". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Estimates are presented as percentage ranges within which departmental statisticians judge the level of true take-up to lie. The ranges for different years overlap; as a result it is not possible to make firm statements about changes in take-up rates between 1997–98 and 1999–2000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of new housing benefit claims were determined within 14 days in each year since 1997. [41785]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what policy changes have been made to the conduct of appeal tribunal hearings in the UK as a result of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision in CSDLA/1019/99. [49010]

  Maria Eagle
  The jurisdiction of appeal tribunals administered by the Appeals Service extends to Great Britain. Northern Ireland has a separate appeal tribunal jurisdiction. This decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the Court of Session. There have been no policy changes in the conduct of tribunal hearings.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women (Public Appointments)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Minister for Women what progress she has made towards increasing the number of women holding public appointments. [50530]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that women and men should hold an equal proportion of all public appointments. Public Bodies 2001, published on 14 February, shows that at 31 March 2001, women held 34 per cent. of all appointments to the boards of non-departmental public bodies, nationalised industries, public corporations and health bodies.

  The document "Public Bodies: Opening Up Appointments" which was also published on 14 February sets out the targets that individual Government Departments are working towards for increasing the proportion of appointments held by women and the action plans to achieve these targets.

  We want to encourage more women to apply for national public appointments. That is why my hon. Friend, Minister for Women in the Cabinet Office, is currently hosting a series of regional seminars to give information and offer practical support.

  The seminars aim to inspire women through real-life case studies, provide information about what appointments are available and practical advice on how to go about getting a public appointment. The seminars hosted so far have been very successful, and the programme is being extended. Research will also be conducted into the usefulness of the seminars.

  The Women's National Commission is offering women who attend the seminars the chance to join an e-network. This will offer notifications of specific opportunities, occasional workshops and mentors.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Commercial Materials (Schools)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on the use of commercial materials in schools. [50597]

  Mr. Timms
  While we welcome business involvement in schools, decisions on the use of commercial materials in this sector are for the schools themselves to make. My Department issued guidelines entitled "Best Practice Principles: Commercial Activities in Schools" last year, to help schools make informed and sensible decisions about this. The guidelines make clear that schools should satisfy themselves that the educational benefits of the commercial activity outweigh the potential disbenefits; that it is free of incentives to children to engage in unhealthy, unsafe or unlawful activities; that explicit sales messages should be avoided wherever possible; and that the level of any branding should be appropriate to the activity.

  External Contracts
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations have won new contracts with(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies in each of the past five years; [38753]

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in England by type and denomination——as at January 2001

  School name

  LEA name

  Denomination

  Type of establishment

  Maintained primary schools

  Bearnes Voluntary Primary School

  Devon

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Wray with Botton Endowed Primary School

  Lancashire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Warton Archbishop Hutton's Primary School

  Lancashire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Richard Durning's Endowed Primary School

  Lancashire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Cawthorne's Endowed School

  Lancashire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Edmund de Moundeford VC Primary School, Feltwell

  Norfolk

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Burnsall Voluntary Aided Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Kings Cliffe Endowed Primary School

  Northamptonshire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Longworth Primary School

  Oxfordshire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Church Eaton (A) Primary School

  Staffordshire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Dauntsey's (Aided) Primary School

  Wiltshire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Woodhouses Voluntary Primary School

  Oldham

  Church of England/Free Church

  Voluntary controlled

  Blackrod Anglican/Methodist Primary School

  Bolton

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Radcliffe Hall Church of England/Methodist Controlled Primary School

  Bury

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Hey-with-Zion Primary School

  Oldham

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Stansfield Hall Church of England/Free Church Primary School

  Rochdale

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Aspull Church Primary School

  Wigan

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Emmanuel Anglican/Methodist Junior School

  Sheffield

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Holy Trinity Primary School

  South Gloucestershire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  St. Mark's Voluntary Aided Ecumenical CofE/Methodist Primary School

  North Somerset

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  St. Andrew's CofE Methodist (Aided) Primary School

  Derbyshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  New Holland Church of England and Methodist Primary School

  North Lincolnshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Trinity School

  Lancashire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Hapton Church of England/Methodist Primary School

  Lancashire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Turton and Edgworth CofE/Methodist Controlled Primary School

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Wellfield Methodist and Anglican Church School

  Lancashire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Brinscall St. John's CofE and Methodist Primary School

  Lancashire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  The Bardney Church of England and Methodist Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  The Caistor Church of England and Methodist Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  The Brant Broughton Church of England and Methodist Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  The Wainfleet Magdalen Church of England/Methodist School

  Lincolnshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Foundation

  Forest of Galtres Anglican/Methodist Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Lowe's Wong Junior School

  Nottinghamshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Elston All Saints Primary School

  Nottinghamshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  John Fletcher Church of England/Methodist Junior School

  Telford and Wrekin

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Knights Templar Church of England/Methodist Community School

  Somerset

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  1122W
  (2) which non-accounting and non-information technology external organisations which previously held contracts with her Department (a) won new contracts at the culmination of the existing contracts and (b) won new contracts after a period of inactivity with her Department in each of the past five years; [38754]

  (3) if she will list the 30 largest contracts awarded by her Department from (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999, (c) May 1999 to April 2000, (d) May 2000 to April 2001 and (e) May 2001 to the latest date, indicating in each case the values of the contracts and the companies with which the contracts were placed. [38755]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the denomination and type of publicly funded Christian schools which are neither Anglican or Catholic; and of these which are teaching creationism. [45762]

  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the table. Information is not collected about whether or not a school is teaching creationism.
  1123W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools in England by type and denomination—as at January 2001

  School name

  LEA name

  Denomination

  Type of establishment

  Hob Hill CofE/Methodist Primary School

  Staffordshire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Trinity and St. Michael's VA CofE/Methodist Primary School

  Lancashire

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Haven School

  East Sussex

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Holt Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Wiltshire

  Church of England/United Reformed

  Voluntary controlled

  Church

  Queen's Park CofE URC Primary School

  St. Helens

  Church of England/United Reformed

  Voluntary controlled

  Church

  Affetside Primary School

  Bury

  Congregational Church

  Voluntary controlled

  St. Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary School

  Croydon

  Greek

  Voluntary aided

  Nutgrove Methodist Community Primary School

  St. Helens

  Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Summerseat Methodist Primary School

  Bury

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Wesley Methodist Primary School

  Bury

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  St. Andrew's Methodist Primary School

  Salford

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Boothstown Methodist Primary School

  Salford

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Hurst Methodist Junior School

  Tameside

  Methodist

  Voluntary control led

  Leigh Westleigh Methodist Primary School

  Wigan

  Methodist

  Voluntary control led

  Bedford Hall Methodist Primary School

  Wigan

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Wakefield Methodist Voluntary Controlled Junior and Infant School

  Wakefield

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Bakewell Methodist Junior School

  Derbyshire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Staplecross Methodist Primary School

  East Sussex

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Boughton-under-Blean Methodist Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Kent

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  St. Peter's Methodist Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Kent

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Ribbleton Avenue Methodist Junior School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Bamber Bridge Methodist Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Rishton Methodist Primary School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Oswaldtwistle Hippings Methodist Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Leyland Methodist Junior School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Leyland Methodist Infant School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Burscough Bridge Methodist School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Holmeswood Methodist School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  North Meols Banks Methodist (Controlled) Primary School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Wheatley Lane Methodist Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Lancashire

  Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Gunnerside Methodist Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Melsonby Methodist Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Richmond Methodist Primary School

  North Yorkshire

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Rode Methodist VC First School

  Somerset

  Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Hawkesley CofE/Methodist Primary School

  Birmingham

  Methodist

  Voluntary aided

  Holly Hill Methodist CofE Infant School

  Birmingham

  Methodist/Church of England

  Voluntary aided

  William Penn Primary School

  West Sussex

  Quaker

  Voluntary controlled

  Barrow School

  Lancashire

  United Reformed Church

  Voluntary controlled

  Maintained secondary schools

  Westminster City School

  Westminster

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  The Coopers' Company and Coborn School

  Havering

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  Birmingham

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  Birmingham

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls

  Birmingham

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

  Birmingham

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  King Edward VI Aston School

  Birmingham

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Royal Latin School

  Buckinghamshire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Beaminster School

  Dorset

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Davenant Foundation School

  Essex

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Colchester Royal Grammar School

  Essex

  Christian

  Foundation

  St. George's School

  Hertfordshire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Cranbrook School

  Kent

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancashire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  Bourne Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Market Rasen De Aston School

  Lincolnshire

  Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  Lincolnshire

  Christian

  Voluntary aided

  St. Laurence School

  Wiltshire

  Church of England/Christian

  Voluntary controlled

  Selwood Anglican/Methodist Middle School

  Somerset

  Church of England/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  The John Loughborough School

  Haringey

  Seventh Day Adventist

  Voluntary aided

  Source:

  Register of Educational Establishments.

  Foundation schools and voluntary schools only may have a religious character. They are designated as such by the Secretary of State under section 69 (3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (SSFA). City technology colleges are independent schools and therefore cannot be designated as having a religious character.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of rural(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are located (i) within 5 km, (b) 5 to 10 km, (c) 10 to 15 km and (d) more than 15 km from the nearest settlement with under 3,000 people. [46457]
  1125W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I am not aware of any schools which are more than five km from the nearest house. It is likely, therefore, that all primary and secondary schools fall in category (i).

  Social Care Students
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many social care places have been offered by higher education institutions since 1997. [47382]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The available information, which shows the total number of students on social work courses, is given in the table.

  Students1 on social work2 courses at higher education institutions in the UK

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Postgraduate

  7,300

  8,000

  7,400

  7,500

  Undergraduate

  18,400

  17,400

  18,200

  19,900

  Total

  25,800

  25,400

  25,500

  27,400

  1 Census count as at December 1. Covers home and overseas students, on full-time and part-time courses. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Figures may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  2 Covers all programmes classed as social work by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, but not all of these will lead to a professional qualification.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students took up places in higher education institutions to study social care courses in(a) 2001, (b) 2000 and (c) 1999; and, of these, how many did not complete their courses. [47383]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The latest available information on the number of students entering social work courses is given in the table. Figures for 2001–02 will be available at the end of April 2002.

  Entrants1 to social work2 courses in higher education institutions in the UK

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Postgraduate

  4,000

  3,500

  3,700

  Undergraduate

  8,800

  9,800

  10,000

  Total

  12,900

  13,400

  13,700

  1 Covers home and overseas students, on full-time and part-time courses. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100. Figures may not sum to totals because of rounding.

  2 Covers all programmes classed as social work by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, but not all of these will lead to a professional qualification.

  The available information on non-completion rates is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK", published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The figures cover full-time first degree courses only, but they are not disaggregated by subject. The latest figures, covering all subjects, show that 17 per cent. of students who began their studies in UK higher education institutions in 1998–99 failed to complete their course.

  School Spending
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the spending per head for each of the last five years by each local authority in England was 1126W
  on the education of school pupils (a) of primary school age, (b) of secondary school age and (c) in further education. [48607]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested for(a) primary school age and (b) secondary school age pupils for 1995–96 to 1999–2000 for which expenditure data are currently available, for each local education authority in England has been placed in the Libraries. School pupils have only exceptionally undertaken education in further education colleges and information for the amount spent on school pupils in further education is not available centrally. Further education colleges are not maintained by local education authorities.

  Higher Education
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will increase the level of support available for those students in higher education who are on longer courses and those with higher equipment costs with specific reference to medicine and dentistry. [49806]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: Student support is already available for the full length of a designated undergraduate course regardless of the duration of the course. From 2002–03, in recognition that they need to study on longer courses, medical and dental students in their fifth and any subsequent years will receive from the Department of Health about half their support as non-repayable grants (with the remainder as loans from the Student Loans Company). Students on longer courses, including medical and dental students, are eligible to apply to their universities for additional £500 Hardship Loans and grants from the Hardship Fund.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what response she has made to the recent SKILL research, "Enhancing Quality of Life", on the extent of post-school education provision for people with profound and complex learning difficulties. [48810]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: My Department continues to work with the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and other relevant agencies to develop appropriate responses to the issues raised by SKILL's research report. These include delivering the enhanced role for the Connexions service in transition planning for young people with learning difficulties; the introduction of flexible and innovative approaches to post-school provision; improved inter-agency collaboration in the design, management, delivery and funding of services through, for example, LSC involvement on Learning Disability Partnership Boards; and the implementation of the standards of care for learners in residential provision introduced by the Care Standards Act.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of children aged 14 to 18 years are known to have dyslexia; [49025]

  (2) what records are kept by local education authorities on dyslexia; [49031]
  1127W
  (3) what steps are taken by the Department to assess children for dyslexia; and at what ages the tests are carried out; [49032]

  (4) what (a) research is being carried out into dyslexia and (b) grants are being given by the Government to research organisations with regard to dyslexia in 2002–03; [49035]

  (5) how many children aged between 5 to 10 years in the United Kingdom have dyslexia and related learning problems. [49036]

  Mr. Timms
  As at January 2001, 1,002,000 pupils in English maintained primary schools and 668,000 pupils in English maintained secondary schools had special educational needs (SEN). Of these, 75,300 and 82,100 respectively had statements of SEN.

  In addition, 91,000 pupils are in maintained special schools, 87,400 of whom have statements. Information by specific category of SEN is not currently collected but we have conducted a pilot exercise to explore the feasibility of further categorisation without overburdening schools and expect to phase in new arrangements by 2004.

  When dealing with dyslexia and other SEN, schools and local education authorities in England are expected to follow the SEN Code of Practice, published last November. LEAs must also publish their general arrangements for identifying and supporting children with SEN. The precise details of arrangements made by LEAs and schools, including record keeping and assessment of needs within the context of the Code, are for local determination and this information is not collected centrally.

  Working in conjunction with other interested parties, the Department is currently supporting the SPELL IT project, looking at the impact of structured intervention methods with seven year olds experiencing difficulty with reading. This project is due to report later this year. In 2002–04 we are also supporting research and development in relation to possible applications of jet pilot eye tracking technology as an aid to early identification of dyslexia.

  Work-related Skills
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the £1 million allocated for the embedding of work related skills more widely in higher education provision has been allocated; and how the allocation for(a) entrepreneurial, (b) generic and (c) vocational skills is progressing. [49851]

  Margaret Hodge
  The £1 million will be allocated through the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) between April 2002 and March 2004. We regard work related skills as embracing all three skill areas. This integrated approach to delivery means it is not possible to identify separate amounts for each area.

  Autistic Spectrum Disorder
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what action her Department is taking to support children with autistic spectrum disorder at school; and if she will make a statement; [48883]
  1128W
  (2) what action her Department is taking to increase the number of specialist units able to support children with autistic spectrum disorder learning; and if she will make a statement. [48884]

  Mr. Timms
  Children with autistic spectrum disorder are benefiting from the improvements we are making to special educational needs (SEN) provision along with all other children with SEN. We have, for example, increased the supported expenditure available for SEN five-fold from £17 million in 1997–98 to £91 million in 2002–03. Funds can be used for a range of activities including the training for staff in SEN and improvements in speech and language therapy. We have introduced a revised SEN Code of Practice, effective from 1 January this year, which strengthens the guidance to schools, local education authorities and others and encourages earlier identification of needs and more effective intervention.

  We have also supported a nationwide network of SEN Regional Partnerships to promote a multi-agency approach to aspects of SEN provision. The West Midlands SEN Regional Partnership has concentrated on provision for children with autistic spectrum disorder and produced recommendations. The work of the West Midlands Partnership will be reflected in guidance which the Department's Autism Working Group will be producing in the coming months. This will raise awareness of autistic spectrum disorders and help schools and local education authorities, in particular, to audit their provision.

  The Autism Working Group's guidance will point to the benefits of children with the disorder being taught by those with an understanding of the condition in all settings. Decisions on opening specialist units for children with autistic spectrum disorders are taken at local, rather than national, level. The Department welcomes the opening of good quality, specialist provision in the maintained, non-maintained and independent sectors. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism's report "The Rising Challenge: A survey of Local Education Authorities on Educational Provision for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders" (December 2001) noted that several authorities commented that they had set up autism specific units attached to moderate learning difficulty schools.

  Pay Scales
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 726W, if she will list the allowances which are available to (a) secondary school teachers and (b) further education lecturers. [50037]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following allowances are available to secondary school classroom teachers: management allowances; recruitment and retention allowances; special educational needs allowances and London allowances.

  As independent corporations, further education colleges have their own staff pay and allowance policies. The allowances will, therefore, vary from college to college. The Department does not collect information on the allowances paid to staff by individual colleges.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50283]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Within my Department no Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column l 131W, regarding the estimated cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by her Department, for what reason the cost in 2000–01 rose from the figures for 1998–99. [50336]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated cost of buildings refurbishment carried out in my Department in 2000–01 rose from the figures for 1998–99 due to many one-off large-scale building projects needed across the estate. Examples include:

  Update of mechanical ventilation at Mowden Hall, Darlington

  Lift refurbishment at Caxton House, London

  Replacement windows at Vincent House, Darlington

  Major refurbishment of the lower ground floor forum at Sanctuary Buildings, London (mow recognised as a beacon with other Departments)

  Refurbishment of Secretary of States Office at Sanctuary Buildings, London.

  Teachers (Early Leavers)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what analysis has been completed on the destinations of teachers who leave the profession and retire early; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [50493]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: Numbers of teachers leaving the profession and retiring early are published in the 2001 volume of Teachers in England (including teachers pay for England and Wales), which has been placed in the Library.

  The Department has commissioned Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson, from the University of Liverpool, Centre for Education and Employment Research to undertake research into the factors affecting teachers' decisions to leave the profession and the characteristics and destinations of those leaving. The research commenced in December 2001 and we expect the report to be published in March 2003.

  Some information on the destinations of teachers appears in the Employers Organisation's annual survey of teacher resignations and recruitment.

  Teacher Vacancies (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are at schools in the London borough of Wandsworth in(a) junior and (b) secondary schools. [50543]
  1130W
  Mr. Timms
  In January 2001 there were 22 vacant teacher posts in maintained nursery/primary schools and 25 vacant teacher posts maintained secondary schools in Wandsworth local education authority (2001 is the most recent available year).

  The vacancies recorded had been advertised and were for full-time permanent appointments or full-time appointments of at least one term's duration, which existed at the survey date and which the local education authority/school intended to or had unsuccessfully attempted to fill.

  Schools (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) applications and (b) available places for schools in the East Riding there (i) are in the current academic year and (ii) were in the past three academic years. [50599]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold this information. The East Riding of Yorkshire local education authority (LEA) has informed my officials that for the academic year 2002–03, 4,255 secondary school applications have been received for 4,136 places.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children living in the Kingston upon Hull local education authority area(a) are enrolled and (b) were enrolled in the past three academic years in East Riding schools. [50600]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold this information. The East Riding of Yorkshire local education authority has informed my officials that of the 51,080 pupils currently attending maintained schools in East Riding, 2,800 have Kingston upon Hull postcodes.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications there were for places in East Riding schools from households in the Kingston upon Hull local education authority for the(a) current academic year and (b) past three academic years; and how many of these applications were (i) accepted and (ii) rejected. [50601]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold this information.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications were made by households in the Kingston upon Hull local education authority area for school places in the East Riding of Yorkshire using a false address in the(a) current academic year and (b) previous three academic years. [50602]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold this information. The East Riding of Yorkshire local education authority (LEA) has informed my officials that they have no evidence that any applications for school places from September 2002 are from people using false addresses. A number of checks were made on addresses of applicants for September 2001 entry, and in all cases documentary evidence verifying the address used was provided.

  School Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the review of funding for schools. [51300]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently working up proposals for a reformed system of school and LEA funding for introduction in 2003–04. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula that reflects fairly, on the basis of up-to-date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. We expect to consult on proposals for the new system in the summer.

  Universities in NW England

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  Lancaster

  25,191,849

  29,612,073

  30,993,227

  31,810,325

  32,085,258

  34,912,405

  University of Central Lancashire

  32,998,301

  37,450,122

  40,910,888

  41,857,351

  44,615,346

  48,292,962

  Liverpool John Moores

  37,470,423

  47,764,966

  44,831,515

  45,402,799

  47,243,386

  49,025,709

  Liverpool

  55,829,857

  61,570,235

  64,653,663

  66,408,652

  69,828,532

  74,537,492

  Manchester

  76,795,457

  82,970,369

  84,533,180

  86,831,335

  86,675,433

  100,442,019

  Manchester Metropolitan

  52,590,864

  59,668,540

  61,134,705

  61,953,626

  65,321,576

  67,158,787

  UMIST

  26,107,034

  28,650,434

  29,976,427

  31,464,966

  32,660,103

  32,758,879

  Salford

  34,458,084

  39,265,653

  39,918,959

  40,372,457

  42,007,181

  44,149,602

  1 Provisional.

  Note:

  These figures reflect recurrent and capital funding from DfES for allocation by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It excludes any recurrent funding for teaching provided to these institutions by the Teacher Training Agency and other Government Departments, any research funding from the Research Councils and other Government Departments and regulated fee income paid by Government to institutions on behalf of students.

  Source:

  HEFCE data.

  Learning Mentors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning mentors there are in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) the Buckingham constituency and (ii) England. [51389]

  Mr. Timms
  There are currently no Learning Mentors working in primary or secondary schools in the constituency of Buckingham. Our provision of Learning Mentors is focused on schools in deprived city authorities as part of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) programme, and upon schools in Excellence Clusters which cover smaller pockets of deprivation. There are currently 1,155 Learning Mentors in England's primary schools, and 2,265 in secondary schools.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to co-ordinate the use of post offices as one-stop shops for Government services. [49797]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  DTI funded a pilot of the concept of post offices as Government General Practitioners (GGP)——one-stop shops for information, advice and transactions with a range of government and other bodies——which began last July and finished on 1 March this year. Together with

  University Funding
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been given by the Government to each university in(a) Wales and (b) the North West in each year since 1997. [50640].

  Margaret Hodge
  The funding of higher education in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The allocation of funding by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to universities in the North West of England in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  other key stakeholders, we are now evaluating the outcome of the pilot to determine whether a national GGP service would meet the needs of citizens and participating organisations and provide value for money. The Department is also working with Post Office Ltd., the Office of the e-Envoy, other Government Departments and local government evaluating the design and costing of a potential national service. A decision on whether or not to proceed will be taken in the light of all the evidence.

  Women's Employment, Enterprise and Training Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual budget is of the Women's Employment, Enterprise and Training Unit; and how many people it employs. [43110]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Women's Employment, Enterprise and Training Unit is an organisation independent of government and therefore the information requested is not held by my Department.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many contracts the Cabinet Office has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity
  1133W
  insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50826]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office standard terms and conditions of contract require consultants to indemnify the Department against all costs or third party claims arising from the consultant's acts or omissions, and to maintain insurance cover of a minimum of £500,000 per claim against the risk of fire or other damage to property or personal injury. The standard terms apply to all consultants irrespective of size. However, individual cases the amount of insurance required may be increased or reduced according to the risk associated with the contracted work.

  The number of contracts is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

  As with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of discussions which form part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  Public Appointments (Diversity)
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he plans to take to ensure that Government departments(a) undertake the duties outlined in the Cabinet Office Diversity in Public Appointments document and (b) report on the numbers of disabled people who hold public appointments in their departments. [48755]

  Mr. Leslie
  The publication "Public Bodies: Opening Up Public Appointments 2002–05" sets out for each Department specific targets for increasing diversity on the boards of the Public Bodies it sponsors and the action that will be taken to ensure that the targets are met and for monitoring progress. The numbers of appointments held by men, women, disabled people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, will be reported in the annual Public Bodies data on the numbers of disabled appointees on bodies sponsored by some Departments was not available but, as noted in that publication, this information will be compiled for inclusion in Public Bodies 2002. Copies of Public Bodies: Opening up appointments 2002–05 and Public Bodies 2001 have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are available on-line at http://www.quango.gov.uk.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the 2002 Departmental report will be published. [49587]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1265W, regarding paid leave for staff to undertake union duties, if the two officers of Cabinet Office agencies who spent part of their time undertaking
  1134W
  union duties on an ad hoc basis are required to obtain in advance line management approval for such time off. [50343]

  Mr. Leslie
  Yes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1265W, regarding paid leave for staff to undertake union duties, how many days have been spent on union duties by the two officers of Cabinet Office agencies who undertake union duties on an ad hoc basis. [50414]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is as follows.

  1998–99: 75 days

  1999–2000: 70 days

  2000–01: 63

  days 2001–02: 54 days.

  Overtime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49132]

  Mr. Leslie
  Cabinet Office policy on overtime working is that where possible it should be kept to a minimum and used at times of exceptional pressure once alternatives have been explored. Where overtime is necessary managers are required to:use volunteers;
  give staff 48 hours notice whenever the requirement cannot be met by volunteers;
  avoid regular calls to fulfil the requirement on particular blocks of staff;
  avoid weekends.

  Cabinet Office rules on overtime working which complies fully with Section 9 of the Civil Service Management Code.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EMNVISAT Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the ENVISAT project. [50853]

  Ms Hewitt
  ENVISAT, Europe's latest Earth Observation satellite, was successfully launched on 1 March. The £1.4 billion satellite will provide vital information about global warming, climate change and the depletion of the ozone layer. ENVISAT is the most complex Earth Observation satellite ever built, carrying 10 instruments which are able to detect environmental change to an unprecedented accuracy.

  The UK Government has invested £300 million in the project, which has been steered by the British National Space Centre (BNSC) in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA) and UK industry. 12 UK firms have played a vital part in the development and construction of ENVISAT, with many more standing to benefit from exploitation of ENVISAT's data in downstream sectors.
  1135W
  ENVISAT has reached its correct orbit and is delivering valuable data back to Earth for use by environmental researchers. Such data will provide a health check of our planet. It will monitor changes in the oceans, ice caps, vegetation and our atmosphere and its findings will underpin the future development of environmental policy.

  Spacecraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the spacecraft which the UK is(a) operating and (b) funding; who owns the spacecraft; and what the purpose of each mission is. [50854]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on 11 March 2002,Official Report, columns 675–677W.

  Accounting Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the competition implications of the arrangement between Deloitte & Touche and Andersens UK in the accounting industry; if she intends to make a reference to the competition authorities; and if she will make a statement. [50499]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: Any proposed merger which meets the qualifying threshold would be considered by the European Commission under the European Community Merger Regulation. The parties concerned have not yet made a formal notification to the Commission.

  As Ministers have a role in the regulatory process for considering mergers it is not appropriate to make a statement about the proposed merger.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what services the UK Government(a) unilaterally and (b) as part of the European Union will be requesting be liberalised under World Trade Organisation's general agreement on trade in services to be specified by 30 June. [50776]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, columns 368–69W.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on how the liberalisation of social services under the World Trade Organisation's general agreement on trade in services will affect women as(a) citizens and (b) workers; [50811]

  (2) what impact assessment has been made of how the liberalisation of social services under the World Trade Organisation's general agreement on trade in services to be specified by 30 June will affect women as (a) citizens and (b) workers. [50812]

  Ms Hewitt
  No country has so far tabled a negotiating proposal or request calling for liberalisation of social services in the current World Trade Organisation negotiations on trade in services. Unless any do so, the impact will be nil.
  1136W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what commitments the Government have made under the World Trade Organisation's general agreement on trade in services regarding the liberalisation of public services. [50810]

  Ms Hewitt
  Public services——ie services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority——are in principle excluded from the scope of the GATS. The Government have therefore made no commitments under the GATS under which public services would be liberalised, and has said previously that it will make no commitments in the current World Trade Organisation negotiations that could call into question the supply of public services through for example the NHS or state educations system.

  For the sake of clarity, the United Kingdom already allows the establishment of private educational establishments, hospital services and convalescent, rest and old people's homes, for example, and made commitments during the Uruguay Round confirming this market access.

  Research Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 86W, on the Research Council, what the Government's policy was on the Commission's proposal to amend the negotiating mandate on the legal aspects of a possible International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, in order to include possible site offers for ITER in Europe and cost sharing provisions. [50995]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government support the Commission's proposal which is still under discussion by the council's research group.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 86W, on the Research Council, what the Government's policy was on the Commission's proposal for a negotiating mandate to discuss a framework agreement with the European Space Agency. [50996]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK has championed the development of closer relations between the European Community and the European Space Agency. The Government encourage the development of a framework agreement which would ensure increasing complementarity between the policies and activities of these two bodies, which have a substantial overlap in their membership.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 86W, on the Research Council, what the Government's policy was on the rules of participation and the specific programmes for the Sixth EU Research Framework Programme 2002–06 and Sixth EURATOM Framework Programme 2002–06. [50997]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government broadly supported the proposal for the EC 2002–06 Rules of Participation and Dissemination (COM (2001) 822 final) but wanted to see a number of amendments to underpin the principles of scientific excellence, independent peer review and transparency as well as public accountability and simplification of administrative procedures. The Government also wanted to ensure that the rules would
  1137W
  encourage diverse participation, including by small and medium-sized enterprises and the candidate countries and enable member states to have access to policy related research results. In relation to the Euratom Programme rules (COM (2001) 0725 final), debate at Council focused on the Community financial contribution to projects where the UK supported the Commission's proposal for 17.5 per cent. basic support to national programmes.

  In relation to the Specific Programmes for the Sixth EU Research Framework Programme (COM 2002 (43) final), discussion centred on comitology. The Government's policy was to argue for a wider remit for the programme committees than that envisaged in the proposals, in order to ensure that member states continue to play an appropriate role in programme management.

  Export Credit Bill
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the impact of the Export Credit Bill on academic and scientific research; and if she will make a statement. [45867]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have consulted extensively, including with the academic community, throughout the development of the Export Control Bill, to which it is assumed this question is intended to refer. In the course of these consultations we received a number of representations about the potential impact of proposal on academic and scientific research. More recently the Government have received a number of further representations from parliamentarians, interested individuals and representative organisations on this issue. In response to concerns raised, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Export Control Bill to be moved at Report in another place. The amendment provides on the face of the Bill for protection of the principle of freedom to publish and to communicate information that has already been published.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas qualified for consideration for the assisted areas map by virtue of being(a) substantially below the national average for employment and (b) substantially above the national average for (i) residence-based unemployment, (ii) work force-based unemployment and (iii) manufacturing employment share. [51005]

  Alan Johnson
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas warranted further consideration in the formulation of the assisted areas map by virtue of their divergence from the national average in the prescribed indicators; if he will publish the rates averaged over the three years used for the purpose of formulating the assisted areas map, for each area of (i) employment, (ii) residence-based unemployment, (iii) workforce-based unemployment and (iv) manufacturing employment share; and what the standard deviation was for each for the purpose of the European Commission's regional aid guidelines, indicating those areas not chosen for inclusion in the assisted areas map. [51006]
  1138W
  Alan Johnson
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  WTO Agreement on Agriculture
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the proposal by developing countries to incorporate a development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. [50578]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK is committed to securing a WTO agreement on agriculture which provides real and substantial benefits for developing countries. The proposal to consolidate such benefits in a special development box has attractions and has helped focus attention on developing country needs. I welcome those parts of the proposal which seek to integrate developing countries into world trade on terms that recognise their needs without constructing new barriers to trade.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the external organisations set up by her as part of the Government's strategy to combat climate change indicating(a) their remits and (b) their sources of funding. [50447]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has not itself established any external organisations as part of the Government's climate change programme. However, it has worked with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which leads on climate change policy on several initiatives. The Department has helped with the establishment of the Carbon Trust whose remit is to help the UK move towards a low carbon economy, by encouraging the development and uptake of low carbon technologies and administering energy support and advice for business. The Carbon Trust is funded from receipts from the climate change levy and also receives support from DEFRA, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive.

  The Department also assists the Tyndall Centre at the university of East Anglia which supports the work in nine research institutions to promote understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change. The Tyndall Centre is funded by the National Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC): and the Department contributes £210,000 over three years for the development of assistance to business on climate change causes and its consequences.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the cost in(a) discounted terms and (b) undiscounted terms of making radioactive waste safe, prior to a long-term solution being found at the BNFL owned Sellafield site and other BNFL owned sites. [50430]

  Mr. Wilson
  The BNFL annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2001 estimated the company's total future cash expenditure for waste management as £5.9 billion and £12 billion in discounted and undiscounted terms respectively.
  1139W
  The corresponding figures in the annual report and accounts for the year just ended are likely to be higher reflecting the revision of BNFL's historic waste management strategy which was outlined in my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 28 November 2001.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much direct Government funding has been made available to the renewables sector in the last financial year and the following year for(a) research and development, (b) capital investment and (c) revenue support; and to which projects it will be allocated. [50434]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation, the Government's main policy instrument for the promotion of renewable energy, came into effect from 1 April, and is financed through payments by electricity consumers. The earlier Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) was also financed in this way. Hence most public support for renewable energy is not direct Government funding.

  Estimated maximum payments available under the Renewables Obligation for England and Wales and the corresponding Renewables Obligation (Scotland) for 2002–03 are £282 million. The level of the obligation is set to rise each year to 2010–11, when maximum payments for the year are estimated to reach £1 billion. Actual payments, and the projects that will benefit, will depend on the capacity coming forward. Estimated payments from NFFO and comparable arrangements in Scotland in 2001–02 were £85.5 million. Payments under these arrangements are expected to decline substantially from 2002–03 onwards, following the introduction of the Renewables Obligation.

  The Government directly fund research and development in renewable energy through the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme and through the Research Councils.

  £ million

  2001–021

  2002–032

  DTI Sustainable Energy Programme

  13.0

  19.0

  Research Councils

  5.0

  5.6

  1Revised estimated spend

  2Provision

  Research projects are currently funded in the following programme areas: biomass; waste; embedded generation; fuel cells; solar; wind; hydro; wave; tidal; technology transfer and exports. I am placing in the Libraries of the House a list of research projects funded under the DTI's programme in 2001–02. Details of relevant current research projects funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) can be found on the EPSRC website http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/epsrcgrants/portfolio.asp by selecting 'Research Topics' and then 'Electricity Generation——Renewable and Clean'.

  In addition to the research programmes described, the DTI has been assigned a further £5 million over three years for wave and tidal demonstration projects and a further £4 million for net metering storage and control demonstration projects.
  1140W
  The Government are also setting up capital grants programmes in the following areas with the following funding over three years:
  £74 million for offshore wind (including £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund)
  £69 million for bioenergy (including £36 million from the New Opportunities Fund and £3 million for biomass heating)
  £20 million for photovoltaics (PV).

  In addition, an element of the £10 million Community and Household Projects programme is expected to finance capital costs of these projects. Actual spend in each financial year, and the projects that will be supported, will depend on the applications coming forward.

  As has been indicated, revenue support for the renewables sector is provided through the Renewables Obligation rather than through direct Government funding. The sector also benefits from exemption of renewable electricity from the Climate Change Levy.

  Chemical Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the progress of the chemical industry's learning and skills strategy, (b) the programme to promote the spread of best practice, (c) support for chemical industry cluster initiatives and (d) the programme to support chemicals inward investment from north America. [49876]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science announced on 24 January the formation of a Chemicals Innovation and Growth Team (CIGT) as a partnership between Government, the industry, and other stakeholders to stimulate the growth and sustainability of a competitive chemicals industry in the UK.

  Among other things, the CIGT has been charged with identifying ways of improving competencies and skills in the industry. This will work alongside the new Sector Skills Council for chemicals manufacturing, oil and gas extraction and petroleum refining, in which the Government will be investing £2 million over the next two years.

  The Process Industries Centre for Manufacturing Excellence—a Government-industry partnership—is the primary body charged with improving manufacturing performance and productivity in the UK chemicals industry through the spread of best practice. To date this initiative has proved extremely successful. Many of the companies who have so far been through this process have seen improvements measured in hundreds of thousands of pounds.

  The chemicals industry has a number of natural clusters throughout the UK. In these primary areas, regional chemical initiatives have been formed to help improve networking between companies and to address collectively those issues which impact upon the competitiveness of the industry at a local or regional level. They are industry-led but have the active support and involvement of the DTI, the RDAs in those regions, and of Scottish Enterprise in Scotland. These cluster initiatives have proved of great value in helping to address the needs of the industry.
  1141W
  A chemicals industry specialist was appointed in January 2001 to work with Invest UK to promote UK chemicals investment opportunities to companies in north America. He is working with Scottish Enterprise, the RDAs and the regional chemical initiatives on opportunities for new investment.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claimants have received a final settlement through each of the top 10 claims handlers for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [50813]

  Mr. Wilson
  Nationally for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the Department has made almost 68,500 individual payments and settled 24,000 claims, amounting to £293.6 million. In relation to vibration white finger (VWF), the Department has made 84,000 individual payments and settled over 38,000 claims, worth £512.1 million.

  In the time given, the Department cannot provide data broken down by claims handlers.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to date to each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [50526]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) The amount paid to each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema is as follows:

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Costs paid (£ million)

  Thompsons

  11.3

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  8.9

  UDM

  3.1

  Raleys

  4.8

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  0.8

  Browell Smith & Co.

  3.8

  Graysons

  2.2

  Watson Burton

  1.6

  Irwin Mitchells

  2.5

  Randell Saunders

  0.5

  Total

  39.5

  (b) The amount paid to each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for vibration white finger is as follows:

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Costs paid (£ million)

  Thompsons

  6.1

  Browell Smith & Co.

  4.5

  UDM

  3.9

  Raleys

  3.2

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  3.2

  Graysons

  2.2

  Moss

  1.5

  Watson Burton

  2.1

  AMS Law

  1.2

  Towells

  1.5

  Total

  29.3

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to claimants 1142W
  through each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for (a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [50525]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) The amount paid to claimants through each of the top 10 claims handlers for chronic bronchitis and emphysema is as follows:

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Total damages paid (£ million)

  Thompsons

  68.0

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  56.6

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  16.8

  Raleys

  30.2

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  5.6

  Browell Smith & Co.

  22.9

  Graysons

  10.4

  Watson Burton

  7.9

  Irwin Mitchells

  14.0

  Randell Saunders

  4.0

  Total

  236.4

  (b) The amount paid to claimants through each of the top 10 claims handlers for vibration white finger, VWF, is as follows.

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Total damages paid (£ million)

  Thompsons

  74.1

  Browell Smith & Co.

  44.1

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  46.1

  Raleys Solicitors

  30.3

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  30.8

  Graysons

  23.4

  Moss

  15.3

  Watson Burton

  24.6

  AMS Law

  13.8

  Towells

  17.5

  Total

  320.1

  Post Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice will be given to customers of post offices which are expected to be closed in the restructuring of Post Office Counters networks in respect of where they will be able to receive post office counter services; and if she will make a statement. [48796]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Post Offices objective in restructuring the urban network is to retain and expand its customer base at modernised, improved facilities. Sub-postmasters leaving the network will be encouraged to help achieve this, for example, assisting customers by advising them of the nearest post office and introducing them to services available at the new outlet. Consultation on closure will involve the community, local stakeholders, sub-postmasters and Postwatch.

  Under the Code of Practice, Post Office Ltd. are required to consult Postwatch on individual changes and plan to brief them on the process they envisage for reaching decisions.
  1143W
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many agency workers have been involved in delivering mail for the Royal Mail in the past year; [49946]

  (2) how many cases of missing contents from post were recorded by the Royal Mail in the last year; of these, how many were investigated; and how many prosecutions were instigated. [49944]

  Mr. Alexander
  These are matters that falls within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has received from Consignia on the number of proposed closures of post offices in Norfolk. [48990]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. The programme of urban restructuring has not yet begun.

  Wainstones Plc
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent Wainstones plc may transfer to a third party the licence to build a gas-fuelled power station at Langage, Plympton. [50987]

  Mr. Wilson
  Like any planning permission, the consent goes with the land and as such can be transferred.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the licence granted to Wainstones plc to build a gas-fuelled power station at Langage contained a condition as to timescale for commencement of the project. [50986]

  Mr. Wilson
  The commencement of the development must be before the expiry of five years from the grant of consent.

  Corus
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government actions to encourage business and industry to develop in the areas affected by Corus Steel plant closures. [50637]

  Alan Johnson
  Measures to help the Tees Valley and Scunthorpe areas, including regeneration and improvements to infrastructure, training and advice for people leaving Corus and help in the establishment of small firms were announced on 3 May 2001 as part of a £135 million package responding to closures in England and Wales. These are now being implemented. Measures in Wales are matters for the Assembly.

  My Department is also in contact with the South Yorkshire Task Force, and will discuss their report with them once it has been finalised.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she sought advice from HM ambassadors to(a) the Irish Republic and (b) Kazakhstan in connection with the takeover of Sidex by LNM/Ispat. [50454]
  1144W
  Ms Hewitt
  No I did not seek advice from either ambassador.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the Small Business Service about the regulatory burdens on small companies. [49477]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has appointed me as the Minister for Small Business. Since January I have had three meetings with Small Business Service (SBS) officials specifically about regulatory burdens and had a number of other meetings where regulating issues have been discussed.

  Broadband
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy initiatives are being considered in response to the recommendations of the Broadband Stakeholder Group. [49858]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government response to the Broadband Stakeholder Group's report was set out in the UK Online annual report 2001, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Carrier 1 UK Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50186]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Limited Liability Partnerships (Forms) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50218]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Midlands Electricity plc) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50236]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Broadnet UK Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement. [50185]

  (5) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Companies (Disqualification Orders) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50216]

  (6) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Alpha Telecom Communications Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50242]

  (7) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50217]

  (8) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (-E Tel) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50244]
  1145W
  (9) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50211]

  (10) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insurers (Winding Up) (Scotland) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50230]

  (11) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for Use Outdoors Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50266]

  (12) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50203]

  (13) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50225]

  (14) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Utilities Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50258]

  (15) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Williams Communications UK Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50187]

  (16) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Commencement No.3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50219]

  (17) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (SSE Telecommunications Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50241]

  (18) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Commission (Register) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50094]

  (19) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No.2) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50106]

  (20) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (First Mark Carrier (UK) Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50195]

  (21) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Weighing Equipment (Beltweighers) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50276]

  (22) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity Act 1989 (Commencement No. 3) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50250]

  (23) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce etc.) Act 1999 (Commencement) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50098]

  (24) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Universal Access UK Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50114]
  1146W
  (25) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50207]

  (26) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50234]

  (27) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Utilities Act 2000 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Order; and if she will make a statement; [50262]

  (28) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Fibreway Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50191]

  (29) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Partnership (Unrestricted Size) No.16 Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50272]

  (30) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50246]

  (31) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order; and if she will make a statement; [50093]

  (32) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 (Electronic Communications) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50110]

  (33) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Partnerships (Unrestricted Size) No. 17 Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50199]

  (34) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvent Partnerships (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50222]

  (35) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources Saving Arrangements (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50254]

  (36) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Units of Measurement Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50102]

  (37) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50213]

  (38) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for use Outdoors (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50238]

  (39) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50268]
  1147W
  (40) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50205]

  (41) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvency Fees (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50228]

  (42) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50260]

  (43) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Energis Local Access Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50189]

  (44) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50270]

  (45) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50240]

  (46) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Commencement No.2) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50091]

  (47) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Limited Liability Partnerships (Welsh Language Forums) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50108]

  (48) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Batteries and Accumulators (Containing Dangerous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50197]

  (49) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government etc.) (Modification) (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50220]

  (50) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Fossil Fuel Levy (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50252]

  (51) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Companies (Unregistered Companies) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50100]

  (52) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50209]

  (53) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Registered Designs (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50232]

  (54) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Dismissal Procedures Agreement Designation (Electrical Contracting Industry) Order 1991 Revocation Order; and if she will make a statement; [50264]
  1148W
  (55) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (GTS Network (Ireland) Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50193]

  (56) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50274]

  (57) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the GAS (Applications for Licences and Extensions and Restrictions of Licences) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50248]

  (58) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Merger report (Interview SA and Bass plc) (Interim Provision) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50096]

  (59) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Sub-Post Office Start-Up Capital Subsidy Scheme Order; and if she will make a statement; [50112]

  (60) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Post Office Company (Nomination and Appointed Day) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50201]

  (61) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50224]

  (62) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Utilities Act 2000 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50255]

  (63) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications to Local Enactments No. 1); and if she will make a statement; [50088]

  (64) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Supply, Sale and Export of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) (Revocation) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50104]

  (65) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Limited Liability Partnership (Fees) (No.2) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50215]

  (66) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Locational Flexibility) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50243]

  (67) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50212]

  (68) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50237]
  1149W
  (69) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 8) (Amendment) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50267]

  (70) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Commencement No. 8) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50204]

  (71) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Disclosure of Information) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50251]

  (72) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Tribunals (Increase of Maximum Deposit) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50099]

  (73) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland); and if she will make a statement; [50208]

  (74) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Registered Designs (Fees) (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50233]

  (75) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habits) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50263]

  (76) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Isle of Wight Cable and Telephone Company Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50192]

  (77) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50273]

  (78) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity (Applications for Licences and Extensions and Restrictions of Licences) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50247]

  (79) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption); and if she will make a statement; [50095]

  (80) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50111]

  (81) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Wireless Telegraphy (Licence Charges) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50200]

  (82) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvency Act 2000 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50223]
  1150W
  (83) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50103]

  (84) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50214]

  (85) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Eigernet Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50239]

  (86) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the ACAS Arbitration Scheme (England and Wales) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50206]

  (87) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50229]

  (88) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Utilities Act 2000 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50261]

  (89) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (ntl Group Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50190]

  (90) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Patents (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50271]

  (91) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity Act 1989 (Requirement of Consent for Offshore Wind and Water Driven Generating Stations) (England and Wales) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50245]

  (92) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Limited Liability Partnerships (Fees) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50092]

  (93) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the EC Competition Law (Articles 84 and 85) Enforcement Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50109]

  (94) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Telecommunications (Licence Modifications) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50198]

  (95) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvent Companies (Reports on Conduct of Directors) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50221]

  (96) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity (Class Exemptions) from the Requirement for a Licence Order; and if she will make a statement; [50253]

  (97) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50101]
  1151W
  (98) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Postal Services Act 2000 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50210]

  (99) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Registered Designs Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50231]

  (100) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvency Act 2000 (Commencement No. 2) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50265]

  (101) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Nextlink UK Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50194]

  (102) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Measuring Equipment (Cold-Water Meters) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50275]

  (103) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Scotland) Saving Arrangements Order; and if she will make a statement; [50249]

  (104) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50097]

  (105) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Telecommunication System Designation (Verizon Global Solutions UK Ltd.) Order; and if she will make a statement; [50113]

  (106) what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of the Merger (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50202]

  (107) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Insolvent Companies (Reports on Conduct of Directors) (Amendment) Rules; and if she will make a statement; [50226]

  (108) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Electricity (Standards of Performance) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50257]

  (109) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Utilities Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [50089]

  (110) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Licences) Regulations; and if she will make a statement. [50105]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department makes an assessment of the costs and benefits of regulations when developing regulatory proposals. Where a regulatory proposal has an impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks that affect businesses, charities and the voluntary sector, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is undertaken to inform policy development. Final RIAs are placed in the Libraries of the House when the regulation is presented to Parliament, but are not required for regulations where it has been assessed that no or negligible costs or savings would be 1152W
  imposed or those that increase statutory fees via a predetermined formula. The Small Business Service are consulted on RIAs to ensure that the impact on small firms is not disproportionate.

  Fair Trading Act
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (1) pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 696W, if she will place in the Library details of her Department's strategy and procedures for enforcing the regulatory controls under Part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and its amendments; and if she will make a statement; [50467]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 695W, if she will place in the Library details of her Department' s strategy and procedures for handling inquiries from the public on whether particular trading schemes are subject to the provisions of Part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and its amendments; and if she will make a statement; [50466]

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 695W, on representations to her Department for amendments to the definition of single tier established in the Fair Trading Act 1973, if trading schemes with more than one UK master franchise that do not comply with the regulatory controls are classified as illegitimate trading schemes; and if she will make a statement; [50464]

  (4) pursuant to her answer of 25 March, Official Report, column 695W, if she will place in the Library details of her Department's strategy and procedures for protecting small participants who do not opt to register for VAT, thus ensuring their continued protection via the regulatory controls under Part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and its amendments; and if she will make a statement; [50468]

  (5) pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 695W, on representations to her Department for amendments to the definition of single tier established in the Fair Trading Act 1973, if she will place in the Library the description of Government policy on multi-level trading provided to those parts of the franchise industry lobbying for an additional exemption in S.I. 1997 No. 1887. [50465]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: Where a breach of legislation over which the Department has oversight is identified, and that breach is addressed by way of criminal sanction, the Department will consider bringing a prosecution, taking account of the evidential and public interest tests set out in the Code of Crown Prosecutors.

  The Department is unable to give legal advice about individual schemes in response to inquires from the public. The circumstances of individual schemes will vary. Individuals are advised that they should seek independent and impartial business and legal advice on a scheme prior to signing any agreement.

  All trading schemes within the scope of current legislation are expected to comply with the regulatory controls. Whether and how the regulatory controls apply will depend on the operation of the individual scheme. In particular, in order to establish whether a scheme is a

  1153W
  "single-tier" scheme for the purpose of the legislation, a detailed assessment is required of the characteristics of the scheme in question.

  The effect of the legislation is that, if all participants in a scheme are not making taxable supplies in the UK and not registered for VAT, the regulatory controls would apply. The issue of when to register for VAT purposes is a matter to be determined by reference to revenue legislation.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost in 2001–02 was of the pay increase to staff in her Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and what the cost of the forthcoming increase will be in 2002–03. [50417]

  Ms Hewitt
  The costs of pay awards for the 2001–02 pay years for each of the DTI organisations are estimated in the table. It is not possible to cost the awards more precisely since the increases in organisational paybill are also affected during the period over which they are paid by other factors including promotions and other staff moves.

  £

  DTI organisations

  Cost of pay award

  Department of Trade and Industry

  4,300,000

  Agencies

  Companies House

  650,000

  Employment Tribunal Service

  620,000

  Insolvency Service

  960,000

  Patent Office

  1,100,000

  Radiocommunications Agency

  890,000

  Non-departmental Public Bodies

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  2,300,000

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  2,000,000

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  240,000

  Natural Environment Research Council

  1,600,000

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  220,000

  Economic and Social Research Council

  74,000

  Medical Research Council

  3,100,000

  Advantage West Midlands

  200,000

  East Midlands Development Agency

  130,000

  1154W

  £

  DTI organisations

  Cost of pay award

  East of England Development Agency

  120,000

  North West Development Agency

  370,000

  One North East

  330,000

  South East of England Development Agency

  190,000

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  220,000

  Yorkshire Forward

  210,000

  Coal Authority

  £110,000

  Design Council

  £60,000

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  £1,500,000

  Notes:

  Equivalent figures are not yet available for the 2002–03 pay years.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the cost was to her Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated; [49113]

  (2) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49155]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House,Official Report, column 929W.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49595]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 774W.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are part-time employees. [47169]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 49W by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Equality
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring forward the Commission for Racial Equality's draft statutory code of practice on the duty to promote race equality. [51717]

  Angela Eagle
  Yesterday I laid before Parliament the Commission for Racial Equality's draft statutory code of practice on the duty to promote race equality.

  The code of practice will offer practical guidance to public authorities on how to meet their duty to promote race equality. Once the code of practice is brought into effect it will be admissible in evidence in any legal action, and a court or tribunal should take relevant provisions of the code into account.

  United Nations Convention on the Child
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reasons why he rejected the conclusions set out in the legal opinion obtained by Save the Children UK on the United Kingdom's Immigration Reservation to the United Nations Convention on the Child. [48659]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: We have carefully reviewed the reservation in the light of the legal opinion submitted by Save the Children and other recent requests that it should be withdrawn. We have taken legal advice which strongly suggests that the reservation remains necessary in order to maintain an effective immigration control. We consider that, not withstanding the reservation, there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that children are protected.

  The United Kingdom always takes its international obligations seriously. We are obliged, under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to consider all applications for asylum made in the United Kingdom. Each application is considered on its individual merits. While awaiting a decision on their claims, all asylum seeking children have access to primary health care and education facilities and there are currently no outstanding cases where the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been cited by children seeking asylum here. The majority of asylum seeking children are, of course, accompanied by their families.

  We fully appreciate the potential vulnerability of unaccompanied children and the distress they may experience while awaiting a decision on their asylum claims. The need for anxious scrutiny is stressed in training and guidance to all staff involved in the asylum decision making process. Because of the particular sensitivities surrounding applications from unaccompanied children, their cases are given priority and dealt with by specially trained caseworkers, who are provided with comprehensive instructions setting out areas to consider when dealing with such applications. These instructions are available on the Internet and are reviewed on a regular basis.

  All unaccompanied minors who apply for asylum are referred to the Refugee Council's Panel of Advisers, a non-statutory body which acts as adviser to the child in his/her dealings with the Home Office and other agencies
  1156W
  for the duration of the asylum claim. Unaccompanied minors are not entitled to benefits but are supported under the Children Act 1989 (maintenance and accommodation being provided by social services departments of the local authorities). It has been agreed that no unaccompanied child will be removed from the United Kingdom unless we are satisfied that adequate reception and care arrangements are in place in the country to which he/she is to be removed. If care arrangements cannot be established, the child is normally allowed to remain here exceptionally, outside the Immigration Rules, on compassionate grounds.

  For these reasons, we do not accept the recommendation made in the legal opinion forwarded by Save the Children.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made by his Department to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in respect of the eligibility of prison officers for a Golden Jubilee Medal. [44419]

  Beverley Hughes
  The question of the Prison Service and other groups being included in eligibility for the Golden Jubilee Medal was considered by the Ministerial Group. It was decided that eligibility should be restricted to members of the armed forces and the emergency services. However, I am determined to ensure that improvements are made to the existing recognition mechanisms. Later this year both a Prison Service long service award and a prison officer of the year award will be introduced. In addition, consideration is being given to the proposal for a Queen's prison service medal.

  MI5 Files
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many MI5 files have been destroyed in each year from 1997 to date; and if all those destroyed were classified as red. [49283]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: Information is not held by year in the way requested, and could only be retrieved at disproportionate cost. Approximately, 85,000 files have been destroyed since 1997.

  All files destroyed were classified red.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria have been applied to decide which MI5 files should be subject to destruction; and what is the minimum period a file is no longer classified as(a) green and (b) amber before destruction is authorised. [49284]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: A copy of the criteria for file retention is in the Library. These are consistent with the Public Records Act 1958 and are approved by myself the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor. Criteria for retention and release of historically significant records are agreed with the Public Record Office and endorsed by the Advisory Council.

  There is no minimum period.
  1157W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files held by MI5 have been destroyed subsequent to an application being made by the subject of a file for access under the Data Protection Act 1998. [49285]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute(a) dated 14 February, regarding the Iona Community and (b) dated 10 October 2001, on asylum seekers. [48177]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: My noble Friend Lord Rooker wrote to the hon. Member regarding the Iona Community on 20 March 2002.

  He also responded to the hon. Member's correspondence on asylum seekers on 8 April 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of public correspondence he expects to be responded to within 20 days of receipt by March. [47240]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: To cover all aspects of this question, I have two figures regarding the Home Office response to public

  Full-time equivalents over 10 years

  Home Office area

  Year (as at 1 April)

  Home Office Main

  Fire Service College

  Forensic Science Service

  UKPA

  HM Prison Service

  Grand total

  1992

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  ——

  49,739

  1993

  312,312

  ——

  ——

  ——

  39,057

  51,369

  19941

  312,368

  ——

  ——

  ——

  38,003

  50,371

  19942

  10,250

  260

  670

  1,370

  38,070

  50,620

  1995

  9,570

  260

  670

  1,460

  38,940

  50,900

  1996

  9,450

  230

  1,040

  1,510

  38,010

  50,240

  1997

  9,360

  220

  1,180

  1,410

  37,700

  49,870

  1998

  8,070

  250

  1,240

  1,280

  39,360

  50,200

  1999

  7,710

  190

  1,640

  1,250

  38,720

  49,510

  2000

  9,270

  180

  1,780

  1,320

  40,560

  53,110

  2001

  13,020

  190

  2,190

  2,270

  41,490

  59,160

  1Old FTE

  2New FTE

  3Including agencies

  Notes:

  1.With the new full-time equivalents calculation (1994 onwards), part-time staff are counted on the basis of the proportion of hours worked, formerly, they were counted as half.

  2. From 1999 casual staff have been added to permanent staff to give the total for all staff.

  European Documents
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his position towards Council Document 13957/01, on Harmonisation of Criminal Punishment. [39653]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government believe that it is desirable to set common penalties for serious organised crime offences across the European Union (EU), in line with the conclusions of the Tampere European Council. Council document 13957–01 sets out different technical options for doing this, which were discussed at the Justice
  1158W
  correspondence. The first figure is based on performance for the whole financial year 2001–02, and the second figure is based on performance just for March 2002.

  Correspondence responded to within 20 days of receipt:
  1 April 2001–31 March 2002: 77 per cent.
  1 March 2002–31 March 2002: 75 per cent.

  I consider the prompt answering of correspondence from the public to be a very important part of the Department's work.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will answer the letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall of 29 October 2001. 23 January and 26 February 2002, about a constituent (Home Office reference: E105598). [46652]

  Angela Eagle
  My officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 April 2002. I am sorry that she did not receive an earlier reply.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42459]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is contained in 'Civil Service Statistics' published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the Government Statistical Service annually. For ease of reference, the figures for the Home Office are set out in the table.

  and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 6–7 December 2001. The Government supported the "combined" option described in the paper, whereby a limited range of penalties would be introduced based on a number of different minimum levels.

  Following further discussion of this option at the informal JHA ministerial meeting in Santiago de Compostela, 14–15 February, 2002 it has now been agreed that the "combined" option should be used as the basis for setting common penalties for offences in future EU instruments. Such penalties do not affect judicial

  1159W
  discretion on sentencing in individual cases, nor do they prevent member states from establishing higher penalties than those required by European law.

  Prisoners' Mail
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the reading by prison authorities of mail to prisoners from hon. Members; and if he will make a statement. [48748]

  Beverley Hughes
  The policy on prisoners' correspondence with their Members of Parliament is set out in Prison Standing Order 5B and D, copies of which are in the Library.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reason underlying the reduction in the key performance target for staff sickness, as published in the Prison Service Corporate Plan 2001–02 between 2000–01 and 2001–02. [49968]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) target was agreed following the "Working Well Together" study published by the Cabinet Office in July 1998 and the recommendations of the National Audit Office report on the management of sickness in the Prison Service published in May 1999. The targets set aimed to achieve a stepped reduction in the average level of staff sickness by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003. These reductions are in line with Cabinet Office targets across the civil service.

  The sickness figures for April 2001–02 are not yet available. However, a figure for the year ending February showed a KPI of 13.93 days. The key performance target in the Corporate Plan 2001–02 was to ensure that average staff sickness did not exceed 10 working days by April 2002. The service will not meet its KPI target.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there was a waiting list for(a) reading, (b) writing, (c) computer skills training and (d) other educational courses at HM prisons in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [48914]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the numbers of prisoners waiting to take up educational courses is not collected but we do know that waiting lists exist for courses in prison education departments including those in basic skills and computer skills. The Government are creating more learning opportunities through increased investment over the next two years and by mapping basic and key skills into learning in other prison regimes such as vocational training, workshops, kitchens and physical education so that prisoners can gain dual accreditation.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will launch an investigation into conditions at the Dungavel Detention Centre for asylum seekers; how many asylum seeker detainees at the Dungavel centre are on hunger strike; if he will review provisions for visits and access arrangements to asylum 1160W
  seekers detained in asylum centres; and if he will take steps to ensure freedom of information provisions apply to asylum seeker detention centres. [48838]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no reason or intention to launch an investigation into conditions at Dungavel Removal Centre. We are confident that Premier Services Ltd., which manages and operates the centre, provides care of the highest order for all its detainees in line with the requirements of the Detention Centre Rules.

  Reports that have recently been circulating suggesting that there has been a hunger strike by a number of detainees at Dungavel are completely unfounded.

  On Tuesday 9 April 2002 a number of detainees announced their intention to stage what they termed a 'non-compliance' day. Detainees refused to get out of bed, take part in removal centre activities such as education or sport activities or eat in the centre's dining hall. They did, however, continue to buy food from the centre's shop.

  Most detainees ate lunch and supper the next day and the centre has been operating normally since.

  There are already in place a number of local befriending schemes at Dungavel and regular visits to detainees do take place. In addition, each removal centre has a Visiting Committee. The Visiting Committee is responsible for monitoring the state of the removal centre premises, the administration of the centre and the treatment of detainees. Dungavel has been visited by a range of representatives from national non-governmental organisations with a direct interest in asylum, immigration and detention.

  The freedom of information provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will, when implemented, apply to immigration removal centres.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the mental health charity MACA of 22 August 2001, 16 October 2001, 19 December 2001 and 30 January 2002, about police handling of serious incidents involving people with mental health problems. [49772]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to my hon. Friend was despatched on Friday 12 April 2002. A separate reply to Mental After Care Association (MACA) will be sent this week.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out for each Civil Service
  1161W
  grade within his (a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16 to 25, (B) 26 to 35, (C) 36 to 45, (D) 46 to 60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39155]

  Count of staff by ethnicity

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Mixed

  Chinese

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Administrative Assistant

  354

  516

  51

  141

  117

  170

  5

  12

  1

  7

  Administrative officer

  574

  1,079

  78

  227

  151

  338

  7

  16

  4

  12

  Executive officer

  1,652

  1,647

  118

  213

  160

  293

  13

  16

  4

  13

  Grade 6

  70

  41

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  252

  179

  0

  3

  5

  1

  2

  3

  0

  0

  Higher executive officer

  820

  728

  23

  42

  33

  55

  1

  7

  2

  3

  Industrial grade

  28

  1

  2

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-industrial casual

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwich course student

  6

  12

  0

  0

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior executive officer

  391

  259

  6

  4

  11

  7

  3

  2

  2

  0

  Senior grades total

  87

  49

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Grand total

  4,236

  4,511

  279

  630

  485

  869

  33

  56

  14

  35

  Other

  Refused

  Unknown

  Total

  Ethnic as percentage of:

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Ethnic

  Known

  Known

  All

  Known as percentage of all

  Administrative assistant

  10

  15

  11

  27

  321

  517

  529

  1,399

  37.8

  23.3

  61.5

  Administrative officer

  10

  12

  23

  29

  420

  672

  855

  2,508

  34.1

  23.4

  68.7

  Executive officer

  26

  31

  77

  81

  605

  612

  887

  4,186

  21.2

  16.0

  75.3

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  1

  2

  31

  14

  3

  114

  2.6

  1.9

  70.4

  Grade 7

  0

  2

  9

  3

  70

  44

  16

  447

  3.6

  2.8

  78.0

  Higher executive officer

  6

  9

  39

  48

  190

  225

  181

  1,729

  10.5

  8.1

  77.5

  Industrial grade

  0

  0

  3

  0

  18

  1

  6

  35

  17.1

  10.5

  61.4

  Non-industrial casual

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sandwich course student

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  13

  7

  25

  28.0

  15.2

  54.3

  Senior executive officer

  1

  1

  7

  3

  80

  62

  37

  687

  5.4

  4.4

  81.9

  Senior grades total

  0

  0

  1

  0

  19

  7

  3

  139

  2.2

  1.8

  83.7

  Grand total

  53

  70

  171

  193

  1,762

  2,168

  2,524

  11,271

  22.4

  16.2

  72.4

  Count of staff by disability

  With disability

  With no disability

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Unknown male

  Percentage disabled

  Administrative assistant

  30

  48

  825

  1,337

  14

  3.4

  Administrative officer

  39

  73

  1,213

  2,307

  14

  3.1

  Executive officer

  63

  86

  2,593

  2,819

  2

  2.7

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  104

  58

  0

  0.0

  Grade 7

  2

  3

  336

  232

  0

  0.9

  Higher executive officer

  23

  31

  1,091

  1,085

  0

  2.4

  Industrial grade

  1

  0

  54

  2

  0

  1.8

  Non-industrial casual

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Sandwich course student

  0

  0

  17

  29

  0

  0.0

  Senior executive officer

  10

  6

  490

  332

  1

  1.9

  All senior grade totals

  1

  0

  109

  56

  0

  0.6

  Grand totals

  169

  247

  6,832

  8,257

  31

  2.7

  Count of staff by ethnicity

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Mixed

  Chinese

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Administrative Assistant

  34

  63

  5

  7

  6

  13

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Administrative officer

  171

  367

  6

  18

  8

  33

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Executive officer

  178

  320

  5

  12

  23

  31

  5

  3

  1

  4

  Grade 6

  28

  9

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  157

  39

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1162W
  Angela Eagle
  I am sorry for the delay in replying. Information on staff as at 31 January 2002 in the Home Office and its Agencies by grade and age range is set out in the tables.

  Information in respect of part three and part four have been placed in the Library.
  1163W

  Count of staff by ethnicity

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Mixed

  Chinese

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Higher executive officer

  184

  289

  2

  7

  8

  11

  1

  1

  6

  2

  Sandwich course student

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SCS equivalent

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior executive officer

  120

  111

  3

  1

  4

  3

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Grand total

  875

  1,201

  21

  46

  52

  92

  9

  8

  11

  7

  Other

  Refused

  Unknown

  Total

  Ethnic as percentage of:

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Ethnic

  Known

  Known

  All

  Known as percentage of all

  Administrative assistant

  0

  1

  6

  10

  2

  3

  34

  131

  26.0

  22.4

  86.2

  Administrative officer

  3

  2

  24

  50

  13

  13

  75

  613

  12.2

  10.5

  86.0

  Executive officer

  4

  6

  10

  15

  11

  22

  94

  592

  15.9

  14.5

  91.1

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  39

  5.1

  5.0

  97.5

  Grade 7

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1

  5

  201

  2.5

  2.4

  98.0

  Higher executive officer

  3

  2

  5

  3

  2

  8

  43

  516

  8.3

  8.1

  96.6

  Sandwich course student

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0.0

  0.0

  75.0

  SCS equivalent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Senior executive officer

  2

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  17

  248

  6.9

  6.7

  98.0

  Grand total

  12

  12

  51

  78

  32

  47

  270

  2,346

  11.5

  10.6

  91.9

  Count of staff by disability

  With disability

  With no disability

  Unknown

  Grade equivalent

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Percentage disabled

  Administrative assistant

  10

  1

  4

  41

  78

  13

  7.2

  Administrative officer

  50

  9

  6

  151

  375

  68

  8.3

  Executive officer

  14

  2

  6

  196

  372

  39

  2.5

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  6

  29

  10

  1

  0.0

  Grade 7

  0

  3

  0

  157

  42

  3

  1.5

  Higher executive officer

  3

  2

  3

  199

  311

  10

  0.9

  Sandwich course student

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0.0

  SCS equivalent

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0.0

  Senior executive officer

  0

  2

  1

  124

  114

  9

  0.8

  Grand total

  77

  19

  20

  900

  1,305

  144

  3.8

  Prison Service by civil service grade equivalence

  Grade

  16 to 25

  26 to 35

  36 to 45

  46 to 60

  60 plus

  Total

  Administrative assistant

  1,436

  7,013

  9,059

  8,027

  781

  26,316

  Administrative officer

  638

  1,496

  2,427

  2,694

  37

  7,292

  Executive officer

  148

  854

  1,580

  1,935

  62

  4,579

  Higher executive officer

  24

  339

  560

  646

  23

  1,592

  Senior executive officer

  —

  109

  272

  512

  46

  939

  Grade 7

  —

  48

  148

  291

  6

  493

  Grade 6

  —

  5

  32

  143

  2

  182

  Senior Civil Service

  —

  —

  17

  58

  3

  78

  Industrial grades

  67

  469

  800

  1,303

  318

  2,957

  Total

  2,313

  10,333

  14,895

  15,609

  1,278

  44,428

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  Age range

  Grade

  16 to 25

  26 to 35

  36 to 45

  46 to 60

  60 plus

  Total

  PO1

  135

  123

  88

  152

  21

  519

  PO2

  55

  47

  44

  38

  3

  187

  PO3

  218

  594

  368

  323

  26

  1,529

  SPS

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  EO

  15

  165

  169

  83

  2

  434

  HEO

  2

  37

  56

  29

  0

  124

  SEO

  0

  6

  26

  21

  1

  54

  Grade 7

  0

  1

  9

  15

  0

  25

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  6

  Senior Civil Service

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  425

  973

  764

  667

  53

  2,882

  1164W

  Policing
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there are in England and Wales; and how many there were on 1 May 1997. [49023]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of serving special constables in England and Wales on 31 September 2001 was 12,068. In March 1997 there were 19,874 serving special constables.

  The Government are committed to increasing the size of the special constabulary. Measures to achieve this would include improvements to the recruitment, training, conditions, management and deployment of specials-focusing their role on intelligence-led, high visibility patrolling and local crime reduction initiatives. In January 2002 we ran a press campaign targeting specials as part of the national recruitment campaign for the regular Police Service.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  o ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of civilians to fulfil policing tasks. [49024]

  Mr. Denham
  The use of civilian support staff in the police service is not a new concept. Support staff carry out a variety of administrative roles in police stations, and in headquarters units, in order to lighten the bureaucratic load on police officers.

  The Police Reform Bill contains provisions which will develop these roles further, allowing limited powers to be extended to police employed support staff who will work in four areas as investigating officers, escort officers, detention officers or community support officers (CSOs).

  These support staff will be employed by the police authority and will be under the direction and control of the chief officer. He or she will be responsible for deciding which of the limited powers currently provided for in the Bill they will be allowed to exercise.

  Yarl's Wood
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all asylum seekers in Yarl's Wood at the time of the recent fire have been properly accounted for. [49844]

  Angela Eagle
  17 detainees held at Yarl's Wood removal centre at the time of the disturbance and fire remain unaccounted for. Efforts to locate them continue.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the measures introduced by road hauliers to check for on-board illegal immigrants prior to cross-channel ferry embarkation to the United Kingdom. [49934]

  Angela Eagle
  The civil penalty provisions introduced by the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act are intended to encourage hauliers to take effective measures to prevent unauthorised persons travelling in their vehicles. The number of clandestine entrants dealt with by the Immigration Service at Dover fell from 12,679 in 2000 to 9,225 in 2001, a reduction of 27 per cent. This indicates that while many hauliers have taken steps to properly 1166W
  secure their vehicles against unauthorised entry, a large number have not implemented effective systems to prevent this traffic.

  Because of the high volume of cross-channel freight traffic, the security measures and checks employed by hauliers can only be assessed in respect of individual vehicles selected for examination upon arrival in the United Kingdom.

  When vehicles are selected for examination at Dover, whether or not they are found to contain clandestine entrants, an assessment is made of the security measures in place. On average some 48 per cent. of vehicles examined are assessed as being properly secured.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations have taken place with the Ministry of Defence about using Hemswell Cliff as a possible site for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, [50545]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The Ministry of Defence is aware of our plans and officials of both Departments are in touch.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether evaluations of the sites proposed for asylum seekers accommodation centres will be published. [50494]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The evaluations of the sites will inform site selection, acquisition negotiations and the evaluation of the forthcoming competition. As such, they will be commercially confidential. However, any forthcoming planning notifications will set out the basis on which the particular site was chosen.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the asylum seekers' accommodation centres in mainland Europe on which he is modelling the proposed centres to be established in the UK. [50495]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: Although the Home Office has recently commissioned research on the reception policies and practice of four European countries, our proposals are not directly based on any particular model.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks have been made on the services infrastructure at Hemswell Cliff as part of the assessment process to determine whether Hemswell Cliff is a suitable site for an asylum seekers' accommodation centre. [50496]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: No such checks took place prior to the announcement of the potential sites for trial accommodation centres. A range of factors, including the practicability of service provision, will be taken into account at every site before final decisions are made.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 11 February 2002 to the hon. Member for mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff),Official Report, column 57W, on asylum

  1167W
  accommodation centres, when he expects to announce the selected locations of the proposed accommodation centres for asylum seekers. [45735]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 718W.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the consequences are for an asylum seeker in the pilot induction centre in Dover of a failure to comply with the requirement to sign, before leaving the induction centre, a declaration confirming that he or she understands the processes that accompany a claim for asylum and support and his or her obligations within those processes. [44753]

  Angela Eagle
  As the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Havens", published on 7 February 2002, made clear asylum-seekers, before they leave the induction centre, will be asked to sign a document confirming that they understand:the processes that accompany their claim for asylum and support;
  their obligations to comply with temporary admission and reporting arrangements;
  the requirement to leave the United Kingdom should their asylum claim fail;
  how they can obtain assistance to return.

  This will enable proper monitoring and ensure that all asylum-seekers are receiving accurate information and advice and so are aware of what is likely to happen during the consideration of their claim and the likely time-scales involved.

  At present there are no consequences for asylum seekers who refuse to sign the declaration.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in relation to land vacated by Ministry of Defence Logistics at Bicester, what consultations have taken place with the providers of local services as to the extra demands that will be placed upon them by using this site as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers; if he will specify the organisations consulted; and if he will place copies of correspondence with the bodies concerned in the Library; [48944]

  (2) in relation to land vacated by the Ministry of Defence logistics at Bicester, what consultations have taken place in the provision of local services as to the suitability of such a site for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers; if he will specify the organisations consulted; and if he will place copies of correspondence with the bodies concerned in the Library. [48945]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: We have not yet consulted with providers of local services. However, we will consult local service providers as part of the planning process. We envisage that accommodation centres will be essentially self-contained communities with the majority of necessary services provided on site.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2002 to the hon. Member for mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff),Official Report, column 1134W, on asylum
  1168W
  accommodation centres, (1) for what reasons his Department is looking for sites for accommodation centres for asylum seekers beyond the South East of England; [48953]

  (2) what his definition is of the South East of England. [48954]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: In accordance with existing policy on the dispersal of asylum seekers, the Government are looking to take the pressure off the south eastern areas of the country supporting the highest number of asylum seekers. These areas are those where the highest number of asylum seekers declare their applications, namely London and Kent.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his policy is on the housing of asylum seekers on the Centrex site at High Ercall, Shropshire; and if he will make a statement on the suitability of the site for that purpose; [45161]

  (2) if he plans to carry out a feasibility study into the suitability of the Centrex site at High Ercall, Shropshire, as a place for housing asylum seekers. [45162]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The Centrex site at High Ercall has not been offered to us for use during the trial of accommodation centres. It was put forward by the Angel Group as part of its contract with the National Asylum Support Service as possible dispersal accommodation for asylum seekers. I am unable to give details of any discussions which took place as part of that contract.

  Unless or until the site is offered I will not make any feasibility study about its possible use.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements there are for asylum seekers to produce a valid passport; and if he will make a statement. [48892]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no requirements for asylum seekers to produce a valid passport when making an application for asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he or his Department has had discussions with the Angel Group Plc or any of its subsidiaries about housing asylum seekers at Otterburn Hall, Northumberland. [48300]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The National Asylum Support Service has not held any discussions with the Angel Group or its subsidiaries regarding the use of Otterburn Hall, Northumberland as accommodation for asylum seekers dispersed under the current arrangements.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received at the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo; and how many asylum applicants were refused permission to board Eurostar trains at the Gare du Nord by British officials in each of the past 12 months. [48533]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Local management information obtained from Waterloo International, indicates that 3,874 asylum applications were made at Waterloo International between January——31 December 2001.
  1169W
  No asylum applications have been made to United Kingdom officials at Paris Gare du Nord, since the implementation of juxtaposed controls on 8 June 2001. Asylum applications made in France are the responsibility of the French Government.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will halt the deportation to Russia of further asylum seekers and refugees from Chechnya; and if he will make a statement; [48565]

  (2) what measures he takes to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees from Chechnya who are deported from the UK to Russia safely return to Chechnya; [48568]

  (3) how many people from Chechnya have been deported to Russia in each of the last two years for which figures are available; how many were males in the age group 18 to 35; and how many he has estimated have safely returned to Chechnya; [48569]

  (4) what account is taken of military involvement by Russian troops in Chechnya when considering the deportation to Russia of asylum seekers and refugees from Chechnya. [48570]

  Angela Eagle
  Applications for asylum from people from Chechnya are considered on their individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.

  A decision on whether or not an unsuccessful asylum applicant from Chechnya is returned to the Russian Federation will depend on the facts of the particular case. Full account is taken of objective country information about the situation for Chechens including the ability of the individual concerned to reside in other parts of the Russian Federation.

  The Home Office closely monitors the situation and a country assessment on the Russian Federation is published on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's internet site. The assessment was revised in October 2001. It is currently being revised and will be published shortly.

  The policy is to remove unsuccessful Chechen asylum seekers to the Russian Federation if they have no other basis of stay in the United Kingdom, and if there is the possibility of internal relocation in the Russian Federation. This is in accordance with guidance issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There are no plans to review this policy.

  Statistical information on asylum seekers from Chechnya is not separately recorded from that on asylum seekers from other parts of the Russian Federation. The statistics requested are not therefore available.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send immigration officials to the Sangatte refugee camp in France to take asylum applications there. [46984]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to send United Kingdom immigration officials to Sangatte to process asylum applications. The United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 United Nation convention on the status of refugees are engaged only after applicants have arrived in this country. We are working closely with the French authorities to address the problems of cross-Channel 1170W
  illegal immigration. Our shared aim is to achieve a situation in which the Red Cross Centre at Sangatte would be unnecessary.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effect of access to the Channel Tunnel by asylum seekers on the French side on British exports and imports using this route as a form of transportation; what the implications are of this situation on the future of British businesses using the Channel link; and what measures are being taken in liaison with the French authorities and British businesses in order to identify a physical deterrent to the problem of refugees who are preventing the safe and effective passage of transportation through the Channel Tunnel link. [48861]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government recognise that the disruption caused by would-be illegal immigrants is causing severe hardship to many businesses in this country who depend on reliable freight services through the Channel Tunnel.

  The removal of the restrictions is dependent on the implementation of additional security measures at the Calais Fréthun yard so that SNCF can deal effectively with potential illegal immigrants. The Government continue to press the French Government at the highest levels to provide adequate policing resources at Fréthun to support the anti-intrusion measures already being installed by SNCF in order to address the disruption to Channel Tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants. We welcome the additional resources that have already been deployed. The Government also welcome the recent announcement by the French Government of proposals to further strengthen the anti-intrusion measures at Fréthun.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public-private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total external spending by the Department was on public private-partnership consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [43197]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 714W, which gave information about PFI consultants. The total amount spent on PPP consultants, excluding PFI consultants, over the last four years is as follows:

  1998–075.50;

  1999——£172,263.54;

  2000——£114,081.56; and

  2001——£179,593.63.

  The number of consultancy firms used over this period was eight. The other information requested about full-time equivalent consultants, billed consultancy days and the

  1171W
  implied average cost of each consultant is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Census
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to rectify the problems associated with the 1901 on-line census. [50534]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  QinetiQ Ltd. is continuing to work on the technical enhancements. These enhancements are intended to make the site sufficiently robust to permit general internet access. The most important consideration is to ensure that the service is relaunched successfully. In the first instance, the service will be reintroduced at the designated service centres throughout the country as part of a rigorous testing process. It will then be relaunched on the internet as soon as practicable thereafter, subject to satisfactory completion of this process.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to initiate an inquiry into the problems associated with the 1901 on-line census. [50442]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Lord Chancellor's Department officials are working closely with the Public Record Office and other parties involved with the 1901 census and are being kept fully informed of developments. I have no plans to launch an inquiry into the project.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria were used to evaluate the ability of QinetiQ to deliver the 1901 on-line census. [50537]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following criteria were used to evaluate the ability of QinetiQ to deliver the 1901 on-line census: commercial viability; customer service; innovation; operational impact on the PRO; organisational and cultural fit; risk management; technical feasibility.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which company was used to measure the capacity and size of system needed to manage the number of visitors to the 1901 on-line census. [50535]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The system sizing was undertaken by QinetiQ Ltd.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evaluation was done to assess the use of the 1901 on-line census; and if rationing of initial access occurred. [50536]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The experience of large family history websites in the United States was investigated in order to chart likely levels and patterns of demand for the 1901 on-line census. In addition, a pilot project was conducted between April and July 2001 when the 1891 census returns for the county of Norfolk were made available over the internet. Rationing of initial access did not occur when the service was launched on 2 January 2002.
  1172W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria will be used to assess the viability of companies who will be awarded contracts for the 1891 on-line census. [50533]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the event of a contract being awarded for the 1891 on-line census, the criteria for the award of that contract would be the same as for the contract awarded for the 1901 on-line census.

  Land Registry
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, under what circumstances the Land Registry is permitted to change the registered boundaries of land registered with it in the absence of supporting records or court decisions. [50015]

  Mr. Wills
  The registered extent of a property can be changed only where it is established that the present registered extent is wrong. If someone believes that there is an error in the registered extent of their property, it is open to them to apply for rectification of the register and title plan under the relevant provisions of the Land Registration Acts and Rules. Any application for rectification must be supported by evidence. If satisfied that there is an arguable case for rectification, the Land Registry will serve notice on interested parties, and may rectify the register or title plan if no objection is received, or if any objection which is received is considered to be groundless. In any other case, the Land Registry can correct an error in the register or title plan only with the consent of all relevant parties, or following a judicial determination by the Court, or by the Solicitor to HM Land Registry. The Court and the Solicitor will order rectification of the register or title plan only if (1) it is established on the evidence that there is an error, and (2) they consider that they should exercise their statutory discretion in favour of rectification.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many contracts the Lord Chancellor's Department has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50840]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department currently has 67 contracts with consultants.

  For the majority of these contracts, professional indemnity insurance is not required.

  Where professional indemnity insurance is considered appropriate, eg for construction-related contracts, the nature and value of the contract will determine the level of insurance required, regardless of the size of the consultancy firm.

  As with previous administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of discussions that form part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  HEALTH
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the extra training of existing staff as identified in the Cancer Plan. [45769]

  Yvette Cooper
  Good progress is being made in extra training of NHS staff to help them extend their skills and offer increased support to people with cancer. A number of new initiatives are underway to develop existing NHS roles and to increase the number of training places available so that we meet the NHS Cancer Plan targets to increase the number of cancer specialists. New ways of working pilot projects have been set up in four breast screening centres and nine radiotherapy centres. These are testing and developing new ways to make the best use of the skills and abilities of staff. We are also developing a nationally accredited educational and training programme for cytology-screening.

  £6 million has been made available over the next three years to support over 10,000 nurses in primary care (one in four of all district nurses) to take part in new training and support in the general principles and practice of palliative care. The training programme will help district and community nurses to support people with cancer in remaining at home for as long as possible during their illness. £2.5 million has also been made available to train additional staff in endoscopy procedures. We will also be introducing new joint training across professions in communication skills.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the five-a-day programme under the Cancer Plan. [45771]

  Yvette Cooper
  Progress has been as follows:

  The National School Fruit Scheme——the first pilots were launched in November 2000 covering 33 schools, the spring pilots were subsequently launched in February 2001, and covered 500 schools across the country. £42 million from the New Opportunities Fund will fund the expansion of the scheme from this month, when another 1,899 schools, within the west Midlands region will be included in the scheme, and thereafter on a termly basis further regions will come on board.

  Five-a-day community initiatives— following the successful evaluation of the five-a-day pilot sites, a further £10 million has been provided from the New Opportunities Fund, to support more five-a-day community initiatives. The funds have been allocated to 66 areas, based on deprivation and need.

  These schemes are being reinforced by the other measures set out in the NHS Plan and Cancer Plan, including involvement of the food industry and other Government Departments, a communications programme, to increase awareness to the health benefits, and a means of monitoring the impact on the targeted population.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in recruiting the extra(a) cancer specialists, (b) nurses and (c) radiographers identified in the Cancer Plan. [45777]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows good progress in increasing the number of doctors and radiographers working in cancer services. This increase means the 1188W
  national health service is on track to hit the target set out in the Cancer Plan of nearly 1,000 extra cancer consultants by 2006. Separate figures are not available for cancer nurses, but the Department's Census shows that since the launch of the NHS Plan in September 1999 until September 2001 there was a net increase in nurses working in the NHS of 20,740. This increase will enable the recruitment of additional cancer-site specific nurse specialists, chemotherapy nurses, palliative care nurse specialists and additional nurses on cancer wards.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Nursing, Midwifery & Health Visiting staff and Scientific, Therapeutic & Technical staff employed in the specified areas of work in England as at 30 September each year.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (NCHS): nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and scientific, therapeutic and technical staff employed in the specified areas of work in England as at 30 September each year

  1999

  2001

  Consultants

  All cancer specialities

  3,360

  3,720

  Histopathology

  840

  920

  Clinical Radiology

  1,510

  1,640

  Clinical Oncology

  300

  330

  Medical Oncology

  110

  150

  Haematology

  510

  560

  Palliative Care

  90

  120

  Registrar Group

  All cancer specialities

  1,400

  1,670

  Histopathology

  200

  270

  Clinical Radiology

  600

  730

  Clinical Oncology

  170

  220

  Medical Oncology

  140

  140

  Haematology

  240

  230

  Palliative Care

  50

  80

  Radiography

  13,860

  14,690

  of which:

  Diagnostic

  12,300

  13,040

  Therapeutic

  1,560

  1,660

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  As in the NHS Cancer Plan, the figures for "all cancer specialities" covers the six specialities listed in the table.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Smoking
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department has spent on school education on the dangers of tobacco smoking in the last 12 months. [40521]

  Yvette Cooper
  In 2001–02, the sum of £250,000 has been spent on the development of a series of short films made by young people, with expert assistance. The Department has also commissioned a teaching pack for schools. The short films are designed to encourage discussion of smoking issues. The films have been shown on 'Trouble TV', a youth network with the highest youth profile in the UK. Trouble TV are showing the films free of charge, donating airtime worth approximately £800,000 to the project.

  The Healthy Schools programme, to which £7.7 million has been allocated this year, includes smoking prevention in a wide range of educational activity designed to improve children's health.

  We recognise that children and young people smoke for different reasons. There is no single cause. That is why we:
  have agreed an Enforcement Protocol with local authorities to strengthen the enforcement of the existing legislation on under-age sales of cigarettes; and
  support proof of age card schemes, which protect shopkeepers and children alike.
  will introduce tobacco advertising ban.

  These measures are supported by an overarching Tobacco Education Campaign launched in December 1999 aimed at persuading and helping smokers to give up and non-smokers, including children and young people not to start.

  Myodil
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the side effects of myodil. [43495]

  Mr. Hutton
  Myodil was first marketed in the 1940s and was granted a Product Licence of Right in 1972 after the introduction of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Myodil has not been marketed in the UK since 1987, when the manufacturers withdrew the product for commercial reasons. At the time of licensing, published case reports and spontaneous reports received by the company and regulatory agencies led to the inclusion of a warning about the occurrence of post-myelography arachnoiditis in the product information for Myodil.

  There have been over 50 publications in the scientific literature relating to Myodil, including human and animal studies. These have included research in to patients who had received myodil to evaluate the risk of arachnoiditis. In general these studies do show an increased risk of arachnoiditis in patients, especially if they had a history of previous spinal surgery or spinal stenosis. When Myodil was used in procedures away from the lumbar spine there did not appear to be an increased risk. A published animal study in 1982 comparing Myodil with another contrast agent also showed an increased risk of
  1174W
  arachnoiditis. Other studies have evaluated the use of Myodil for diagnostic procedures without looking specifically at safety or long term issues.

  Hospices
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of voluntary adult hospices will be eligible to receive grants from the New Opportunities Fund. [48720]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  £22 million is available under the New Opportunity Fund's Palliative Care programme to extend adult palliative care provision in areas of need. The fund aims to support the provision of home-based palliative care for adults with cancer and other life threatening or life limiting conditions. Hospice care is not eligible for funding through this programme though adult hospices are eligible to apply to provide home based care services providing they meet the programme eligibility criteria.

  Performance Measurement
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the usefulness of the quality adjusted life year as a measure; and if he will make a statement on how it is used by the NHS and his Department. [41715]

  Yvette Cooper
  Quality adjusted life years (QALY's) are commonly used in the national health service and elsewhere to compare different treatments which prolong life or improve the quality of life. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence uses QALY's as part of its range of tools to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments which it is appraising, prior to issuing its guidance to the NHS.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to respond to the long-term reduction in the mineral content of UK food. [46633]

  Yvette Cooper
  The evidence on whether there has been a reduction in the mineral content of foods generally is unclear. This is due to the differences over time in study methodologies and because mineral levels naturally occurring in foods can vary widely due to a range of factors.

  Experts advise that the overall balance of the diet is more important than the nutrient content of individual foods. It is for this reason that Government activity has concentrated on promoting the uptake of a healthy balanced diet.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether advice on the need to provide clear information about levels of uncertainty contained in Guideline 2000 applies to advice given by the Food Standards Agency to(a) the public and (b) the Government. [46634]

  Yvette Cooper
  Guidelines 2000 on "Scientific Advice and Policy Making" is aimed at all Government Departments. The Guidelines do apply to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is a non-ministerial Department.
  1175W
  As its guiding principles are "Putting the consumer first", "Being open and accessible" and "Being an independent voice", the FSA gives advice both to the public and to the Government. Policy issues are discussed at meetings of the FSA board which are open to the public, and the right for the Agency to publish its advice to Ministers (subject to specified conditions) is enshrined in section 19 of the Food Standards Act 1999.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide a specialist breast cancer centre of excellence in the north-west. [41940]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Calman Hine Report states that where appropriate, cancer services should be provided close to patients. Furthermore, the large volume of patients attending for assessment, diagnosis and treatment together with the current available evidence suggests that a single centre of excellence would be impractical. Therefore there are no plans currently in the north-west region to develop a single centre specialising in breast cancer treatment.

  All NHS providers of care for breast cancer patients have recently been appraised against the national standards contained in the "Manual of Cancer Standards". The three cancer networks within the north-west now have the results of those appraisals and are working with those providers to develop action plans where necessary and to prompt further developments as appropriate.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of the assessment of the drug Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia; and if he will make a statement. [41598]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently appraising Glivec for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia. As this appraisal is ongoing it is not possible at this time to give a cost of the assessment of Glivec.

  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of domiciliary oxygen has been prescribed by(a) GPs and (b) hospital respiratory specialists in the last 12 months. [44302]

  Mr. Hutton
  Domiciliary oxygen is only prescribed by general practitioners in England.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1160–64W, on stolen equipment, whether the computer equipment stolen from his Department was (a) new and unused and (b) used; and what the nature was of the data stored on such items in each case. [42649]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: Since May 1997 in total 170 items of departmental computer equipment have been stolen. Some 30 items were new (unused) equipment. The information stored generally
  1176W
  concerned policy and finance issues. No departmental information was stored on new items. All the information should have been protected by password only access. There is no indication that unauthorised access has been gained to any information.

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff were employed by his Department on secondment from non-governmental organisations in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45227]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of secondments

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  62

  2001–02

  49

  Total

  131

  Source:

  Department of Health interchange database 1 April to 31 March

  Dentists
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of female dentists on the(a) General Dental Council list and (b) health authority list practise in (i) the Government Dental Service full time and (ii) the Government Dental Practice Service for the NHS full time. [44409]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: Dentists on health authority lists are self-employed principal dentists. They do not have a standard working week and can vary their working hours.

  In March 2000 the Office of Manpower Economics (OME) carried out a survey into the hours of work and workload of principal dentists taking any part in the General Dental Service (GDS) in Great Britain.

  The survey found that 49 per cent. of female principals in the GDS considered themselves as carrying out dental work full-time. This would he equivalent to about 3,000 of the 6,122 female principals in the GDS in the UK at 31 December 2001. The survey found that about one quarter of full-time principals spent 100 per cent. of their time on GDS work. This would be equivalent to 780 female principals at December 2001.

  10,194 female dentists were on the General Dental Council (GDC) Register at January 2002. The 3,000 principals estimated to be doing dental work full-time are equivalent to 29 per cent. of the females on the GDC register. The 780 principals estimated to be doing dental work full-time and spending 100 per cent. of their time in the GDS are equivalent to 8 per cent. of the females on the GDC register.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by him and his 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. [43379]
  1177W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend for Shipley (Christopher Leslie) on 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 958W.

  Health Services (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of public transport links from(a) Colindale, (b) Burnt Oak and (c) West Hendon to (i) Barnet Hospital and (ii) Northwick Park East Hospital at (A) midnight, (B) 2 am and (C) 4 am; and if he will make a statement. [45827]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: It is the responsibility of local national health service bodies to ensure that services are accessible to members of the public.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioner surgeries who were using clinical computer systems in March 1999 were connected to the NHSnet by the end of 1999. [45719]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Approximately 29 per cent. of computerised general practitioner (GP) practices had NHSnet connections by the end of 1999.

  There are now currently 98 per cent. of GP practices connected to NHSnet. The outstanding GP practices are those for whom it is not currently cost-effective to provide NHSnet connections, for example those planning to merge, or where the practitioner is planning to retire. Remaining work is being carried forward as part of the wider strategic target to connect all national health service staff by March 2003.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [47138]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Ms Blears) on 13 March 2002, Official Report, column 1142W.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average response time for ambulances in each of the NHS trusts in Lancashire has been in each year since 1997; [48597]

  (2) how many ambulances have been available to each NHS trust in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [48598]

  Ms Blears
  Response times are not measured on the basis of the national health service trust to which the patient is conveyed. Neither are individual vehicles assigned to specific NHS trusts.
  1178W
  Information about ambulance responses to emergency calls is not available for individual NHS trusts in Lancashire. Information about Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS Trust and all other ambulance NHS trusts, about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times is contained in the Department's statistical bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000ߝ01". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library, and at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce yellow as the mandatory colour for ambulances. [47853]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department currently has no plans to introduce yellow as the mandatory colour for ambulances.

  Section 64 Funding
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations which receive funding under the section 64 General Scheme under the Health and Public Services Act 1968; and how much money each received in the last financial year. [47834]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of trusts are meeting New Deal hours targets for junior doctors. [47848]

  Mr. Hutton
  From figures produced at the September 2001 monitoring round, 24 per cent. of trusts were reported to be meeting the New Deal requirements. However, the 66 trusts involved are mostly small community trusts, in total employing only 6 per cent. of all doctors in training, and only 11 per cent. of all doctors meeting the New Deal. Overall, 64 per cent. of junior doctors in all types of trusts complied fully with the New Deal hours and rest requirements at 30 September 2001.

  Ward Housekeepers
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS trusts employ ward housekeepers. [47010]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan set a target for 50 per cent. of all hospitals to have housekeepers working on wards by 2004. Data compiled in March 2002 show that 41 per cent. of NHS trusts, excluding ambulance trusts, report that they are employing housekeepers within their hospitals on a number of their wards.

  Number

  Percentage

  Acute trusts with housekeepers

  73

  49

  Community trusts with housekeepers

  19

  27

  Mental health trusts with housekeepers

  10

  30

  Multiservices trusts with housekeepers

  19

  40

  Syphilis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to combat the rise in syphilis. [47873]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have funded a range of national and local interventions aimed at reducing the recent resurgence of syphilis in England. These include an awareness campaign for groups most at risk of syphilis, reviewing and updating of national enhanced laboratory surveillance for syphilis and improving outbreak management skills. We have also funded local interventions in London, Manchester and Brighton, which complement national initiatives, but are more targeted, appropriate and sensitive to local circumstances.

  In addition, the Sexual Health and HIV Strategy announced a new mass-media safer-sex campaign to improve awareness of sexually transmitted infections and how to avoid them. This is planned for the autumn.

  Drug Abuse
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS spending there was in 2001ߝ02 on serological screening and direct investigative testing for(a) HIV, (b) chlamydia and (c) related hepatitis due to drug abuse and usage. [47874]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information about NHS spending on serological screening and direct investigative testing for these infections is not collected centrally. The National Blood Service spent £1.575 million on screening the blood supply for HIV in 2001ߝ02 (and a further £7.138 million on screening for hepatitis B and hepatitis C).

  Patient Travelling Expenses
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the entitlement is of patients to claim expenses(a) when travelling between their home and hospital and (b) when travelling between their home and the point of departure for international treatment. [47838]

  Jacqui Smith
  Anyone on a low income, who needs to go to hospital for national health service treatment under the care of a consultant may claim full or partial reimbursement of travelling costs. Help is provided on an income-related basis through the hospital travel costs scheme which is part of the NHS low income scheme. If such a patient is travelling abroad for NHS treatment, they may also receive assistance with travelling costs from home to the point of international departure through the hospital travel costs scheme.

  Information on the above schemes is contained in leaflet HC11 'Are you entitled to help with health costs?' available either in the Library or www.doh.uk/nhscharges/hc11.htm.

  Vulnerable Adults
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the introduction of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list has been delayed until August 2002. [47831]

  Jacqui Smith
  It has been necessary to address complex issues on the healthcare aspects of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (PoVA) scheme. When PoVA is 1180W
  implemented in August, it is the intention that the recently established Criminal Records Bureau will extend its services to include checks against the PoVA list.

  Schizophrenia
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans the Government have to ensure that social workers, health workers and other people working with people suffering from schizophrenia receive better training and support; [47918]

  (2) what additional support and training intitiatives have been implemented since 1997 for social workers, health workers and other people working with people suffering from schizophrenia. [47923]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health does not set the curricula for pre-registration and undergraduate health professional education. This is a matter for the professional regulatory bodies to determine.

  It is the responsibility of local managers of NHS organisations locally to determine both the work force and the skill mix they require to provide local health services and whether or not to fund training or continuing professional development (CPD) programmes for their staff. We are taking steps to ensure that training for all NHS staff relates closely to national service frameworks.

  The key drivers, principles and opportunities for education, training and CPD in the NHS are set out in the recently issued "Working Together—Learning Together, a Framework for Lifelong Learning for the NHS". The strategy is focused on ensuring all staff are equipped with the skills and knowledge to work flexibly in support of patients and that they are supported to grow, develop and realise their potential and enhance their careers.

  On social care the Department has supported the new qualification for mental health staff, Certificate in Community Mental Health Care, that has been developed by the Mental Health Foundation and was launched in June 2000. This certificate is a vocational qualification aimed at practitioners in the mental health field who do not have a professional qualification relating to mental health. It is linked to NVQ Level 3.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures the Government have put in place since 1997 to improve the financial integration and communication among Government agencies to help ensure a better service for people suffering from schizophrenia and their carers; and what assessment he has made of improvements as a result; [47922]

  (2) what plans the Government have to improve the financial integration and communication among Government agencies to help ensure a better service for people suffering from schizophrenia and their carers. [47921]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's aim is to develop the whole range of mental health services so that all people can access the right services at the time when they need them. "The National Service Framework for Mental Health" (NSF), published in September 1999, has set the agenda for a comprehensive modernisation of mental health services.
  1181W
  The document "Effective Care Co-ordination in Mental Health Services", issued in October 1999, stressed the need for all agencies to work together to meet clients' needs for health and social care in an integrated way. This principle applies across all mental health services, not just those for people with schizophrenia, although the NSF and the related NHS Plan commitments do identify people with severe mental illness as a high priority for improved services.

  The new services referred to in the NHS Plan are in the early stages of implementation but it is envisaged that, by 2004, 100,000 people will benefit from crisis resolution services, 20,000 from assertive outreach services, 7,500 from early intervention services and 5,000 from mental health in-reach services in prisons. Many of the recipients of these services will have schizophrenia.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from cystic fibrosis in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear, (d) the North East and (e) the United Kingdom. [47639]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data is not available in the form requested. Data on finished consultant episodes (FCEs) for cystic fibrosis by health authority area of residence is shown in the table. As of 1 April 2002, Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority, Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority, Sunderland health authority and Northumberland health authority became the new Northumberland and Tyne & Wear health authority; and County Durham and Darlington health authority and Tees health authority became the new County Durham and Tees Valley health authority.

  Health authority area

  FCEs

  County Durham and Darlington

  139

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  71

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  148

  Northumberland

  56

  Sunderland

  51

  Tees

  122

  All areas of residence

  7,939

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the change in costs incurred by NHS trusts and health authorities as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy. [47566]

  Yvette Cooper
  The estimated cost of the climate change levy, paid by the national health service on national contracts, is almost £24.5 million inclusive of VAT.

  The effects of the climate change levy were designed to be offset by a reduction in the employers' national insurance contributions.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported cases there were of TB in(a) London and (b) West Sussex in each year since 1997. [47552]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The number of reported cases of human tuberculosis in the London region and to West Sussex health authority from 1997 to 2000 is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of tuberculosis notifications in London (by region)

  Number of tuberculosis notifications to West Sussex health authority

  1997

  2,411

  36

  1998

  2,444

  29

  1999

  2,493

  32

  2000

  2,834

  42

  20011

  2,917

  62

  1 Provisional

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the screening process for TB in children. [47537]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Children are not routinely screened for TB unless they are in a high-risk group such as a close contact of a new TB case.

  A tuberculin skin test is carried out before BCG immunisation. The test assesses the individuals sensitivity to tuberculin protein. Those with a positive test are not given BCG. Those with strongly positive tests are referred to a chest clinic for assessment of the need for further investigation and treatment.

  South West Yorkshire Mental Health Trust
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits of the establishment of a South West Yorkshire Mental Health Trust. [47619]

  Jacqui Smith
  I considered the application made to establish the South West Yorkshire Mental Health National Health Service Trust and approved it on the expectation that it will improve the quality of services provided to the people of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield districts.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place for involving people with mental health problems in decisions about their care and treatment. [47627]

  Jacqui Smith
  People of working age in contact with specialist mental health and social care services have their care and treatment co-ordinated under the care programme approach (CPA). The key principles of the CPA are applicable to all service users: they have a right to the thorough assessment of all their needs, the development of a care plan and a review of the care by the professionals involved in their care. It is envisaged that written care plans should be drawn up with the involvement of the
  1183W
  service users, and where appropriate their carer. Any refusal to accept treatment or medication should be noted in the care plan along with the service user's reasons for refusal. Service users should be given the opportunity to sign the agreed care plan and then receive a copy. Users or carers must also be able to ask for a review of care at any time and annual audit should ensure that reviews are carried out.

  Further, any local audit of quality will need to include the views of service users, who should be given the opportunity to contribute to the setting of quality standards and measures. The views of service users are an effective indicator of the quality of services and must be included in any audit of service delivery.

  Inquiries (Costs)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the(a) Ashworth high security hospital and (b) Victoria Climbié inquiries was. [48029]

  Jacqui Smith
  The direct cost to the Department of the inquiry into the personality disorder unit at Ashworth high security hospital was £2.3 million. This does not include the costs incurred by other statutory bodies involved in the inquiry, for example Ashworth hospital itself.

  The Victoria Climbié inquiry is ongoing and final costs will not be known until the end of the year.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money he estimates will be required by local authorities to meet the demand for residential care homes in the next 10 years. [47621]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Andrew Lidington) on 1 February 2002,Official Report, columns 626ߝ27W. Gross expenditure by councils in England on residential care for adults was £3,557 million in 2000ߝ01. Future expenditure will depend on changes in costs as well as in demand.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of elderly people in care are living in state-funded residential care homes. [47620]

  Jacqui Smith
  At 31 March 2001, there were 34,380 residents aged 65 and over supported by local authorities in local authority homes.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise the guidelines used by local authorities to determine charges for residential care in order to make the charges more reflective of the services provided. [48553]

  Jacqui Smith
  Government guidance on charges for residential accommodation is updated regularly. It is based on the principle that those people who are able to pay for their care should do so, while those who have limited income and assets contribute according to a fair financial assessment. Advice on the fees which local authorities should negotiate with care home owners is contained in "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care", an agreement between central government and the statutory and independent social and health care and housing sectors. The agreement states that fee setting 1184W
  should take into account the legitimate current and future costs faced by providers, the factors that affect these costs and the potential for improving performance and more effective ways of working.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 931W, on nursing staff, how many posts have been filled in April. [50501]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: Available information was published in a report, 'Modern Matrons in the NHS: a progress report', on 15 April 2002, showing that there are 1,895 nurses in modern matron posts across the NHS in England.

  Social Services
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority social services are in special measures. [47625]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are now 10 councils with social services responsibilities subject to special measures by the social services inspectorate: Coventry, Hackney., Haringey, Lambeth, Lancashire, Merton, Newham, North East Lincolnshire, Peterborough and Sheffield.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of social services staff posts are(a) filled by permanent staff, (b) filled by agency staff and (c) vacant. [47623]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information requested is not collected centrally.

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the components of the weighted capitation formula used to allocate resources to PCTs. [50794]

  Mr. Hutton
  We currently allocate funding to health authorities, and they allocate funding to primary care trusts (PCTs), on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority and PCTs fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of services for populations in equal need.

  The formula has the following components: hospital and community health services; HIV/AIDS; general practice infrastructure, i.e. practice staff wages, premises and equipment; general practice prescribing, i.e. drug costs of prescriptions dispensed not dispensing fees; and general medical services non-cash limited.

  In future the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts. This is subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Allocations will continue to be based on the principle of weighted capitation.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists are employed(a) by the

  1185W
  national health service and (b) by each NHS trust in England and Wales; what the equivalent figures were for the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [51058]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  The available information for England has been placed in the Library.

  Between 1997 and 2001 the number of speech and language therapists working in the NHS has increased by 810 (11 per cent.) and the number of training places available for students has increased by over a hundred since 1998. There will be further increases in the number of students entering training as a result of the NHS Plan commitment to provide 4,450 more training places each year for therapists and other health professionals by 2004. The increased investment in training, work to make the NHS a better employer and encourage return to practice will result in a continued increase in the number of speech therapists available to work in the NHS.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recruitment and retention of speech therapists [51059]

  Health authority

  Chairperson

  Chief executive

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  Ms Anthea Millett

  Mr. Mark Outhwaite

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  Mr. Ian White

  Ms Jane Herbert

  Birmingham and the Black Country HA

  Mrs. Elisabeth Buggins

  Mr. Geoff Scaife

  Cheshire and Merseyside HA

  Mrs. Judith Greensmith DL

  Mrs. Christine Hannah

  County Durham and Tees Valley HA

  Mr. Tony Waites

  Mr. Ken Jarrold

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  Mr. Charles Goody

  Mr. Mike Marchment

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  Mrs. Kath Reade

  Mr. James Pearce Butler

  Dorset and Somerset HA

  Mrs. Jane Barrie

  Mr. Ian Carruthers

  Essex HA

  Mr. Michael Brookes

  Mr. Terry Hanafin

  Greater Manchester HA

  Mr. Philip Smith

  Mr. Neil Goodwin

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  Mr. Peter Bingham

  Mr. Gareth Cruddace

  Kent and Medway HA

  Miss Kate Lampard

  Mrs. Candy Morris

  Leicester. Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  Sir Richard Tilt

  Mr. David Sissling

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  Mr. Stewart Francis

  Mr. Peter Houghton

  North Central London HA

  Ms Marcia Saunders

  Ms Christine Outram

  North East London HA

  Professor Elaine Murphy

  Ms Carolyn Regan

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  Professor David Johns CBE

  Mr. David Johnson

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear HA

  Mr. Peter Carr CBE DL

  Mr. David Flory

  North West London HA

  Ms Jane Kelly

  Professor Ron De Witt

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  Mr. Michael Brereton

  Professor Bernard Crump

  South East London HA

  Ms Linda Smith

  Mr. Duncan Selbie

  South West London HA

  Mr. James Cochrane

  Mrs. Julie Dent

  South West Peninsula HA

  Mrs. Judith Leverton

  Ms Thelma Holland

  South Yorkshire HA

  Mrs. Kathryn Riddle

  Mr. Mike Farrar

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  Mrs. Terese Hawksworth

  Mr. Simon Robbins

  Thames Valley HA

  Mrs. Jane Betts

  Mr. Nick Relph

  Trent HA

  Mr. Arthur Sandford

  Mr. Alan Burns

  West Yorkshire HA

  Sir Alistair Graham

  Mr. Richard Jeavons

  Cancer Plan
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent on hospices and palliative care(a) by the voluntary sector and (b) by Government in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [45779]

  (2) how much has been invested in hospices and palliative care under the Cancer Plan. [45780]

  Yvette Cooper
  Estimates by the National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services indicate total expenditure (1999ߝ2000) on adult palliative care
  1186W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of all staff, including speech and language therapists. These include an increase in pay, encouraging the national health service to become a better employer through the 'Improving Working Lives' and 'Positively Diverse' programmes, increasing training commissions, reducing student attrition, running national and local recruitment and return to practice campaigns. Further information on 'Improving Working Lives' is available at www.doh.gov.uk/iwl.

  Strategic Health Authority Personnel
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list names of the chairperson and chief executive of each strategic health authority in England. [50022]

  Mr. Hutton
  The names of the chairperson and chief executive of each of the new health authorities established on 1 April 2002 is shown in the table. Subject to legislation, it is expected that the new health authorities will be designated strategic health authorities from the autumn of 2002.

  services to be approximately £300 million, of which £170 million was provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the national health service.

  The NHS Cancer Plan set out our commitment to increase NHS investment in specialist palliative care (including hospices) by £50 million by 2004. This investment is intended to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what trend data are available to measure progress against the PSA target for the reduction in the death rate from heart disease and stroke and related illnesses among people aged under 75 years. [47302]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Data to monitor the Public Service Agreement target to reduce the death rate from heart disease and stroke end related illnesses (all circulatory diseases) among people aged under 75 years are obtained from mortality data published by the Office for National Statistics. Data are for England.
  1189W
  This PSA target is the target published in 2000 in the NHS Plan and previously in 1999 in the White Paper 'Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation' for a 40 per cent. reduction by 2010 against a baseline of the average age standardised mortality rate for the three years 1995ߝ97.

  The trend data are as follows:

  Three-year average age standardised mortality rate per 100,000 population

  Period

  1995ߝ97

  139.60

  1996ߝ98

  133.78

  1997ߝ99

  127.00

  1998ߝ2000

  120.53

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times for chemotherapy and radiotherapy are in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) other counties in England; and what steps are being taken to improve these waiting times. [40463]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for first definitive cancer treatment which will come into effect over the next few years. From December 2001 there is a one-month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one-month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for childrens testicular cancer and acute leukaemia. By 2005 there will be a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers. Data to monitor the December 2001 target are being collected and will be published in due course. Data on waiting times for treatment of other cancers will be collected as the targets are introduced.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers PCTs have to commission services from outside the NHS. [50804]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) have a legal duty and freedom to secure the provision of locally relevant, high quality services for the populations they serve. This may be from the public (including local authorities) or independent sector. Commissioning decisions must be made on the basis of health care needs of the local community and should take into account of both clinical and cost effectiveness. PCTs may also legally secure the provision of services from countries in the European Economic Area for their patients. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 367W.

  Acute Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of funding for acute hospital trusts will be(a) channelled through PCTs and (b) directly provided by his Department. [50795]

  Mr. Hutton
  Trusts receive the bulk of their funding via service agreements with Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).

  PCTs will receive 100 per cent. of unified allocations which covers hospital and community health services, general practice prescribing, general practice infrastructure, in order to commission services for their populations.

  Trusts also receive revenue funding from the Department for medical and non-medical staff and nurse education services and for research and development.

  In addition trusts can charge staff, visitors or patients for services provided, such as catering or provision of private patient facilities.

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

Gibraltar
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to the future of Gibraltar.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, talks under the Brussels process are continuing. Our aim remains a comprehensive agreement covering all outstanding issues, including co-operation and sovereignty, by the summer. We firmly believe that that represents the best way to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar.
I remind your Lordships that there will be no changes on the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is part reassuring and part disturbing. Is she aware of the recent petition to Her Majesty the Queen, delivered by the women of Gibraltar with more than 15,000 signatures, and the recent demonstrations in Gibraltar with more than 20,000 people expressing their overwhelming wish that the vast majority of the people of Gibraltar should remain British citizens, but also their concern about the agreement to which the Minister referred?
Will she indicate whether there is any danger that the making of such agreements might violate the Gibraltar Constitution Order which guaranteed that Her Majesty's Government would never enter into any arrangements against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar? In the event of such agreements being voted against by the people of Gibraltar, will those arrangements be dissolved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the petition to which the noble Baroness referred and of the demonstrations which took place in Gibraltar. Together with my colleague the Minister for Europe, I met trade union representatives and I am very aware of the strength of feeling about the issue.
However, I reiterate that there will be no change in the constitutional position without the express agreement of the people of Gibraltar. The noble Baroness seems to think that there is doubt about that,
1068
so perhaps I may remind her of what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 20th March:
"There can and will be no change to the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar".
Mr Caruana, the Chief Minister, said in his New Year message:
"Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made it clear in parliamentary Statements that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar against our wishes".
He went on to say very tellingly:
"I believe that assurance is totally reliable".
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that if the proposed deal is rejected in a referendum by the people of Gibraltar, it will be taken off the table?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the Foreign Secretary stated, if the proposals emerging from the Brussels process are not accepted, they cannot evaporate—we cannot deny that they represent this Government's opinion on the best way forward. What we can say categorically is that if they are rejected by the people of Gibraltar, they cannot be implemented. They remain simply matters of agreement on a possible way forward between ourselves and the Spanish Government, but they cannot be implemented without the express agreement of the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, there is some ambiguity in what the Minister is saying. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that if the people of Gibraltar turn the deal down—as, of course, they will—the whole matter lapses. However, the Minister appears to be saying no, it will continue and somehow go on the back-burner and leave Gibraltar in a constant situation of doubt and unsettlement. Which is it: is the Foreign Secretary right or is the Minister right?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, both the Foreign Secretary and I are right because to the best of my knowledge I have reiterated the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary. I believe that the noble Lord will find that that is consistent with what my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe said in dealing with these questions in another place earlier this week. It is clear that if the proposals are rejected by the people of Gibraltar, they cannot be implemented.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the sentiment expressed wisely in this House when the subject of Gibraltar last arose at Question Time: that for there to be a sensible conclusion on Gibraltar, there must be solid, strong evidence of good faith and good will on the part of the Spanish Government? That was one month ago. Has there been any such solid evidence in the time that has elapsed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that there has to a certain extent. I am sure that

1069
many examples will be claimed of misunderstandings and difficulties, but one of the best examples of progress has been the issue surrounding border delays. There have been considerable improvements in the delays which ranged from 30 to 90 minutes for people trying to enter Gibraltar. Those delays have been cut considerably to an average of 10 minutes. That is a result of putting in two channels in order to enter Gibraltar. I fully realise that others will adduce other arguments, but that is a piece of good evidence.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords—
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, may we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton?
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, recognising that the Government believe that Gibraltar is a problem to be solved rather than a redoubt to be defended, would not the Minister believe that the idea of a joint sovereignty between Britain and Spain a very positive suggestion for the future?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the fact that there is an issue to be solved around Gibraltar has been recognised not only by Her Majesty's Government but also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, and by others in the previous administration who worked to try to achieve a reasonable resolution of the issue.
I do not want to anticipate what will emerge from the discussions which my right honourable friends are having with their Spanish counterparts, but obviously the issue of joint sovereignty is likely to be one that has taken up a good deal of time in discussion. Whether it emerges in the final proposals, we shall have to wait and see.
Lord Radice: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government are trying to reach a sensible agreement with Spain that is based on the long-term interests of the Gibraltarians? As my noble friend said, if an agreement is reached, it will be put to the Gibraltarians in a referendum. That being so, is not the sensible course for parliamentarians not to make a hasty judgment but to take a balanced long-term view on what the agreement produces?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend has been most sensible, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, when we previously discussed the matter. The noble and learned Lord from the other side of the House, and with a great deal of experience, made a similar point. The fact is that if one is putting proposals in a referendum, common sense dictates that they must be sufficiently attractive to those whom one is asking to vote upon them in order for one to have any chance of the issue going forward.
1070
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, says, "No, they are all going to disagree before we even start". I believe that that is a sad and negative view to take at this stage.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Swinfen: My Lords
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are into the ninth minute and it is not fair to other noble Lords who have tabled Questions.

Road Casualties
3.8 p.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they are proposing to reduce road deaths and accidents as outlined in the 10-year transport plan.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the 10-year plan for transport referred to the Government's target to reduce road deaths and serious injuries in Britain by 40 per cent by 2010. Details of the wide range of measures that will deliver that and our other road safety targets are set out in the strategy document, Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone, which was published in March 2000.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In view of the Government's reluctance to take action against people who use mobile phones, which we discussed on Monday, and the considerable tightening of the criteria of the siting of speed cameras, which makes it most difficult to erect them on new sites—indeed, many of the existing cameras are to be put into roadside storage—have they any chance of meeting the steep reductions in casualties which they anticipate?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, we have. We are quietly positive about the progress so far. First, after two years of a 10-year programme, we are already one-third of the way towards achieving the death and serious injury target. Already there has been a 13 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads as compared with when the programme began. Secondly, with regard to child deaths and serious injuries, we are half way to meeting that target after two years. That has already produced a reduction of 24 per cent as compared with the base figures.
In no way are we complacent about these statistics. As the House well knows, every one of those deaths and serious injuries represents a tragedy, but there are no grounds for believing that we are off course on this. If anything, it is the reverse. That is a compliment to the British public, which has made a major contribution to the achievement of this improvement.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend help me with regard to a question about human nature?

1071
From his earlier response, it seems that drivers recognise that if they do not see a bright red—a bright yellow—camera with warning signs, then they can speed with impunity. Given the proven link between higher speed driving and serious accidents, how will that reduce the number of accidents over the next 10 years?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I regret to say that drivers will never see a bright red camera because they are to be painted yellow. However, perhaps that is beside the point. The purpose of speed cameras, which so far are being assessed in 15 pilot programmes which are to he further extended, is not to boost the Revenue by catching a great many people, but rather to help shift the behaviour of drivers. The issue is very serious. It does not concern trying to criminalise people, but trying to put across to the public that speed kills. Around 70 per cent of people are killed if they are hit by a car travelling at 35 miles per hour whereas if they are hit by a car travelling at 25 miles an hour, the percentage death rate is vastly lower. Thus it matters massively to reduce speed.
The extensive speed camera programme is already showing evidence that it is significantly reducing deaths and serious injuries wherever the cameras are located—by almost 50 per cent in the pilot areas.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, to a certain extent, a factor which adds to the number of road deaths and accidents is the increasing tendency of push cyclists to ignore anything to do with the Highway Code? They ride on pavements and ride across red lights with impunity.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall be careful of what I say about cyclists after my comments earlier in the week. Certainly most of us have noticed that there does seem to be some difference in the behaviour of cyclists; that is, not all cyclists. I do not think that anyone in this House is anti-cyclist. We want to see more people using bicycles rather than fewer. However, it would be good if cyclists used the road rather than the pavement and it would be good if they stopped at traffic lights. Clearly, if they do not, they have committed offences and they can he prosecuted.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that within the Metropolitan Police district during 2001, the number of people killed on the roads in the district increased by 32 per cent over the previous year? In only slightly in excess of that 12-month period, the number of traffic officers on the road in the Metropolitan Police district had fallen by around 50 per cent. Would my noble friend like to hazard a guess as to whether there might be any correlation between the two?
Lord Fain: My Lords, I am not aware of either of those statistics. However, they are important and I shall certainly look at them after today's Question Time. It is possible that there is a connection, but I should have thought it unlikely. In a sense, the number
1072
of traffic officers does not have a particularly powerful effect on deterring dangerous situations. The issue concerns much more driver behaviour in a whole variety of circumstances. While one would expect the presence of more traffic police on the roads, like the presence of more traffic cameras, to have some effect, the fundamental issue is the one we talked about previously. Each of us, including myself, must take responsibility for our own behaviour on the roads. We must recognise that we can kill people if we do not observe the highest standards of behaviour. I do not think that any government have yet put that point over clearly to the public; namely, that we have to shift our own behaviour. It is not for someone else.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I found the noble Lord's response to the reduced number of traffic police officers on the road rather strange. Has he never been driving on a motorway when a police car has appeared? He would have noticed that everyone reduces their speed. When the noble Lord referred to cyclists being caught by the police, the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is quite apparent: there are no traffic police officers about to catch those wretched cyclists who go over red lights and ride on the pavements. Could the noble Lord please look seriously at the situation with regard to the traffic police force?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, the Government will look at it. We are committed to trying to make a very significant improvement in road safety standards. Clearly the police have a major part to play in that. However, I think that we are being assisted by the new technology. Speed cameras and traffic light cameras provide a more effective way of detecting offences than using highly skilled police resources, because they do not require the same amount of police time. Evidence so far from their use has been extremely positive. Nevertheless, I shall take up the suggestion put by the noble Countess.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister justify his claim of a 25 per cent reduction in road accidents when the numbers supplied by the Library to my noble friend show that in 1997, those killed and seriously injured numbered 46,500? The number for 2001 was 41,500. That represents a fall of only 5,000 out of 46,000, which translates to a reduction of 11 per cent.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the detailed figures are no secret. They are published every quarter on the website. I have a copy of the latest set which I shall be happy to share with the noble Baroness after Question Time. In essence, the number of deaths and serious injuries recorded in 2000 was 41,564, which is 13 per cent lower than the base year; namely, the average of the years 1994–98, the latter of which was the latest year on which there were any statistics before the figures came into effect.

1073
Noble Lords may laugh; it is good to laugh. However, I do not think that we could achieve a fairer or more sensible base. The progress from that base—for which the Government do not take credit; that goes to the public—is significant. We have a long way further to go on this and by no means is this the position at which we want to remain.

Cancer Services
3.17 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether National Health Service cancer units are receiving the necessary resources to improve services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the cancer plan is being backed by a large increase in funding for cancer services. Last year, funding rose by £280 million. This year it will be over £400 million.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply, but the recent report of the Science and Technology Committee demonstrates that only one-eighth of the £280 million allocated to cancer services has actually been received by those cancer services. The committee stated:
"We consider it dissembling to allocate funding to cancer care with great publicity without taking even the simplest precaution to ensure that it reaches the intended areas".
Do the Chancellor's Statement yesterday and the Secretary of State's Statement today demonstrate that the Government will now move from hypothecation and earmarking to trying to ensure that the money is spent in the proper places?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what my right honourable friend the Chancellor made clear in his Statement yesterday is our fundamental support for the principle of the NHS and the provision of resources to support it over many years to come. With regard to the question of hypothecation and allocations, the noble Lord will know that the Government regard cancer services as a priority. That is why we have identified the sums of money that we believe should be spent by the National Health Service. Of course we will be responding to the report of the Select Committee in the other place in due course. However, the targets and the outcomes that have been set for the delivery of the cancer plan are making encouraging progress. Of course we will monitor the spending of resources and in the future we shall discuss those matters with strategic health authorities. However, I am satisfied that good progress is being made.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious shortage of
1074
radiographers and radiologists, who are vital for the quick and efficient diagnosis of the disease? Will he do something about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to the work undertaken by radiotherapy departments. Staffing levels of therapy radiographers have increased by more than 9 per cent since 1997. We wish to continue to make progress in that area.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, while yesterday's announcements were enormously welcome in terms of both funding and accountability for the health service, my noble friend will be aware that there have been grave concerns about the ineffective ring-fencing of moneys under the cancer plan for last year. I declare an interest, of which the House is aware, as chairman of Cancer Research UK. Can my noble friend give some reassurance on both the monitoring of spending this year in order that this year's allocation will not be subject to such widespread doubt, and, equally, on the publication of the figures for last year's spending? If, as is feared, there has been a grave shortfall, will he give an undertaking that that will be made good?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I doubt very much whether any hard evidence is available at the moment to suggest a grave shortfall. We shall monitor the end-of-year figures. I have already given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to discuss those with strategic health authorities because clearly the matter will need to be taken forward in discussions about future allocations. I reiterate that considerable progress is being made in the area of cancer services through an increase in staff numbers and equipment, and in delivery on the two-week wait target. I am satisfied that the NHS is doing a great deal to ensure that we deliver on the cancer plan targets.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I recently visited a patient in the intensive care unit of one of the best London teaching hospitals, for which I have nothing but praise. That hospital had no working morphine pump. Does the Minister agree that when money becomes available it must be used for purposes such as that—paying debts and mending holes in the roof—before it improves the services? The job is similar to feeding a famine victim—it cannot be done rapidly. Will he try to ensure that the press remembers that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that we cannot turn around overnight a service such as the NHS. That is why we need the step change approach taken by the Government and the levels of investment that we have announced. As to equipment, I shall certainly look into the specific matter raised by the noble Earl. I agree that it is vital to get more equipment into cancer services. We are doing so. We also need to ensure that the fabric of the buildings in which the equipment is provided is put right.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the Christie Hospital in Manchester we

1075
now have the leading radiotherapy research centre in the world? We have recently installed the latest equipment available anywhere in the world. We paid for it entirely through funds raised locally, without any government resources—and no one was taxed a penny.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that.

Smallpox Vaccine Contract
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Noakesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the contract awarded to PowderJect Pharmaceuticals to supply smallpox vaccine was subject to full competitive tendering.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the contract awarded to PowderJect Pharmaceuticals was not subject to full competitive tendering. As this procurement concerns national security, it falls outside the usual rules governing competitive tendering.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree with his noble friend Lord Haskins, who is in his place, that there was no reason for not having a fully open and transparent bidding process? Will he comment on the Prime Minister's statement in another place yesterday that,
"many companies were asked to tender".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/02; col. 567.]?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very often agree with my noble friend and pay tribute to the work that he has undertaken in the area of better regulation, but I do not agree with the remarks reported to have been made in the media. The situation is this. As smallpox has been eradicated since the 1970s, its reintroduction is likely to occur only as a result of terrorist activity. This raises issues of national security and our preparedness to deal with such an attack is not a matter to be put in the public domain. In seeking to establish which vaccine manufacturing companies might be able to provide new vaccine to meet our requirements, we therefore took the decision that purchase of the new vaccine would fall outside the usual open competitive tendering process. A number of companies were approached and the decision was eventually made to give the contract to the company that best met the specifications.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the Minister read today's Guardian?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I prefer to avoid reading the Guardian if I can.
Lord Criickhowell: My Lords, what were the national security considerations that made possible a full competitive tendering process in the United States hut not in this country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what the US Government decide to do is a matter for themselves.
1076
This Government decided that these were important issues of national security. That is why we took the decision that we did. The procedure undertaken was checked and cleared by the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health. I am wholly satisfied that everything was in order.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Marlesford: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, noble Lords cannot ask more than one question.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister remember signing a Written Answer to me on 11th March? I asked what plans the Government had to increase the quantity of anti-smallpox vaccine held in the United Kingdom. His answer was that,
"the United Kingdom policy on future smallpox vaccine manufacturing is currently under review".—[Official Report, 11/ 3/02; col. WA 56.]
When he signed that Answer, was he personally aware that a contract had been, or was about to be, placed? If so, does he regard that Answer as being frank with Parliament?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. My understanding is that work was undertaken by the department over a considerable period of time to enable a decision to be made. A decision was made and signed off on 11th March. It is our intention and policy to ensure that we are as open as possible within the constraints of national security.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, one of the Government's arguments was that they needed to operate with speed and conclude the matter now. Does the Minister accept that the US was able to put the contract out to competitive tender and to conclude it within six weeks? Does he further accept the point made by Professor Oxford of Bart's and the Royal London that there is no medical reason to opt for the vaccine strain chosen by the UK Government rather than the one more readily available and chosen by the US Government? Following Ecclestone et al, does not the Minister wish that his department had put the matter out to competitive tender so that the Government could have avoided the claims of cronyism which have surrounded this controversy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. The Government have acted quite properly throughout this process. As to the question of which strain should be used, the decision was taken to go for a particular strain in this country for two reasons. A two-pronged approach was thought advisable. With the US using a different strain, if difficulties arose with the production of either strain the other could act as a joint fall-back mechanism. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation endorsed the view that there was no reason to opt for the strain chosen by the US as opposed to the strain chosen by the UK

1077
Government. There is also strong epidemiological evidence of efficacy in that smallpox has been challenged in the field more often with the strain chosen by the UK Government, and there is more documentation to support its use.
Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Minister answer the Question posed by my noble friend Lady Noakes? Was the Prime Minister correct to say yesterday in another place that,
"many companies were asked to tender"—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/02: col. 567.]?
Was the Prime Minister's official spokesman correct to state to journalists on 17th April that there was a tendering process?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the department consulted widely with industry about its capacity and ability to deliver supplies quickly in a way that met our requirements to increase national supplies of vaccine. My understanding is that five companies were approached to see whether they could meet the specifications. It is very clear indeed that a number of companies were given the opportunity to put forward their case for being chosen. I have stated that the Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health was asked to give advice as to whether the proper procedure had been adopted. His advice was that it had.

Chemical Weapons
3.31 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
What Her Majesty's Government's position will be at the special meeting of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to be held at The Hague on 21st April, when it is anticipated that the United States will seek to unseat its long-standing—and highly effective—director-general, Sr Jose Bustani.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm that a special conference of states parties to the chemical weapons convention will convene in The Hague on 21st April 2002 at the request of the United States to consider the appointment of the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Her Majesty's Government are still finalising their position. However, your Lordships should know that, at the meeting of the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on 22nd March, the United Kingdom supported a vote of no confidence in the director-general.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does she agree that the real American objection to Sr Bustani is not to his failings, but to his very success? For example, he has increased the number of signatories to the chemical weapons
1078
convention from 87 to 140 in the past five years. Such is his success and his reputation for impartiality—quite apart from asking searching questions about the United States' own chemical weapons—that it is thought that he might be able to persuade Iraq to join and to adhere to the chemical weapons convention, rather than to allow the return of UNMOVIC, which Iraq considers to be US dominated. If that were the case, would it not remove a major pretext for US military intervention in Iraq, which appears to be the policy of the hawks in the United States Administration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with a great deal of my noble friend's conjecture. The director-general did indeed have some successes in the work that he undertook during his first period of office in establishing the OPCW and in establishing a world-wide verification regime. But, sadly, the organisation encountered financial difficulties early in 2001, for which the director-general must take a measure of responsibility. I cannot agree with the supposition that his period of office has been one of great success when those financial problems led, last year, to his not being able to maintain the appropriate level of inspections worldwide of military and commercial sites. As I understand it, towards the end of last year, the number of inspections fell by almost 50 per cent of the normal annual schedule. We made representations to the director-general on several occasions last year about our concerns at the decline in verification activity. I believe that that is what lies at the heart of the current difficulty.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is grossly unfair to serve these accusations in public on the director-general, when he has been given no formal opportunity to rebut them, either in the conference of states parties or in the executive council? Is it not contrary to natural justice that he should be charged in this public manner without being given an adequate opportunity to rebut the charges? Does the Minister agree that, if the US is allowed to intimidate and coerce other states, as it has done, into dismissing an international civil servant, it will undermine the independence of all international institutions? Do not the Government see a pattern developing with the attempts by the US Administration, not only against the director-general of the OPCW but also to undermine Mr Hans Blix, the head of UNMOVIC? Does the Minister further agree that, if this procedure continues, no international institution will be able to claim full independence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I hope that the noble Lord is not bracketing me in what he describes as unfairness. When I am asked a Question in this House, I must give the Answer that I believe is accurate and which accurately reflects the position of Her Majesty's Government.
I indicated to the House that the Government are still finalising their position. The reason is that the Secretary of State has not come to a final decision.

1079
However. I felt it right in the circumstances to indicate to your Lordships how we had voted at the executive council. To have done anything else would have been misleading. I felt it right to give your Lordships some of the reasons for doing so, as I was asked to do. Her Majesty's Government were not alone with the United States in reaching that decision on a vote of no confidence during the executive meeting in March. Seventeen countries out of the 40 represented voted for a motion of no confidence; 18 abstained; and five opposed the motion of no confidence. That is a fairly telling list of votes.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would perhaps be more profitable for the House to consider the British reasons for not accepting this gentleman and for voting for a motion of no confidence in him, rather than over-speculating as to the motivation of the United States in this matter? Will my noble friend reiterate and clarify the reasons why the British Government could not support him?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated, the organisation encountered some financial difficulties early last year. As I understand it from the briefings that I have received, those difficulties were rooted in structural problems within the organisation and in the fact that some states parties had not paid their contributions on time; and there was a degree of mismanagement in the organisation. We and other states parties wanted to get to the bottom of the problem. As I have indicated, we were concerned about the verification procedures and about maintaining the level of verification, both military and commercial. We asked the director-general to cooperate with an effort to get to the bottom of the problems, and I understand that he did not co-operate in the way that we would have expected.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that both the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government made their contributions to the organisation on time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall have to check on that point. The United Kingdom Government have a very good record in these matters, and I shall check on the further matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is often the custom in this House for reference to be made to briefings. Will the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that members of the Government do not invariably rely on briefings, but on what they themselves think?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hate to disabuse the noble Lord, but I will be frank with him and tell him that I was not aware of the difficulty until I saw the Private Notice Question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I would not expect to be aware of the difficulty because it does not lie within my specific area of responsibility. However, my right
1080
honourable friend the Secretary of Slate is aware, as is my honourable friend Mr Bradshaw. They have frontline responsibilities for the matters, but I argue for them in your Lordships' House. I would not wish any noble Lord to be under any illusion at all: I have relied on official briefings in giving my answer to your Lordships.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend spoke of the organisation's financial difficulty in fulfilling its inspection tasks. Is she aware that the United States put a cap on its funding, but was then one of the nations that failed to pay its dues?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I was not aware of the United States' position in that respect; nor am I aware of the funding coming forward from any other individual country. However, I can say that the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy. France and the United Kingdom together provide 70 per cent of the organisation's funding. I have not been able to answer in detail the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, or that put by my noble friend. I shall, if I may, take away those points, write to the noble Baroness and my noble friend, and place a copy of the answer in the Library of the House.

NHS Plan
3.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a Statement on the next steps on reform and investment in health and social services. I am today laying before Parliament a Command Paper setting out these next steps, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
"The NHS Plan we published in July 2000 set out a 10-year programme to rebuild and renew the health service in our country. It diagnosed the NHS problem in this way: the principles of the NHS are right—on this side of the House we believe in in NHS free at the point of use, funded from general taxation, based on need not ability to pay. But the NHS today is the product of decades of under-investment. It is also the product of a failure to reform. Staff—the greatest asset that the health service has—work flat out in a system which still too much resembles the 1940s.
"The NHS Plan set out a 10-year programme of investment and reform: clear national standards, more devolution of resources, greater flexibility for staff and more choice for patients. With the economy stabilised and the public finances sorted out, the 2000 spending review was able to give the NHS the largest-ever real-terms increases in resources.

1081
"Two years later, anyone who says there are no problems in the NHS have clearly got it wrong, but those who say there is no progress have also got it wrong. Yes, there is a long way to go; it is a 10-year plan. But those who point to an NHS black hole should in fact be pointing to dozens more hospitals, hundreds more beds, thousands more doctors, tens of thousands more nurses, and a better health service as a result.
"In July 2000, we acknowledged that three years' sustained funding was not enough. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had already said in January 2000 that we needed to match EU levels of spending. Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put NHS finances on a sustainable footing, not for three years but for five. Years of failure in the past to invest are now being replaced with years of investment for the future.
"Today, I can tell the House what this investment will give us: 35,000 more nurses, 15,000 more doctors, 40 new hospitals, 500 primary care centres. As investment grows, so the capacity of the NHS will grow.
"Investment in the NHS must be accompanied by changes in the way the NHS works. Ours is not an unconditional offer. Without the reforms we will not get the best use of the money for the taxpayer and we will not get the improvements in service for the patient. Where we have had the courage to invest, we must now have the courage to reform. Our formula is simple: investment plus reform equals results.
"So, first, building on the national standards already in the NHS Plan, I can tell the House today that we will strengthen the system of inspection and audit to improve accountability to patients and the public. Where more resources are going in, people have the right to know what they are getting out. We will establish a new commission for healthcare audit and inspection to inspect and raise standards in healthcare across our country. But we are clear: we need higher standards in NHS hospitals, and there must be higher standards in private hospitals, too. The commission will assess the performance of every part of the NHS so that the public will see that every extra pound in the NHS buys something better for patients, gets something more for taxpayers.
"Similar arrangements will be made for social care. We will discuss the details of both with the National Assembly for Wales.
"The new commission will be independent both of the NHS and of Government and will be more independent than the current fragmented system. It will report annually to Parliament, not to Ministers, on the state of the NHS, the performance of the NHS, and the use to which NHS resources have been put. The Government should not be judge and jury on the NHS. The commission will be the judge, the British people the jury.
1082
"Secondly, we can now go further in extending devolution in the NHS, building on what has been achieved to date. The health service should not and cannot be run from Whitehall. The NHS is delivered in hundreds of different communities by over I million staff. The relationships are between the local patient and the local doctor, and the local community and the local hospital. But these relationships will not work properly until central control is replaced by local accountability. After 50 years, the time has come when the sound of bedpans being dropped in Tredegar should only reverberate in Tredegar.
"With national standards and inspection in place, power, resources and responsibilities now must move to the NHS frontline. When we came to office, GPs controlled just 15 per cent of the total NHS budget. Today, primary care trusts—with GPs and nurses in the lead—already control half of the budget. Within just two years, they will control three-quarters. Just as the new commission will report nationally, so PCTs will need to report locally on how NHS resources have been spent.
"The best primary care trusts, just like the best NHS hospitals, should enjoy greater freedoms and more rewards. We will establish new foundation hospitals and foundation primary care trusts—fully part of the NHS, but with more freedoms than they have now. They will have more powers, including a right to borrow, to expand their services for patients.
"Thirdly, further to the new powers we have given to nurses and others, we will radically alter the way staff work and introduce a new system of financial incentives across the whole health service. We will put in place new contracts of employment—not just for nurses and other staff, but for GPs and, yes, for hospital consultants too. Our objective is to liberate the potential of all members of staff, reward those most who do most in the NHS, and, crucially, to improve productivity across the whole health service.
"New incentives for individual members of staff will be matched with a new system of financial incentives on NHS organisations. The hospitals that can treat more patients will earn more money. Traditional incentives work in the opposite direction. Indeed, it is often the poorest performers who get the most financial help.
"We will therefore introduce a new system for money to flow around the health service, ending perverse incentives, paying hospitals by results. The incentive will be to treat more NHS patients more quickly and to higher standards.
"Fourthly, patient choice will drive this system. Starting with those with the most serious clinical conditions, patients will have a greater choice over when they are treated and where they are treated. From this summer, patients who have been waiting six months for a heart operation will be able to choose a hospital—whether it is public or private—which has capacity to offer quicker treatment.

1083
"This level of investment means that we can grow NHS capacity as fast as it is possible. I can also say today that it is our intention to draw into this country additional overseas capacity so that we can further expand NHS services to NHS patients.
"As capacity expands, so choice can grow. Within three years, all patients, with their GPs, will be able to hook hospital appointments at a time and a place that is convenient to themselves. The reforms we are making will mark an irreversible shift from the 1940s take-it-or-leave-it, top down service. Hospitals will no longer choose patients; patients will choose hospitals.
"Reductions in waiting times to get into hospital must be matched by cuts in waiting times to get out. Older people are the generation who built the NHS and who have supported it all their lives. This generation owes to that generation a guarantee of dignity and security in old age. Bed blocking denies both.
"In recent months the extra resources we have made have reduced the number of elderly patients whose discharge from hospital has been delayed. I am grateful for the help local councils have given us in addressing this problem. But here the long-term solution is not just investment; it is reform.
"So I can tell the House today that in order to bridge the gap between health and social care we intend, as they have done in Sweden and elsewhere, to legislate to give local councils responsibility from their 6 per cent extra real terms resources for the costs of beds needlessly blocked in hospitals. Councils will need to use these resources to ensure that older people are able to leave hospital when their treatment is completed.
"If councils reduce the current level of bed blocking so that older people are able to leave hospital safely when they are well, they will have freedom to use these resources to invest in extra services. If bed blocking goes up, councils will incur the costs of keeping older people in hospital unnecessarily. There will be similar incentives to prevent hospitals seeking to discharge patients prematurely. In this way we will provide local councils with the investment and the incentives to improve care for older people.
"Taken together the NHS Plan and the next steps announced today amount to the most radical and fundamental reform programme inside the NHS since 1948. I want to pay tribute to the staff in the NHS, not just the nurses, doctors and consultants, but all the staff—the different medical disciplines, the ancillary staff, the secretaries, receptionists, porters and cleaners. They represent the very best of British public service and I believe that as a nation and as a Parliament we should be proud of the work they do. I know and understand the enormous pressure they are under as the NHS makes these changes. But I know, too, that they share this basic goal: to rebuild the NHS around the needs of its patients.
1084
"This programme of investment and reform will mean each year, every year, waiting times will fall. Last year the maximum wait for a hospital operation was 18 months. Today it is 15 months. By this time next year it will fall to 12 months. By 2005 it will be six months. And by 2008 it will have been reduced to three months. By then the average waiting time for a hospital operation will he just six weeks. No longer will people have to face the dilemma of having to wait for treatment or having to pay for treatment.
"As a party and a government we are committed to providing opportunities to all in our society and not just some. So there will be more effort to prevent ill health as well as treating it—25,000 lives a year saved by the investment we cart now make in preventing and treating heart disease alone.
"The balance of services will shift with more patients seen in primary and community settings, not just in hospitals. Social services will have resources to extend by one-third rehabilitation care for older people. Councils will be able to increase fees to stabilise the care home market and secure more care home beds. And more investment will mean more old people with the choice of care in their own homes rather than simply in care homes. Yesterday's Budget and today's NHIS reforms mean that the NHS Plan will be delivered.
"I want to make two further points, however. Ii is a 10-year plan, as we said in July 2000. By the time of the next election, there will be real and significant improvements. But this cannot happen overnight. It takes seven years at least to train a doctor and up to 15 years to train a consultant. Expectations will be high but they also need to be reasonable and people need to understand that a 10-year plan is exactly what it says: a plan that will take time to be delivered in full. But at least now public and patients will be able to see improvements made stage by stage and independently of government, audited, monitored and inspected.
"Secondly, on one thing there is a consensus. Britain needs to spend more on healthcare. There is no mystery why in Germany there are not waiting lists. They have spent more and have done so for years.
"We can debate endlessly the systems of finance. But one thing is beyond debate: the level of finance had to be raised. And once that is accepted, the choice is not between a system funded out of general taxation, that results in higher national insurance, and some other system that comes for free. Importing the German system of social insurance would cost the equivalent of an extra £1,000 per worker per year, the French system £1,500 per worker per year.
"We on this side of the House believe in the NHS in our heads as well as our hearts. We believe it to be the best and fairest system of providling true health insurance because it is based on the scale of the person's need not the size of their wallet. It is the best insurance policy in the world.

1085
"It is now for those who want to see the NHS not reformed but abandoned, who routinely call it Stalinist, to say honestly what their alternative is, what it would cost and how families and pensioners would pay for it.
"Yesterday we made a choice and we ask the British people to make the same choice. We are proud of our NHS and the people working in it. We are giving it the money it deserves. We are making the changes it needs. Investment plus reform equals results. We will be happy to be judged upon them".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is self-evidently of great significance for the NHS as well as for taxpayers.
The full implications of this announcement will emerge only over the next few days and weeks. The Statement is long on generalised aspirations and rather short on detail. However, several things are clear. The Government have embarked on a route which is make or break. Not only have they shut off any debate about moving away from a monopoly funding stream for healthcare, and thus distanced the UK from almost every other developed country, they have also staked everything on substantial tax increases, which they told us at the election they would not impose. The macro-economic effects of these plans are perhaps a matter for another occasion, although they are already exciting concern from respected economic commentators.
The health effects, on the other hand—the health gains, the improvements in services, the improvements in productivity—are the things on which the Government will eventually be judged. If they are not to be perceived as pouring ever increasing amounts of money into a black hole, then it is necessary for them to show that the reforms to the system, which the Statement makes so much of, really have created the kind of health service that is capable of deploying the new money efficiently and effectively for patients.
On the real extent of these much trumpeted reforms, I entertain considerable doubts. One of the most striking passages in the Statement was that relating to greater freedoms being conferred at the NHS front line. The Minister spoke of foundation hospitals and foundation PCTs. Can he say what exactly these organisations will be? What legal form will they have? Who will appoint their board members? What constraints and what freedoms will they operate under? I am all for greater autonomy, but what will it actually amount to and how many NHS bodies will benefit?
The power of foundation trusts to borrow was mentioned. Can the Minister say whether this means that they will be able to borrow from the market? Will there be a Treasury guarantee for such borrowings and what will be their effect on the PSBR? Borrowing necessarily implies repayment. How will such
1086
repayment be provided for? Will borrowing just be a way of anticipating future cash allocations, thus storing up difficulties for later years? When will we have full details of what is proposed?
The White Paper speaks about financial incentives and penalties. I found that section pretty baffling, but one of its features is apparently to be that if a trust fails to deliver its targets, money will be taken away from it. How will this work? How will it be possible to avoid a situation where money that is taken away gives rise to cuts in capacity, which in turn lead to a downward spiral of delivery against objectives?
The Statement referred to a new system for money to flow around the health service. Will the Minister say what is meant by that, if it is not what we have long advocated and what the Government abolished when they came to office; namely, money following the patient? How exactly will that be achieved?
To deliver reform on the appropriate scale will require investment in IT. The Government admit that they have not spent enough on IT to date and in particular that there has been inadequate progress in delivering electronic patient records, which is one of the key building blocks for an efficient, patient-centred service. If there is to be greater devolution within the health service, how will the Government ensure that the right IT systems are commissioned?
I turn briefly to accountability and audit. The Statement referred to the independence to be conferred on the new commission for healthcare audit and inspection. Will the Minister say who will set the budget for the commission and from where its funding will be drawn?
Finally, I turn to the shortage of beds. It seems extraordinary that a Government who have been willing to countenance—not to say engineer—a drastic downsizing of the care home sector should now be seeking to shift the blame, and the burden, for bed blocking on to local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to make council tax payers foot the bill for bed-blocking problems? How can that be a fair deal when, as we know from some parts of the country, there is a drastic shortage of care home beds—a shortage that was brought about quite deliberately by the Government's policies?
It is perhaps a cause for some small comfort that the Government recognise that money alone cannot deliver the improvements in healthcare that we all wish. That also requires reform. The test for them is to turn their rhetoric on reform into reality. I for one profoundly doubt whether the scale of the reform will be anything like sufficient to ensure that the substantial new sums that are earmarked for healthcare will add commensurate value to the NHS and the patients whom it serves.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place.

1087
We on these Benches welcome the references in the Chancellor's Budget yesterday on health funding and some—I stress that word—of the Secretary of State's Statement. I believe that that extra funding represents a victory for patients and "game, set and match" in terms of the arguments that the Liberal Democrats have been making, in some cases since the 1997 general election.
First, we on these Benches welcome the announcement of more resources for healthcare and believe that it should be funded from general taxation in a transparent and accountable manner. We have been making that argument for a considerable period. We believe that that represents the fairest form of social health insurance. That is in stark contrast to the position of those on the Tory Benches. We believe that Mr Wanless has actually got it right.
Secondly, I stress the need for social care funding to keep pace with NHS funding, which will ensure that hospital beds are freed up and that older people in particular can be cared for properly in the community. Whether the figure is 19,000 or 30,000 beds, the fact is that there has been a drastic reduction over the past three years. It is good that the Government have finally recognised that fact and that local authorities will now have the ability to fund domiciliary and residential care. In addition to that great change of heart by the Government, I hope that they will examine very carefully the arguments for providing free long-term personal care. They have already come quite a way in our direction; it takes just a little extra to come even closer.
Thirdly, I stress the need for the independent audit of standards and the need to establish whether money has been reaching the areas for which it was allocated. I referred to that in my last Starred Question. Throughout the passage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill we have argued strongly for an independent audit body. It is good to see the Secretary of State and the Chancellor taking note of debates in this House. I trust that the Select Committee to which the audit body will be accountable will follow very closely the proposals that we made from these Benches and which were supported by those on the Conservative Benches. Whoever said that arguments in politics do not have happy outcomes?
Many matters, however, need to be clarified. What is the timing for putting the initiatives into practice? The NHS, as I have pointed out on many occasions, is groaning under the weight of new initiatives. We have beacon hospitals and earned autonomy, and now we have foundation hospitals. So it has gone on in many different areas.
We argued at the outset—at Second Reading of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill—that that Bill should be delayed. We did so in our very confident belief that those reforms were half baked and would rapidly be superseded. So it has proved to be. The Bill has already been superseded by the Secretary of State's Statement. Will the Minister arrange for the Bill to be delayed so that
1088
the new audit body, which we welcome—it appears that it will be a combination of a number of different audit bodies—can be included? Or is he planning to table amendments on Report next week? That would involve a fairly superhuman effort. That demonstrates the way in which the Department of Health and the Secretary of State in particular currently operate. We get initiative piled on initiative and legislation piled on legislation. When will it ever end?
When will the merger with CHI take place? The National Care Standards Commission is barely up and running—I refer to the acute hospital inspection side—but it will be merged with CHI. When will CHI be merged with the new body? Even if the body is not going to be merged, there are already 21 mechanisms in the health service for clinical governance. We should be thankful for small mercies and pleased that we do not have a 22nd mechanism. There is a plan for some simplification of the system for clinical governance.
Much time has been lost—five years to be precise—on the argument for funding the health service transparently from general taxation. The Government are no longer dissembling in that respect. We need to ensure that professionals and managers are allowed to get on with the job in the health service. Will the Government now desist from setting any more targets? Those that we have are ambitious enough, despite the Government's spin, the reports of chief executives and so on. Will the Government now ensure that money that is allocated to the health service gets to the intended services? Apart from through the Audit Commission, how will that be done?
Finally, I pay tribute to the NHS as a body and to NHS staff. I know that they will welcome the Chancellor's additional funding. However, they will have extreme reservations about the Secretary of State's Maoist approach to management. That approach involves hyperactively changing every initiative before it has had a chance to take effect. I hope that, in implementing these initiatives, the Secretary of State will take all of that into account.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for what I believe was a welcome to at least the announced allocation Df resources to the NHS in future. Sadly, he did not say whether the Conservative Party would make a similar commitment of resources to the NHS. I agree with him that there is much detail in the proposal to be debated. We look forward to hearing more about his party's intentions.
The noble Earl's first substantive point was whether the current system of funding the NHS was the right one. I am delighted that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it abundant y clear that we believe that the current system of funding is indeed the right one, provided that that is accompanied by the reforms that are contained in the Statement. The Budget and the review documents that were published yesterday contain detailed information on alternative systems of funding. For instance, on

1089
funding by private insurance in the United States, those documents show that premiums average around £100 a week and are set to rise by £13 a week on average next year. As a result of those costs, that system insures only some of the people for some of their care.
Those documents also show that, on social insurance, the narrower base for contributions in France means that a typical employer pays £60 a week. That can place many costs on employers, it can have an impact on the economy and it affects employers' ability to create new jobs.
The report also shows that charging for clinical services, which would involve a healthcare system based on medical charges whereby patients would pay rising bills for individual operations and treatments, would mean, in effect, that the sick would pay more for being sick. It is the Government's view not only that the NHS system of funding is the most equitable, but that by offering the most comprehensive insurance policy to meet rising costs from medical advances, a reformed NHS can give people the greater security that they need.
I agree with the noble Earl about the crucial nature of this announcement and the future facing the NHS. There is no question but that this is a make-or-break situation for the National Health Service. It must show that it can change and reform and meet the expectations of the public with the resources that will now be made available.
The noble Earl asked about productivity. That is why we are introducing more freedoms into the system. We are introducing the right kind of financial incentives to make people behave in a way that will deliver the type of reform programme that I have described.
The noble Earl also asked for specific details about foundation trusts. I believe he will understand that I am not in a position to give precise answers because we still have to work through many of the details. However, I am convinced that if we are to have ownership of decision-making at local level, if we are to energise people and ensure good leadership in those who run the trusts, and if we are to get more people involved locally in what they do and support what they do, it is right to create foundation trusts.
It is extremely significant that the discussions that we have had with the chief executives of our most successful trusts indicate that they are very enthusiastic about the kind of freedoms that can be given when we create foundation trusts. In my view, an important potential of foundation trusts is that they are seen far less as agents of central government and far more as locally owned organisations which owe their accountability to the people whom they are there to serve.
The noble Earl asked me about financial incentives. At present, successful NHS trusts can exceed the activity that had been agreed with commissioners. However, in essence, there is no resource to pay them to do the extra work. It must make sense to incentivise
1090
the health service in order to ensure that those who can do more receive the rewards for doing so. Of course, it must be done in such a way that perverse incentives do not arise, and it must be done in relation to effective referral protocols. But surely the emphasis should be placed on rewarding those who do well rather than providing excuses for NHS organisations which do not.
As someone who has spent his career in the health service, the one point that I would make is that there is a great deal of difference between different organisations. We must not approach the NHS from the point of view that all organisations must be treated in the same way and that all are as good as each other. The work of the Commission for Health Improvement readily identifies enormous differences in the quality of work that is being done.
There is no doubt that the health service has invested inadequately in IT. I very much hope that the package announced yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor will enable the proper investment to put into IT. I believe that, while the thrust of what we are saying today concerns devolution, IT is one area where there needs to be central leadership. We shall give that leadership. We shall also ensure that organisations are aided through advice and support to enable them to make the best of their IT. I consider IT to be fundamental to the reform process.
With regard to inspectorates, I am not in a position to respond to the noble Earl in relation to resources. Of course, we need to work fully through the details, but I assure the noble Earl that we shall resource the new inspectorates adequately because we want them to do a very good job. He will also have noted that we intend them to be more independent. I believe that noble Lords who have debated this issue in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill will welcome that very much.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, started in a very constructive mode. I believe that he claimed that the announcement was all due to Liberal Democrat policy. I certainly welcome his support for the general funding of the NHS. I believe that we have done rather better than the penny on income tax proposed by his party. I also welcome the comments that he made about social care funding. If there is one thing that we have learnt, it is the importance of integration between decisions in health and social care. Clearly, if we are to deal with the issue of delayed discharges, we must have an integrated approach. I do not agree with him about personal care. I passionately believe that the money is better spent on intermediate care. That is where we shall spend that money.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, echoed the theme that the noble Earl. Lord Howe, often raises; that is, that the Government are guilty of weighing down the NHS with too many initiatives. In the planning priorities guidance for next year, we have recognised the need to focus the NHS on the issues that really matter. The Statement which I have repeated today focuses on the issues of waiting and choice—

1091
matters which are very important to the public. The new initiatives that we have announced—the financial incentives and the freedoms for trusts—are all designed to focus the NHS and to move away from a system where too many priorities are involved.
However, in many debates—and, indeed, today—when the noble Lord talks about ensuring that money is directed to the services which are important, he is as guilty as anyone of seeking to micro-manage the health service from the centre. We resist that temptation. We wish to give much greater flexibility at local level. Of course, it is important to ensure that services such as those for cancer are funded adequately at local level. It will be the role of strategic health authorities to performance-manage that. However, I consider it to be most important that we give as much freedom as possible at local level.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the progress of the current National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. We are extremely satisfied with the Bill as currently drafted. We consider it to be important and we shall certainly proceed with it. We look forward to its Report stage in a few days' time. Of course, some of the measures that we have announced today will require primary legislation, but the noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly comment on when that might come before your Lordships' House.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, during my five years in your Lordships' House there have been few Statements that I have welcomed as wholeheartedly as I do this one. Indeed, it has already raised morale. I know that because this morning I spoke to some of the dedicated staff to whom I and many others owe our lives. I particularly welcome the increased incentive to bring about co-operation between health and social services. I believe that the phrase "bed blocking" is unfortunate, and I am glad that my noble friend used the term "delayed discharge" instead.
However, I want to ask my noble friend whether he agrees that, when it comes to promoting co-operation between health and social services, carrots are better than sticks. Can he give me an assurance that any penalising of either health or social services will be kept to a minimum? Further, can I ask him for an assurance that encouragement will be given to build on the excellent work and relationships established by the National Care Standards Commission and an assurance that it will not replaced by the new commission?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the announcement in yesterday's Budget and our intent today will bring great joy in the National Health Service. Not only are extra resources being provided, but stability over a five-year period, which is important.
I also agree that the term "delayed discharge" is probably a better one to use, although I detect from the Liberal Democrat Benches that even that term does
1092
not appeal to all Members of your Lordships' House. We all know why we need to tackle the issues with gusto. We know of the problems that there have been despite the generally good work undertaken by health and local authorities. There have been capacity problems in terms of getting people out of hospital, but intermediate care is one way in which that is being tackled.
At the end of the day, an incentive system, which is based on schemes in Denmark and Sweden, is the right way to go. I believe that the 6 per cent extra resources per year in real terms for social service authorities over a three-year period, plus "incentivisation", is the best way forward. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is better to use a carrot than a stick. Some sticks are needed and the financial incentives will work in the sense that the more enthusiastic local authorities are and the greater their ability to hasten the appropriate discharge of patients from hospitals, the more resources they will have for other services. The less local authorities are able to do that, the fewer resources they will have. I believe that that is the right kind of incentive.
In relation to care homes, we have all looked with concern at the viability of some of them. I believe, and it is our expectation, that the resources that we are now making available to the social service authorities will enable, where appropriate, an increase in fees to care homes to take place.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little harder on the issue of where the present National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill stands. In light of the White Paper, to what extent will that Bill and its provisions become redundant? The Minister sounded somewhat complacent about the timing of the legislation to come. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be aware, as I am, that promises have been made to improve the NHS by the time of the next election. Four years is not a great deal of time when primary legislation is required.
The Minister referred to the training of doctors and consultants. Will he say a little more about the Government's plans? Perhaps I should declare an interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine. We are anxious to know the Government's plans. Did I understand the Minister to mean that some of the money allocated to the health service could be put directly into social care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the final point about social care, the funding of social service arrangements to help the discharge of patients will go down the normal route of allocation to local authorities. On the other hand, we have arrangements for the pooling of resources. There is a partnership between the health service, local authorities and care trusts. We are keen to see integrated services. There will be different pools of money, but the specific "incentivisation" of local authorities to improve arrangements for patients when they are discharged will come through the normal local authority allocation route.

1093
In that respect, under the arrangements that are agreed between health authorities and local authorities at a local level, if health services were actually responsible for the problems in terms of discharge, they would face the financial penalty. I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion of simply targeting local authorities and saying that they are the ones to blame and no one else. We want a partnership approach.
On the Bill, I am not complacent, but I was given due warning by the Chief Whip, who reminded me that at this stage I cannot say at what point legislation could be introduced to take forward some of the proposals. What is clear from the Statement is that further primary legislation will be required. I regard the current NHS Bill as a stepping-stone. It contains important measures in relation to patient and public involvement in the health services in Wales, as the noble Lord knows, primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and regulation of the professions. We are anxious to see that enacted.
On the training of doctors, the noble Lord will know that we have seen a considerable increase in the intake of medical schools in the past few years. By the autumn of this year, for example, we estimate that that intake will be 1,250 a year more than in 1997 and that it will increase to 1,950 by 2003. Clearly, as the Statement mentioned, it takes a long time to train a doctor, and even longer for a doctor to become a consultant. That is one of the great inhibitions in expanding the capacity and it is one of the reasons why we look to nurses and to other professions to take on more responsibility. We are making progress and the new contracts that we are negotiating with the leaders of the doctors' profession will also enable us to meet some of the current shortfalls.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, as someone who has worked in a local authority and a health authority area for many years, I welcome the announcement. I have a question about the timescale. The Minister said that it was not possible to give the House the timescale, which I understand. However, can he tell the House how we are to keep the morale of staff in those services at top notch with the degree of uncertainty that they experience?
I declare an interest as a member of the board and vice-chair of the National Care Standards Commission. That commission has been operating for three weeks and we have just re-organised hundreds of staff into 70 offices. The Minister will know that we do not yet have all the standards in place. While I believe that there is a need for further re-organisation and inspection, timing is crucially important. It is also important for the staff to understand where they stand in relation to their jobs. Managing that is critically important.
The management of change requires sensitivity as it is a delicate task. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we have had huge change. It will affect the delivery of service and the productivity that people can
1094
deliver. Often their efforts are redirected into the issues of change rather than into primary care. The National Care Standards Commission inspects the institutions that care for the most vulnerable people in our community. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are considering issuing messages, in some detail, to staff about what this change will mean to them? It is no use having general reassurances about how wonderful they are—we all think they are absolutely wonderful. They need to know what will happen to them tomorrow.
A second point is whether the Minister will consider other IT programmes before developing the health service's new IT programme. I say that from my experience of at least three government IT programmes, which frankly, when they were accepted by the people for whom they were commissioned, were near disasters. We should at least get that right in the next round.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to IT we need to learn the lessons of past efforts in central government. Looking back over quite a long time, the NHS has had a number of IT initiatives that have ended in failure. One reason why the NHS moved away from central direction was because of the failure of some central IT projects in years gone by. We need to get the balance right and to have greater central direction. We need to give a good deal of help to local people to work within a system that enables the NHS as a whole to work together and to work across organisational boundaries. Certainly we are seeking advice from across government and the private sector on IT matters. I very much take on board the points raised by the noble Baroness. While we are disappointed with progress in some areas of IT, there have been some significant achievements on which we need to build.
I pay tribute to the staff of the National Care Standards Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement, and indeed, the Audit Commission, as it is important to place on record my gratitude for the outstanding work that has been undertaken. In the case of the Audit Commission, it is universally agreed that the value-for-money studies have been outstanding. We are anxious to ensure that the quality in the new inspectorate is kept to the same high order. I pay particular tribute to the Commission for Health Improvement because, from a standing start, it has undertaken a huge number of reviews. The staff of the National Care Standards Commission have also had to start from a blank sheet of paper in double-quick time.
We want to meet the current organisations very soon to discuss the practicalities of where we are going. In the meantime, we wish to encourage them to carry on the good work, and to work together because many of the changes that we are making can start by organisations collaborating. I know that they already do so very effectively. It is worth remembering that the staff of the current organisations will form the broad bulk of those who will go into the new organisation.

1095
We need to talk through the details, but I am anxious to ensure that the people currently in those organisations feel supported and valued.
There has been a clear recommendation from Kennedy. Noble Lords in our debates on the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill asked for an integrated approach, which is welcome as a general principle.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, it is not a question of only the Government going to the organisation. Will it be possible for the staff, who are the experts, to tell the Government what is going on? Any Government would need their advice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with that. One of the changes in the health service is the development of staff surveys by individual NHS organisations, which will help the NHS locally to take account of the issues raised. Without the staff, we shall not achieve such changes. The key element in our announcement today is the provision of incentives to encourage the staff to deliver the kind of change programme that we want.
Many members of staff have taken part in the development of the NHS Plan and the NHS modernisation board. We are obviously anxious to continue that effective dialogue.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the Statement seemed to suggest that someone needing hospital care could shop around between hospitals and determine which one to go to. That all seems fine, but it is extremely difficult for people to get the information that they need to enable them to make that kind of choice.
I have in mind a case that was brought to my attention last week. A patient was due to attend hospital for urgent treatment, but the hospital said that it could not treat him for several months. While that patient waited for treatment, he died. That is not a unique case. If the patient, or the people looking after him, had had information about going to another hospital for treatment, his life might have been spared. How will the system work in practice? If one hospital cannot offer treatment, how will information be conveyed to patients that treatment is available elsewhere? Will their GPs be told? How will information be held centrally so that all patients at all levels of income will know where they can get the treatment that they need?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Without information, it is difficult to see how a patient can have choice. I confirm that GPs must play a crucial role in helping to advise patients on choice and in making judgments about the most suitable hospital to attend.
I accept that at a national level we have to ensure that information is available to enable patients to make an informed choice. One of the purposes of the
1096
new health inspectorate is to ensure that this kind of information is provided robustly so that patients can make sound decisions.
We are starting pilots on the choice scheme from July this year for coronary heart disease patients. Anyone who has waited for more than six months for a heart operation will be contacted by a patient care adviser to discuss the options for treatment. Such patients will be offered a shorter wait at another NHS or private hospital, or even the option of treatment abroad.
We are putting in place members of staff who can help patients to make decisions. GPs will have an equally important role. Ultimately, we need to build greater capacity into the health service. As the years go by and we have more beds, more hospitals and more staff, the element of choice will become greater.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I speak as a non-executive director of a primary care trust. I welcome the fact that there will be more resources to eliminate the negative budget that we received. Much of the money is already allocated to a number of projects, so will the Minister assure us that, in the auditing and inspection of primary care trusts, sufficient time will be given for us to settle down and get on with our work? Will he also assure us that unnecessary and unsustainable public expectations of immediate and major changes will not arise?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter of primary care trusts. I understand what he says about not wishing to load new organisations with too many responsibilities. Of course, we need to ensure that PCTs are focused on the essential elements of not only producing good services but of commissioning effective services.
Primary care trusts are an essential component of the reform process. That is why it is important that three-quarters of the budget will be spent on PCTs by 2004. I know from our debates on primary care trusts that some noble Lords caution us about giving that level of resource to PCTs by 2004, but the Government believe in the potential of PCTs and in putting money with GPs who will make essential decisions in the NHS. We must press on with that as urgently as we can.

Export Control Bill
4.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Export controls]:
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) Where export controls apply to goods which are within one or more of the categories mentioned in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule, the guidance issued under section 7 shall have regard to their issues relating to sustainable development and to any possible consequences of the goods being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule."

1097
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Both amendments are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Razzall. Both issues deal with sustainable development.
In Committee Her Majesty's Government introduced significant redrafting of the section on guidance and the schedule of purposes, apparently in response to concerns expressed about the way sustainable development was treated in the Bill. Unfortunately, the Government refused to make the simple changes that have long been proposed to include sustainable development as one of the relevant consequences in the schedule, which would place the issue on a similar footing as concerns about human rights, regional stability and terrorism.
Sustainable development was included as a relevant consequence when the Bill was first published in draft form. However, in every subsequent incarnation it has been omitted. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to provide belt and braces. When a similar amendment was introduced at the last stage of the Bill, the Minister raised significant concerns about its suitability. We have attempted to redraft the amendment to allay his anxieties.
The Minister raised the issue of "widgets". Amendment No. 1 was drafted to exclude the consequence of the Secretary of State having to review every single item that could conceivably need an export control order. However, a real concern was raised as to the phraseology used in the amendment drafted by the Government at the last stage. In Clause 7(4) the words "if any" were added.
The Minister expressed his opinion that the words "if any" give the Secretary of State the ability to make judgments over what was and what was not important while being directed over matters which would be considered relevant under the Bill. However, there is anxiety that the ability of the Secretary of State to make such decisions is far too broad and would mean that certain aspects that many feel should fall within the ambit of the Bill could fall outside it. The purpose of the amendment therefore is to add to the schedule categories which are already covered by the Bill thereby avoiding the widget problem but at the same time ensuring that the Secretary of State takes into consideration sustainable development.
Amendment No. 1 is particularly concerned with the problem that arises within different departments in government; that is, that one department has one view and another department can take a different view. That is clearly illustrated by the situation in Tanzania. Even since the last stage of this Bill matters have developed. The air transport control system seems to have fallen foul of the World Bank, which does not believe it to be a good investment. It is being scrutinised by the International Commission for Aviation. Also the DfID has frozen a £10 million development loan to one of the poorest countries in the world pending the outcome.
1098
If I am wrong on any of the aspects of Tanzania—obviously it is more complicated than can be envisaged superficially—that does not change the underlying need for the amendments. There will always be a difficulty between the granting of an export licence which is driven by exporters and the real need of developing countries not to have exported to them armaments, weapons systems or their components which could jeopardise their sustainable development. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on moving this amendment. In doing so I remind the House that I am closely involved with the work of Saferworld and Oxfam, two organisations deeply concerned about the issues in this Bill.
I have absolutely no doubt that my noble friend shares our common objective. Does he not accept that, as so well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the insertion of the words "if any" creates a loophole? Does he not also agree that it would be unfortunate if, in the context of his own goodwill, we accepted wording which enabled some successor totally to disregard the issues which concern us today and which are spelt out in the schedule.
That is the point. The problem is not the people in place at the moment; it is those who may be in place in the future. If we are of serious intent we should have watertight wording, not ambivalent wording. That is why Amendment No. 1 is so crucial in what it seeks to achieve for the long-term future.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, at Second Reading we supported the idea of sustainable development. We were pleased to see the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Razzall. We on these Benches support the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I too welcome Amendment No. 1. I do so because I want to remind the House of the moral presumption against the export of goods that are harmful and the moral presumption in favour of poverty relief, accessibility to health, education and welfare, and human flourishing.
If we are serious as a nation as well as a government about halving global poverty by the year 2015, there will need to be greater effort not only on the humanitarian front of the voluntary organisations, but also diplomatically, economically and politically to reduce the number of countries embroiled in armed conflict, and to improve the conditions in which regeneration can occur and be sustained. So I am glad to see that the criteria for sustainable development are written deeply into the Bill. We need to ensure that they stay.
The issue of sustainable development is plainly recognised by Her Majesty's Government. Yesterday I sat through a debate calling attention to the Green Paper, Planning: delivering a fundamental change. Several speakers referred to the importance of taking sustainable development into account when considering planning in

1099
the United Kingdom. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord. Falconer, in his winding speech—I am never sure why it is called "winding" and not "winding-up"—spoke of "planned sustainable development" and "delivering sustainable development" within the UK.
However, the weight given to sustainable development in the Bill—it is the weight that is important—is weak. I recognise that the Bill involves controlling certain goods and taking sustainable development into account, and that it is not about sustainable development per se. I heard that in Committee. But the responsibility currently placed on the Secretary of State is inadequate.
In Committee on 4th March, at col. 100 of Hansard, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that,
"in controlling the items specified in the schedule table, we [the Government] should apply the sustainability criterion. That is why we put that in the relevant clause, where it is made clear that it is absolutely mandatory that it should be considered … We have made it clear that it is a mandatory requirement".
However, the Bill currently reads,
"consideration, if any, to he given".
I am not a lawyer. I am a "bear with little brain" when it comes to the legal mind. But to the lay mind there seems to be a considerable gap and weight of intention between it being "absolutely mandatory" that sustainable criterion should be considered and,
"consideration, if any, to be given … to".
The amendments give us the opportunity to ensure that the Secretary of State specifies that regard shall be had to what I hope noble Lords will agree is a significant matter. If we are serious about halving world poverty, we need to strengthen our legislation regarding what should and should not be exported and imported, taking into account the purposes and outcomes of such exports and the consequences of granting licences for them.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I too support Amendment No. 24. The words "if any" add very little. They create flexibility which is not really required. The flexibility could easily be gained in the phrasing of the guidance given by the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, they open up a loophole for future Secretaries of State to take advantage of a wording that really should not be there.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lord Judd that all those who support these amendments, particularly those who speak from these Benches, are aiming in the same direction. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others have talked about those controversial words "if any". The noble Lord also brought widgets into the argument. The amendments are very useful in that they restrict the application of matters of sustainable development to a list of items—to none of which could the word "widgets" be applied. The table to the Schedule, entitled "Relevant Consequences", lists the serious matters that have to be taken into account: national security; peace, security or stability in any region of the world; the carrying out of acts that facilitate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;
1100
internal repression in any country; and breaches of human rights. The amendment should solve my noble friend's question. I very much hope that it will be agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 24. They have not been degrouped. It is easiest to take the two amendments together. Both amendments relate to the provisions in the Bill which oblige the Government to address issues relating to sustainable development and those in the Schedule's table entitled "Relevant Consequences" when issuing guidance under Clause 7.
Amendment No. 24 is very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It would replace the existing requirement in Clause 7(4) that guidance issued under the Bill must include guidance about the "consideration (if any)" to be given to sustainable development and the issues in the Schedule table, with a requirement that the guidance must state that "regard shall be had" to such issues.
Amendment No. 1, if I have understood it correctly, has a slightly more focused intention, which is to provide that guidance issued under Clause 7 in relation to export controls on military goods shall have regard to sustainable development and to the issues covered in the table to the Schedule. I believe that Amendment No. 1 has been tabled in the spirit of compromise, as a possible alternative to Amendment No. 24, on the basis that it seeks to meet some of the concerns that the Government expressed in Committee about the consequences that would follow from having a blanket requirement to have regard to sustainable development, and all the issues covered in the Schedule table, in the assessment of every individual export licence application.
If that is the case, I very much welcome the noble Lords' attempt to deal with the Government's previously stated concerns on this issue. However, as I shall explain in more detail in due course, Amendment No. 1 does not meet all the concerns that I identified in Committee. Perhaps I may concentrate on Amendment No. 24, as it raises the key question of whether the Bill as it now stands adequately provides for a lasting commitment on all future governments to address sustainable development and the issues listed in the Schedule table in the export licensing process.
Let me say at once that I have sympathy with the noble Lord's aim in tabling the amendment and with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the matter. I have no more confidence than he or the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have in the goodwill of my successors in other governments on this issue. We certainly do not want to leave open the possibility that a future government could undo our achievements in securing a clear commitment to sustainable development and all the other issues covered in the EU code in the UK arms export control regime. However, we are confident that we have not left open such a possibility. Amendment No. 24 is not necessary to prevent such a possibility arising in the future.

1101
Before explaining the reasons why the revised wording suggested by the noble Lord is not necessary, let me first explain why we have worded Clause 7(4) as we have and why it needs to be retained in the Bill.
The Government do not deny that there is a difference in effect between the revised wording proposed by the noble Lord for Clause 7(4) and that which the Government moved in Committee. The requirement that guidance published under Clause 7 must include guidance,
"about the consideration (if any) to be given"
to particular matters, provides a degree of flexibility which a requirement that such guidance must state that "regard shall be had" to those matters would not. I should like to explain why the Government consider that this flexibility is necessary.
As I said in Committee, the Government need to be able to take common-sense decisions and to reach a judgment when taking export licensing decisions that particular considerations are simply not relevant in certain cases and situations. However, the amendment would require this and future governments to consider sustainable development and every issue covered by the Schedule table whenever they exercised licensing powers under the Bill.
A worrying consequence of that would be to compromise significantly the Government's capacity to comply with future international obligations and commitments relating to export control. I stress that in pursuing these it is not necessarily for the UK to decide to which factors regard must be had in the taking of export licensing decisions. That depends on the exact terms of the obligation or commitment. However, Amendment No. 24 would oblige the Government to have regard to sustainable development and all the Schedule issues in all cases.
The amendment would also fetter more generally the Government's ability to take common-sense decisions that, in certain cases, consideration of sustainable development and issues in the Schedule table are not relevant. For example, a proposed export of a single military vehicle to a developed country such as the United States would clearly not raise sustainable development issues. Nor would sustainable development, and several of the issues in the Schedule table, be relevant in the consideration of most applications for a licence to export objects of cultural interest.
However, the Government would not be able to say, "We will not take account of sustainable issues in these cases" and give guidance on it, because the legislation would require them to say that they would take account of sustainable development and those issues. That is why the reference to "consideration (if any)" in Clause 7(4) is needed. It allows the Government to retain the capacity—
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. What he has just said is exactly what puzzles us. If it is not really necessary to take the issue of sustainable development seriously,
1102
there is no need to have the words "if any" in the Bill. Sane, sensible officials, sitting down to consider how to process this matter would very quickly see that in this issue it was not relevant. Why on earth do we have to put in the words "if any", thus giving some future Minister the opportunity to say, "In this case, not at all"?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to a point made by the right reverend Prelate. We are considering legislation; we are not considering what a sensible lay person might think about the matter. When the legislation of a country says, "You must consider sustainable development", it must be considered. That is what laws are about. A government cannot say, "I am sorry, we are not going to consider it"; they must consider it. They cannot give guidance to say that they will not. Legislation sets certain requirements on governments and civil servants. It is therefore extremely important that the wording is flexible in that manner.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it not possible for a Minister to consider the issue of sustainable development and conclude that it does not apply to a case? Would it not be reassuring to know that the Minister had done so before deciding that it did not apply?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that that was the point that I made. In those circumstances, we could not then say to people in a sensible manner, "In the following sort of cases, under the regulations, we shall not consider sustainable development". We cannot give practical guidance to people to say, "No, in these cases"—such as sending a particular vehicle to America—"we shall not spend our time and you need not be concerned about our taking sustainability into account". That is what we are trying to deal with here, and it is not all right to say that civil servants and Ministers can just ignore or not take seriously what the legislation states.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way again, and I apologise for interrupting again. We are not saying that they should not consider it; we are saying that early in the course of considering it, they would realise that it was not relevant and that there was no case.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have already answered that point. It is a question not only of considering it and saying whether it is relevant but of whether we can give sensible guidance.
It is true that Amendment No. 1, if accepted as an alternative to Amendment No. 24, would provide less of a blanket requirement on government to have regard to all issues in every case. However, it would retain the blanket requirement in respect of export controls on military goods. That would introduce a damaging rigidity to the arms export licensing process, obliging the Government to consider sustainable

1103
development and every issue in the schedule's table in considering every arms export application, even where one or more of those issues was clearly not relevant—such as in the example that I gave of a military vehicle to be exported to a developed country. I also point out that the need not to compromise our ability to implement international commitments under the Bill applies equally to controls on military goods as to other categories of export control.
However, we are confident that the words "if any" in Clause 7(4) would not allow a future government freedom to decide to ignore sustainable development, or any of the issues in the schedule's table, by saying simply. "We have considered sustainable development and concluded that it has no place in consideration of any export licences". The Bill makes clear that it will be a requirement on any government to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers and that that guidance must address sustainable development and the other important issues covered in the schedule's table.
Moreover, Clause 7(5) requires that the Government "shall have regard" to that guidance when taking decisions on export licences. I emphasise that Clause 7(5) determines the status of the guidance, not Clause 7(4), which purely sets out what must be in the guidance.
I also reiterate the important point that were a future government to decide not to take sustainable development considerations into account in arms exports, not only would Clause 7 require them to publish that decision and so take it in the full glare of parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill would also require them to justify such a decision. In that context, it is important to remember that the issue of sustainable development and the issues listed in the schedule's table are all reflected in the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, which represents a binding political commitment to our EU partners.
While the UK is a member of the European Union and committed to the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, it is difficult to see how any future government could ignore any of the criteria, including that of sustainable development, without facing a real likelihood of successful challenge in the courts. Moreover, the explicit reference to the consolidated criteria included in Clause 7(8) and the accompanying statement that the criteria,
"shall (until withdrawn or varied under this section) be treated as guidance",
under the Bill reduce still further a future government's room to deviate from any part of the criteria.
None the less, I recognise that concern continues to be felt about the possible intention or likely effect of the words "if any" in Clause 7(4). At my meeting last Friday with the UK Working Group on Arms, the group referred to advice obtained by it on the issue from Matrix Chambers and specifically to the suggestion in Matrix Chambers' advice that it might be helpful if a Minister were to spell out clearly in debate that the intention behind the inclusion of the words "if
1104
any" is not to open up a loophole in the Bill. The group asked whether I would be prepared to give such an undertaking before the House at Report. I told it that I should be pleased to do so, and I am happy to put on record today that the intention behind the words "if any" in Clause 7(4) is purely to enable the Government to make commonsense decisions about the circumstances in which sustainable development, or any of the schedule issues, would not be relevant 'co a licensing decision.
Not only are the words "if any" not intended to create a loophole allowing the Government to ignore any particular issue, we are confident that they do not offer any government the opportunity to ignore either sustainable development or any of the schedule issues, where that would be contrary to our obligations under the EU code of conduct.
I turn to the question of Tanzania as it relates to sustainability. I make clear that the Government would not have granted a licence in that case if to do so had been in contravention of the consolidated criteria. Sustainability was an issue that was taken into account and a judgment was reached on that basis.
In conclusion, I repeat that the Government acknowledge that the wording in Clause 7(4) provides a degree of flexibility which the wording proposed in the amendments does not. But I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation of' why that flexibility is needed and that they will also accept my categoric assurance that it does not offer a means by which a future government could choose to disregard sustainable development or the schedule issues in the export licensing process. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply and for his helpful assertion about the use of the words "if any". However, he finished by discussing the need for flexibility. That is the key issue about which many of us are concerned: the flexibility to decide what is and what is not important. To be granted, an export licence must fulfil many criteria. It is not beyond the wit of man to provide a box to be filled in. Although the clear example that the Minister gave of a military vehicle for America is cut and dried, the same cannot be said of many other cases.
I was also interested in the Minister's view that the intricacies of legislation are way beyond the layman.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I did not say that. I said simply that approaching these matters by saying what I as a layman would think might be right is no kind of defence in law or a good argument in most legal cases, in which people tend to think that w hat the law says is what is important. Ministers cannot take a cavalier view about legislation and simply say that we ignore it because it is not sensible.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise if I gave the wrong impression, but what the Minister said emphasises my problem with the expression "if any". Although the Minister has given a definition that the

1105
Government will observe of "if any", if it were to be argued in court it would be a difficult case and not cut and dried.
The Minister raised my example of Tanzania. The World Bank was not in favour of that loan and it will be interesting to hear what the International Civil Aviation Organisation has to say about what is actually a military air traffic control system.
This is a very good Bill. We support it, and I mean no criticism of it in introducing belt and braces. I make no insinuation that the Government have anything but the highest view of this. However, I believe that there is a loophole here and that it could be used. The matter could end up in court. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on the issue.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ackner, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Alderdice, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Flather, B.

Ampthill, L.

Fookes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Freeman, L.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Avebury, L.

Glentoran, L.

Bagri, L.

Goodhart, L.

Barker, B.

Goschen, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Greenway, L.

Boardman, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Bowness, L.

Hambro, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brightman, L.

Haslam, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Higgins, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Holderness, L.

Bumham, L.

Hooper, B.

Buscombe, B.

Hooson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Byford, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carnegy of Lour,B.

Jellicoe, E.

Chadlington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chan, L.

Joffe, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cox, B.

Lucas, L.

Craigavon, V.

Luke, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Dholakia, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

1106

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Roper, L.[Teller]

McNally, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Maddock, B.

Russell, E.

Manchester, Bp.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Marlesford, L.

Saatchi, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sandwich, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Sharman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Neill of Bladen,L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Noakes, B.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Northesk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northover, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stern, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Stewartby, L.

Palumbo, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Patten, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tebbit, L.

Razzall,L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Redesdale,L.[Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rees, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rennard, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ahmed, L.

Gilbert, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Golding, B.

Alli, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Amos, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Andrews, B.

Grabiner, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Grocott, L.

Bach, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Harrison, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Haskel,L.

Billingham, B.

Hayman, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Borrie, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bridges, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brookman, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Chandos,V.

Christopher, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jordan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Layard, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Levy, L.

Crawley, B.

Lipsey, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Desai, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dubs, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Filkin, L.

Mishcon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

1107

Morris of Manchester, L.

Slrabolgi, L.

Nicol, B.

Strange, B.

Palmer, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Pendry, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Pitkeathlcy, B.

Tenby, V.

Planl of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Quinton, L.

Uddin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Vincent of Coleshill, L.

Rcndell of Babergh, B.

Walpole, L.

Richard, L.

Warnock, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilkins, B.

Scotland of Aslhal, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Serota, B.

Scwel, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Simon, V.

Wilson of Tillyom, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out "An order under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. These grouped amendments are technical, drafting amendments that are needed in order to make the appropriate distinctions between the powers in the Bill in respect of areas within national competence, and those in respect of the implementation of directly applicable Community controls in areas of Community competence.
Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 11 introduce a series of similar amendments to Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. These make it clear that an order made under the Bill introducing export, transfer, trade or technical assistance controls is different from an order under Clause 1(5), 2(5), 3(6) or 4(5) giving effect to directly applicable controls imposed by Community regulation. In the case of the latter, not all of the subsidiary provisions in the clauses should apply. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 to Clause 3 similarly make clear that subsections (5) and (7) do not apply to the clause as a whole as they do not apply in respect of orders under Clause 3(6) but apply only in respect of controls introduced under the Bill within areas of national competence.
Amendment No. 12 is a consequential of Amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11, as I have explained, makes clear that an order introducing trade controls will not be made under the clause as a whole, but will either be made under Clause 4(1) that allows for controls to be introduced under national law, or under Clause 4(5), which provides for the introduction of provisions in connection with controls introduced by a directly applicable
1108
Community provision. This means that it is necessary for the whole definition of what is meant by,
"activities which facilitate the acquisition, disposal or movement of the goods",
contained in Clause 4(7) to apply directly to Clause 4(5), as well as orders introducing controls within national competence. Amendment No. 12 achieves that aim.
As noble Lords are probably aware, the amendments before the House are very technical in nature. However, they are needed to ensure an appropriate distinction is made between our national powers and those that derive from Community obligations. I therefore invite noble Lords to support them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transfer controls]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of section (Academic. Freedom),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 10. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6 are simply paving amendments, although one of them is of slightly more substance and I shall deal with it later. The purpose of these paving amendments is to make way for Amendment No. 10, which I have no hesitation in describing as major and of the utmost importance both for academic freedom and for scientific research; and, indeed, for constitutional freedom.
The content of the main amendment has been altered from what was discussed in Committee. We have sought to take into account the words and advice of the Minister. I have also taken account of numerous further briefings. The amendment incorporates the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, in her Committee stage amendments and I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness's name attached to the current amendments.
I am not just speaking for the two of us; I am speaking on behalf of Universities UK, formerly known as the Council of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and for the Association of University Teachers, which represents 45,000 academic and academic-related staff; and, indeed, for the Foundation for Information Policy Research. Therefore, I can say that these amendments speak for a wide branch of academia, who feel most strongly about the issue. It is a subject of the gravest concern and of the highest anxiety to the whole of scientific academia.
Despite the credentials of this important amendment, it was arbitrarily—I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying so—dismissed by the Government. There was not even an offer to find a way to meet the justifiable fears of those who, through this amendment. seek the protection of Parliament.

1109
The new clause proposed by the Minister in Amendment No. 22 I can only describe it as pathetic and meaningless. I ask noble Lords to consider the idea that the Secretary of State should,
"have regard to the need to avoid any unreasonable restriction"!
We all know about unreasonable restraint; indeed, we all know about "unreasonable". But we just have to get on with it. The fears I have mentioned were not allayed by the anodyne words of the Minister in his response in Committee. As a result, I received even more briefing from academia. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to consider the current amendment.
As noble Lords are aware, the Bill deals with controls on the export of goods and equipment—from weapons to items of cultural importance. It also deals with the export of technology. Moreover, under Clauses 2 and 3, it ventures into the fields of intangibles, such as information, and, as it stands, into the field of thoughts and ideas.
The amendments and my proposed new clause revolve around the principles of freedom of expression, freedom of teaching, and freedom of research. Those freedoms are fundamental human rights to which the political objectives of the state should normally be subservient. Unless my amendments, or others incorporating the same principles, are included in the legislation, then, despite the certificate given by the Secretary of State in the preamble to the Bill, I have no doubt at all that it would not stand up to the light of a challenge under the convention on human rights.
The extension of the control of export of goods to the control of intangibles—the control of thoughts and ideas—is a radical step, unheard of in a democracy. It has serious constitutional implications. Goods are exported if they are physically moved out of the country. It is physically impossible to control ideas. But that is what the Government are trying to do. By virtue of Clause 2(2)(c), they are even attempting to control the exchange of ideas within the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that a solid body of academia is totally opposed to some of the Government's proposed provisions, which are inappropriate in a country where universities have been centres of learning, research and discovery for over 900 years. As drawn, the Bill will at the least inhibit the latter; at the worst, it will reduce the ability of our universities to teach future generations. Moreover, it will drive undergraduates to study elsewhere in the world. By preventing the export of ideas, I suggest that it will also result in graduates and researchers exporting themselves elsewhere to carry out their work.
Perhaps I may now explain the main provisions of my amendments. Amendment No. 4 proposes the deletion of Clause 2(2)(c) and (d). Together, those paragraphs give the Government power to control what the Bill calls "the transfer of technology", which
1110
includes teaching technological subjects to anyone inside the United Kingdom where there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom. But the teachings of our universities and colleges are expected to be used outside the United Kingdom. Never mind the thousands of British scientists and technicians who have travelled the world for hundreds of years taking their knowledge and skills with them. What on earth do the Government think that the thousands of foreign students who come to this country every year will do with the technology that they acquire here? They will naturally take it back home and use it either there, or elsewhere in the world.
It is undesirable, I accept, that the citizens of some countries should be taught certain subjects—atomic science, or aspects of biology or chemistry—that could be translated into the manufacture of chemical or biological weapons, or that they should receive instruction enabling them to fly aircraft into skyscrapers. Of current vital and commercial importance is the science of cryptology and authentication codes. They were first devised in 1964 to prevent the misuse of atomic weapons by potential Dr Strangeloves. But today we all use them on the remote controls in our cars.
That is a minor but telling example of how small businesses exporting common-place goods and services in the public domain may unwittingly fall foul of wide-sweeping regulations and their owners may be exposed to possible criminal sanctions. The encryption of electronic documents will play a vital part in international commerce in the future and perhaps, together with other wide-ranging categories of scientific knowledge, the Government are right to insist that care is taken about with and to whom sensitive information is shared or taught.
If as a matter of policy the Government want to prohibit students from this or that country from coming here to study this or that subject, the onus of exercising that control must rest with the Government and not with the teaching institutions which have neither the skills nor the resources to screen their potential students. They have no means of controlling what students will do with their knowledge once they have completed their courses. Indeed, the whole concept that once you have imparted knowledge or information to someone, you can control what he does with it is such manifest nonsense that the whole of the two subsections to which I refer are completely unenforceable absurdities. Do we seriously expect our universities to ask their chemistry students whether they intend to make poison gas?
The provision is complete control-freakery, raised to the umpteenth degree and totally impractical to enforce to boot. If the Government want to control who is taught by whom, as they control who comes into the country, except perhaps via the Sangatte Camp and Eurotunnel, the instrument that they must use is visas—the issuance of visas.

1111
In a letter which the Minister wrote to Dr Ross Anderson of Cambridge University on 28th February, he said:
"There are no powers in the Bill to license foreign students. The Bill is not designed to enable the introduction of a compulsory scheme to vet students".
Apart from noting the qualification about a compulsory scheme, and whatever the Minister may believe the Bill is or is not designed to do, the clear wording of the Bill unquestionably means that there is to be some form of control on the entry of some students from some countries if they want to study particular subjects.
Before the Minister in his response tries to suggest that I have got it all wrong, I invite him to look at the minutes of a meeting which took place on 21st September last between two of his officials, a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and another from the Department for Education and Skills on the one side and four representatives of Universities UK on the other. I shall not trouble the Minister or your Lordships with the five pages of the minutes, but I shall gladly make them available to anyone who wants to see them.
In essence, the points being made by the Government were:
"The clause has now been modified … and it now states that a licence will be necessary only where it is known or the Government has informed the institution that there is an intention to use subjects in relation to a weapon-of-mass-destruction programme".
The official went on to say that the onus has shifted from the institution to the Government. Contrary to what the official says, subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d) of Clause 2 have not altered by one single punctuation mark between the time the Bill was introduced in the other place on 26th June 2001 and today. And nowhere does it say that the onus is on the Government to notify the universities about anything. In fact, the Government in Committee in your Lordships' House totally opposed any modification to these provisions.
The representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry also said that the need for a licence would apply only to particular end users. It is abundantly clear that contrary to what the Minister told Dr Anderson in his letter of 28th February, the Bill will introduce a system of compulsory vetting of some students and I hope that in the light of the contents of the meeting to which I have referred, the Minister will not try to persuade your Lordships to the contrary.
It is also clear that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which shifts the onus of vetting and licensing away from the universities—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say which part of the Bill suggests that there is any system in it for the licensing of foreign students as opposed to licences which will be required by the person who is passing over the information? The whole nature of the Bill is about actions which pass
1112
information over. There are licences in that respect, but they are quite distinct from a system of licensing of students.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords. I shall continue with my speech and come back to that point in a moment. That is why my Amendment No. 4 unequivocally calls for the rejection of subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d).
I shall return to another aspect of those subsections when I explain subsection (4) of the new clause which I am proposing as Amendment No. 10. In view of their importance I should now like to explain them paragraph by paragraph but as shortly as possible.
Subsection (1) begins with the preamble restricting the right to control academic freedom except in three cases. The first is if such restrictions are imposed by any other statute. I have in mind, for example, the Official Secrets Act. The second is if such control is required by virtue of any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom. I have deliberately stressed that it must be a treaty obligation because treaties receive a cursory examination by Parliament. I do not want to see the Act circumvented by a vague undertaking given by the third secretary in some remote embassy, possibly without authority. Thirdly, I have inevitably had to accept that the sovereignty of our ancient Parliament is now subject to the dominion of Brussels.
With those caveats, subsection (1) restricts the right of the Government to make control orders on the transmission of thoughts and information in three cases. However, as I have said, there will be found to be a fourth when we come to the stand-alone provisions of subsection (4). The three instances where the Secretary of State cannot make control orders are, first, where the information is already in the public domain—and it is not necessary for me to explain that. If technological information is already in the public domain, it is a pointless exercise to try to ban its further dissemination. Phrases such as "putting the genie back in the bottle" or "putting the toothpaste back in the tube" spring to mind.
Secondly, the Secretary of State should not be able to prevent the placing of information in the public domain, including for patent and copyright purposes. That is censorship of the highest order and once again there is no practical means of enforcing such a ban. In these days when one can surf the Internet and find out how to make atomic bombs—at least in theory because, of course, the resources needed are well beyond the means of the average do-it-yourself practitioner—any ban on anonymously opening up a website is impossible to police. In fact, you do not have to use the Internet. Apparently, as we read in the newspaper last week, you can find it at the Public Record Office, courtesy of the Ministry of Defence, one of the agencies which is supposed to monitor licence applications.
Finally, I propose in the interests of academic freedom that the Government should not have the power to censor what may be taught. That is the very

1113
power they are seeking—or, if I do them an injustice, the power they will unwittingly have taken by the Act. Now that they have been told, I expect them to disclaim it and put it beyond their reach.
During the meeting to which I referred a moment or two ago, the senior representative of the DTI said, according to the minutes, that:
"There was no question that undergraduate studies would be affected by the proposed legislation, and that lecturing would also be unaffected as lectures would be treated as putting the matter in the public domain".
That interpretation, incidentally, reinforces my argument about paragraph (b) because at the meeting the DTI accepted that placing material in the public domain could not be banned. Unfortunately, nowhere does the Bill yet contain that inhibition, but it will if my amendment is accepted.
Your Lordships will have noticed that I do not seek to empower the academics to run amok with what they teach. I propose to prohibit the dissemination of information which they know or—and here the onus is on the teacher—which they ought to have known is intended for use in connection with the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons and similar nasties.
At this point I want to tell the House that this morning I was informed that the Minister was lobbying noble Lords who had been supportive of my amendment in Committee in order to suggest that it was flawed because the list of wicked purposes in my new clause was simply not long enough. However, it is taken word for word from Article 4 of the Dual Use Regulation of the European Community and we chose those words specifically to meet the criticism based on the article which the Minister made in Committee. I am surprised that having telephoned other people about it he did not get in touch with me. Had he done so, we might have been able to talk about the matter.
I have deliberately not used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness whether the 10-minute conversation we had in the corridor this morning was not one about exactly this issue. I explained exactly why I had grave reservations. I shall explain those later to the House. I explained that they were not about that particular aspect but about the fundamental issue of academics being taken out of the Bill altogether.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if the noble Lord had waited just a few moments longer, I would have told the House that I did meet him in the corridor some two hours ago, at which point we spoke for 10 minutes on another matter. However, he did not give me a chance to say it.
I have deliberately not used the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", which is what I said to the noble Lord earlier. I had understood that the noble Lord was concerned about that, but he said that he was not. My researches tell me that some governments, including
1114
ours and that of the United States, are conducting a kind of Dutch auction to define how many people can be killed before a weapon can be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. I believe that, at this stage, the figure might be as low as 25. That would mean that a bus running amok in Oxford Street possibly could be so defined. There is no purpose in that.
A few moments ago the noble Lord said that I did not mention our conversation. I have mentioned it and I understand that the noble Lord is concerned that my list is not wide enough. That is why I have responded to that for the benefit of those noble Lords whom the noble Lord has already lobbied.
The noble Lord's last-minute concern was that subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause would allow an ill-disposed academic to put dangerous information on to the Internet and then pretend that that had been done, "in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research". I should point out that nothing could prevent that being done from an anonymous website in a remote place outside the EU.
More than that, I am legally advised that my carefully drafted clause, which limits my exception to what is done in the ordinary course of academic teaching, along with the further provision that the person must or ought to know that what he is doing may be used for one of the bad purposes I have described, will prevent any such defence. Aside from that, such bad faith action would probably be caught under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.
Perhaps I may return to the Bill. New subsection (1)(c) allows academics to teach, but restricts them when they know, or ought to know, that what they are teaching could be used for one of the bad purposes that I have comprehensively defined in the clause. Subsection (2) reaffirms the powers of the Comptroller-General under Section 22 of the Patents Act 1977 to prohibit the publication of information in a patent application which might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public. Subsection (3) operates in a negative way compared with the rest of the new clause. It allows the Secretary of State to make a control order against transferring information or technology outside the EC where the transferor knows or ought to know that they could be used for the undesirable purposes I mentioned earlier.
Finally, I turn to new subsection (4). It underlines the whole concept of the freedom to teach students from abroad or who might go abroad with their knowledge. Perhaps I may refer to a regulation—I shall need to take a deep breath to recite this, although I have had to take several deep breaths in the course of my remarks—Council Regulation (EC) No. 1334/2000 of 22nd June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology. The first preamble reads:
"Whereas dual use items (including software and technology) should be the subject of effective control when they are exported from the Community".
No one would argue with that. However, Chapter 2, Article 3 is of particular interest. It provides specifically that the regulation does not apply to the

1115
supply of services or the transmission of technology if that supply or transmission involves the cross-border movement of persons.
Noble Lords will recall that in the days of the Soviet Union, emigration visas were frequently denied on the grounds that the applicant was possessed of certain vital information. Quite rightly, the EC is going to make it clear that those pretexts will not inhibit the free movement of people. It was also suggested to me, perhaps facetiously, that without it a person facing deportation to somewhere outside the EC could prevent it by having the formula for sarin gas tattooed on to a part of his person; I shall not say where.
In this series of amendments I have met the somewhat specious arguments produced by the Government at the previous stage. In response to a question then put to me by the noble Lord, he will see that subsections (2)(c) and (d) enable students to be licensed, a point with which we did not agree. His arguments were designed to support the Government's apparent desire to subject the whole of academia to the rigid controls of Whitehall. I have placed the onus of ensuring that undesirable students are kept out fairly and squarely on the Government, which is where it belongs. It should not be for the universities to have to go through such a procedure. It is for the Government to grant, refuse or cancel visas.
I have tried to produce a rational, practical arid, above all, credible regime which prevents the export of dangerous knowledge and technology while maintaining responsible academic freedom, something this country is famous for. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is attached to all the amendments in this grouping and I should like to speak to them. We do not dispute the assurances with regard to academic freedom given to us in Committee by the Minister, but through this series of amendments we seek to put those assurances on to the face of the Bill.
These problems have arisen because advances in technology mean that, today, the concept of the "transfer of technology" is no longer a matter of the physical passing-over of equipment, plans or blueprints. Technology now comprises processes of both the physical and the biological sciences. The Bill is applied deliberately to "technology of any description". The transfer of technology is also defined very broadly to include oral communication, telephone calls, e-mails, letters and data transfer via computer.
Given the range of technologies today—a whole set of data can be transferred via computer from one country to another—and given the ease with which technologies can be transferred by electronic means, noble Lords will recognise that the potential range of intangible goods covered by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill—research ideas, software, course materials such as handouts., lecture notes and slides, as well as academic papers and exchanges between academics in the process of collaborative research—is huge. Again,
1116
potentially Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State powers of prior review over relevant scientific publications. In deciding whether to grant a licence, the DTI will have to make such a review.
The Government have given us considerable assurances that this is not their intention. They say that the Bill is to apply only to a very narrow range of academic research that could be caught by its provisions and that anything in the public domain, including lectures, lecture notes and handouts, would certainly not be caught. It is to apply only to certain narrow areas of sensitive information where the person concerned either knows or has been informed by the Secretary of State that the area is sensitive and thus one in which they should take care about telling others about what they are doing.
That is fine and we accept those assurances. However, we want to see the assurances put on the face of the Bill. Regulations have been proposed and the assurances are to be incorporated into them. Those regulations are to be adopted by negative resolution. However, I say to noble Lords that that is not enough. The fact remains that the terminology of the Bill is extremely worrying. Even if we were to accept the assurances of the Government that their intentions are benign, our job in this House is to scrutinise legislation and ensure that future generations are protected from the potential activities of governments that are perhaps less benign. It is important that we—the legislature—do not let the executive get away with passing such wide-ranging powers. It is important that the assurances are not given in regulations, but that they are put on the face of the Bill. That is what this series of amendments seeks to achieve.
We have bent over backwards to take into account the points raised by the Minister in Committee with regard to international treaties. We recognise that there are some areas where information is sensitive. People who have been so informed cannot simply hand over information. We have tried to incorporate that into the amendments. However, we feel very strongly that they should be put on to the face of the Bill. It is for that reason that I urge noble Lords to support the amendments. They are important to basic academic freedom which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, is something that is fundamental to this country. We ought to make it clear to the executive that the legislature does not think that the Government are doing the right thing.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we have heard two very passionate and powerful speeches in favour of the amendment and the principle of academic freedom. For much of my life I have been involved with centres of higher education and universities and I would take second place to no one in my commitment to the principle of academic freedom. After the passion and sincerity with which the case has been argued, I have therefore some hesitation in making one or two cautious observations about the amendment as drafted.

1117
I should like those who support the amendment to consider whether it is perhaps drafted too broadly and may inadvertently tip the balance too far away from the measures necessary effectively to control the arms trade.
In her amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, provides exceptions only for restrictions required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a directive of the Council of the European Community. However, many of the international export control regimes to which the UK belongs—such as the Wassenaar arrangement and the missile technology control regime—are voluntary arrangements not governed by treaties, and so the proposed exceptions would not apply to them. Given that most of our export and related controls derive from the international regimes, that would be extremely damaging. It would mean that the UK might even have to block any future negotiations in those regimes to control intangible transfers. Controlling intangible transfers was rightly hailed as an achievement of the Bill and these developments should not lightly be reversed.
Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause would effectively exempt the academic community from transfer or technical assistance controls entirely except as they relate to weapons of mass destruction. Again I ask those who support the amendment, whom I respect—there is much in the amendment that must be taken seriously—whether this can really be right.
It is not only with controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction that the Bill is concerned. In Clause 2 of the Bill the Government propose to introduce controls on the electronic transfer of military technology, the tangible export of which from the United Kingdom is already controlled. It is highly unlikely that this control will seriously impact on the academic community as any academic involvement in the development of controlled military technology is expected to be very limited.
However, it is important not to create a dangerous loophole in the Bill that would be ripe for exploitation. International research collaboration involving exchange of controlled military technology between industrial establishments would require a licence. I therefore do not understand why it is justifiable to allow the same research project to be carried out unlicensed if it is carried out by an academic establishment.
It is important to strike a balance between protecting the vital cause of academic freedom and introducing the controls necessary to regulate intangible transfers of technology that could lead to proliferation. I am worried that the amendment as drafted is too broad. I believe that while it is not perfect and observations could be made about it, in this instance the amendment brought forward by my noble friend the Minister comes closer to meeting in a balanced way the anxieties so well expressed in Committee.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the spirit in which he has addressed this issue. I declare an interest as an academic.
By far the most interesting and difficult parliamentary conflicts are those which are between right and right. I understand that there is an interest of national security involved here. What is a weapon of war is now a matter which is in some doubt. There can be communication which can be used for purposes genuinely destructive to national security, but it is also true that the academic world is increasingly an international, global phenomenon. As John Winthrop once remarked when about to go to the United States, the Church is universal without respect of countries. The same is true of the universities.
The potential for interference with serious research is very real. How to draft a clause which meets a genuine danger without interfering with necessary freedoms is a problem to which not enough thought has been given by any of us. Let me take a parallel case from 1942. Stamp collecting is as innocent a hobby as one can think of, but my parents in Pennsylvania in 1942 had a cook whose hobby was collecting stamps from battleships posted in port. They thought that sounded a little too interesting. They told the FBI, and the man concerned disappeared one hour before the FBI's appearance. That told me two rather interesting things.
This is very much the kind of problem with which the Minister is forced to grapple, but unfortunately the Bill does not come within 100 miles of addressing it. The Bill is drafted in a style of draftmanship about which I have addressed the House before, the kind of draftmanship which only a weak Parliament could ever have allowed to grow up. Look, for example, at the wording of Clause 2(1):
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with the imposition of transfer controls in relation to technology of any description".
That really is the classic Cambyses clause. The Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. I find it very hard to see what could not be prohibited under those words.
We need to find a way of wording a clause which requires some evidence suggesting guilt in a particular person before the clause comes into force. There is no requirement here to prove the military potential of the information concerned; there is no requirement to show any mens rea in the communicator; there is no requirement to show that the communicator has any suspect record or even any suspect contacts; there is no requirement to show that the person communicating is communicating with a recipient who is suspect. There is no restriction at all on the purposes for which this clause can be invoked. That cannot be right. It must be necessary to show that there is some reason to believe that national security is in danger before the whole hammer apparatus of this clause is brought to bear on restricting the communication.
The Minister offers secondary legislation, but when it comes to reassuring this House with secondary legislation I am afraid that the Government have shot

1119
themselves in both feet and several other portions of their anatomy as well. The White Paper on House of Lords reform proposes that we should lose our power to reject secondary legislation. I have put down a string of questions for Written Answer about negative instruments. In the previous Parliament, 0.5 per cent of them were the subject of division in another place and not one was rejected. So the only possibility for the rejection of a statutory instrument is in this House. If the White Paper were put into effect, that would go. There would then exist the genuine possibility of the Government legislating by decree. If we let a clause such as this go forward, we should have sold our birthright for a mess of regulations.
The existence of the White Paper must influence the way in which this House votes on clauses that create the power to make regulations. So long as that sword of Damocles hangs over us, we cannot consider clauses allowing the Government to make regulations with the degree of trust that we have given them in the past. To allow this clause to go forward, one would need a degree of trust so great that I do not think any parliament should allow it to any Minister in recorded history, even if he or she were the best that there had ever been.
6 p.m.
Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, Oliver Wendell Holmes once memorably said that the right to free speech does not include the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I would add that the right to academic freedom does not include the right to light fires in crowded theatres, nor indeed to publicise new and more fearsome ways of doing so.
In short, I fully recognise—and my academic background is as rich and varied as that of anyone in this House —the need for various kinds of restrictions of the type in the Bill. However, lest we inflict greater damage on society than that which we seek to avoid, we need to be especially careful about how we limit free speech. We need to be especially careful about how we limit academic freedom. The exceptional circumstances need to be spelled out clearly and carefully, and not in sweepingly general terms. That is why—albeit with less passion than some earlier speakers—I support the spirit of this group of amendments.
That said, I share some of the reservations sketched by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the detail of the drafting. Subsection (4), for example, opens unintended loopholes. But the essential point is that amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others go in the right direction in terms of affirming the need for academic exchanges and processes to be unhindered except in limited, defined and exceptional circumstances.
The Government's alternative amendment, Amendment No. 22, although well-intentioned, simply enjoins that the Secretary of State shall,
"avoid any unreasonable restriction on … the making of information generally available to the public; or … the communication of information that has already been made generally available to the public".
1120
I have complete and utter trust in my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, our exemplary Science Minister. I have trust in my erstwhile colleagues—most of them anyhow—in the Department of Trade and Industry. I have particular trust in the current Secretary of State at the DTI, who has the unique virtue of being an Australian. But times change; people come, and people go. So I am unhappy with sweeping primary legislation and an invitation to trust decisions.
Nor is it a philosophical abstraction to distrust the possible consequences of such legislation. In the United States—and I have had personal experience of this during my 11 years as vice-president for research at Princeton University—similar laws, until they were recently changed, have been used, for instance, to impede pure mathematicians publishing work or presenting papers at conferences which were deemed to have possible reference to cryptography.
Admittedly, the Government's Amendment No. 22 means that, if a civil servant sought to impede academic publication or presentation in this way, I could seek judicial review and almost certainly win. I could even enjoy the adventure of invoking the Human Rights Act and going to The Hague en route to publishing the work several years later. What fun! That is scant consolation in terms of those apprehensions. In summary, I support the amendment, despite what I consider to be significant t problems with the drafting, because I believe that its essential principles are clear.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. However, is not the proposal in the Bill to give a Minister of State powers of preview of scientific publications, with powers to regulate, worthy of anathema? I am not an academic, but I have always defended academic freedom. This step does not seen requisite and assuredly goes far too far. It moves towards the inhibition of free trade, not only in goods and services but also in research, opinions and information. We should surely be grateful to those who have tabled the amendment. I shall support it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling aroused by the potential effect of the Bill on academic freedom. The noble Baroness is not right in saying that we have paid no attention to what was said in Committee when we are proposing a specific new clause to deal with the concerns expressed. On the basis of careful legal advice, the Secretary of State and I have made clear our view that the provision is compatible with the Human Rights Act. The idea that the Bill is not compatible with human rights legislation is wrong.
Perhaps I may point out that subsections (2)(c) and (d) of Clause 2 do not cover the licensing of students. The clause contains no power to license students, and no such power is contained in the Bill.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that in a Bill of this kind it is no good pointing to one clause and saying that under its provisions the Secretary of State can do anything, without pointing also to the restrictions, of

1121
which he will be well aware, contained in Clause 5 and in the schedule. There, it is clearly delineated—for the first time in a Bill of this sort—that restrictions which have been open-ended in the past are in this case firmly tied to a list of categories of goods to be excluded and to areas covered by the schedule. One has to take the Bill as a whole. One cannot simply point to Clause 2 and say that under its terms the Secretary of State can do anything.
The final point that I draw from the debate is that conversations in the corridors may seem attractive, but they do not always convey information with the exactitude that one would wish. Therefore, I shall again set out clearly what we believe to be wrong with the noble Baroness's amendment.
We have listened to the concerns raised and, as a result, have proposed an amendment on the key issue of academic freedom. Our Amendment No. 22 provides, as we were asked to do, on the face of the Bill the protection of the principle of freedom to publish and to communicate information that has already been published.
So I make it absolutely clear that our Amendment No. 22 will make it almost impossible—except in very rare instances, when it can be justified by the Secretary of State—to restrict information that is already in the public domain or is being put in the public domain. I believe that that is what academic freedom is about. Academic freedom is not about allowing—as the proposed new clause would allow—academics secretly to pass information which is not in the public domain to academics in other countries.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that information which is in the public domain is already there and cannot be removed? His proposed new clause is therefore irrelevant in this respect. The vital point is that the process of scientific development and methodology very often requires the exchange of information between academics in different countries before it is published. That is the basis of our concern about academic freedom.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, information is put into the public domain in almost all of the cases of academic freedom that we are discussing. People have frequently said, "The provision will stop us publishing information in a journal. It will stop us presenting a paper at a conference". Those are two examples of information being put in the public domain. However, one must distinguish those examples from situations in which information is passed to a person in another country and is restricted to those two people. I shall come to specific examples of the type of information sharing that Amendment No. 3 would allow. They will, I hope, demonstrate that the amendment would put an enormous hole in the Bill.
I should explain why we have taken this approach, as it will enable me to explain our serious difficulties with the approach proposed by the noble Baroness,
1122
Lady Miller. Our amendment addresses the concerns of the academic community about freedom to publish by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to avoid unreasonable restrictions on putting information in the public domain, or communicating material already in the public domain, when making secondary legislation under the Bill. Any order under the Bill which attempted to place an unreasonable restriction on publication or communication could therefore be opposed in the courts.
At the same time, the amendment retains the crucial degree of flexibility required to enable the Government to place restrictions on publication when necessary to control activities that might cause real harm, such as contributing directly to the development or production of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, our amendment applies to all persons and all control orders under the Bill, not just to controls under Clauses 2 and 3 or to the academic community, as Amendment No. 10 does.
I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, shares to some extent the same aim as ours. None the less, it would have a number of very damaging consequences that would undermine the Government's ability to maintain a comprehensive and responsible export control regime. I do not believe that that can be the Noble Baroness's intention.
The amendments provide for protection of information being placed in the public domain or already in the public domain. However, it provides exceptions to this only for restrictions,
"required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a Directive of the Council of the European Community".
In fact, many of the international export control regimes to which we belong, such as the Wassenaar arrangement, are political commitments. However, as they are also effectively voluntary arrangements not governed by treaties the proposed exceptions would not apply to them. On the other hand, the amendment would permit restrictions on publication or placing information in the public domain if that were required by international treaties, regardless of whether the proposed restrictions were reasonable.
In contrast, as I hope to explain again in more detail later, the Government's amendment applies to all controls under the Bill including those required by the international regimes. Therefore, in that respect, our amendment—which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has described as "feeble"—provides greater protection than does hers. Consequently, in future negotiation of international treaties, UK negotiators will have to consider whether proposed restrictions on freedom of information are reasonable and can be justified.
A consequence of Amendment No. 10 is that its subsection (1)(c) would effectively exempt the academic community from transfer or technical assistance controls entirely, except in so far as they relate to weapons of mass destruction. That would create a significant and unacceptable loophole in the Bill. In fact, we do not intend to introduce any controls on technical assistance other than in relation to weapons of mass

1123
destruction. However, we do intend to introduce controls in Clause 2 on the electronic transfer of military technology whose tangible export from the UK is already controlled and which is not in the public domain or classed as basic scientific research.
It is unlikely that that control will impact much on the academic community, as any academic involvement in the development of controlled military technology is expected to be very limited. Nevertheless, given that international research collaboration involving exchange of controlled military technology between industrial establishments would require a licence, we believe that it would he unjustifiable to allow the same research project to be carried out unlicensed if carried out by an academic establishment.
Yet the amendment would permit any academic to transfer controlled military technology overseas freely. Consequently, any academic involved in military research who, perhaps for political reasons, wished to support an overseas regime, such as the Arab or Israeli side in the Middle East, would be able to transfer technology to one or other regime without hindrance by the legislation.
Such a blanket exemption from export controls for certain groups flies in the face of our efforts to implement an effective export control regime. The Quadripartite Committee in another place concurred with this view, stating in its report on the draft Bill that it saw no case for complete exemption of academic activity from export controls. I cannot believe that noble Lords really wish to allow particular groups to transfer technology which can be used to build conventional weapons or for internal repression or terrorism. I am sure that the industrial community would be troubled to discover that the academic community was trusted to send controlled military technology abroad at will while they were not.
I am amazed that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is supporting such an amendment. She must be aware that the above possibility exists as that was the nature of our conversation. I pointed out to her that that would be the effect of her amendments. Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause effectively states that there will be no control on the transfer of information,
"orally or in writing or electronically in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research",
although it does make an exception for nuclear weapons. The amendments would clearly exempt academics from all the Bill's requirements in that regard.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the provision does not apply only to nuclear weapons—it applies also to chemical and biological weapons. The provision also very clearly states that it will apply,
"unless the person placing or transferring the data knows or ought to have known that such information is or may be intended for use in connection with",
the development of such weapons. Our amendment precisely deals with the Minister's concern.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course it makes those exceptions; my point is that all other aspects of military technology would therefore not be covered by the Bill. Consequently, as I said, an academic could transfer such information to other countries without restriction. To have that written into this Export Control Bill, which seeks to stop that kind of military information going abroad, seems to me a complete nonsense. The Liberal Democrat Party has pushed strongly to tighten up the Bill to make it tougher for this technology to go abroad. It has pushed for even tighter restrictions on technology being sent abroad to be used in the way we are discussing. For it then to say that a group of people should not be subject to that control seems to me to make a complete nonsense of the Bill and to go in two completely different directions at the same time.
Subsection (4) of the proposed amendment would also prevent the Government from implementing their proposed controls on weapons of mass destruction in full, and in particular from meeting their commitments enshrined in the European Union Joint Action on technical assistance to weapons of mass destruction programmes agreed in September 2000. A primary purpose of that joint action was to address the question of supply to weapons of mass destruction programmes by persons moving outside the EU.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4. This would prevent the Government from introducing any controls on transfers of technology within the UK where the technology transferred was intended for use outside the UK and would also prevent introduction of controls on transfers of information into the UK where the technology concerned was intended for use outside the UK. Perhaps it may be useful if I begin by explaining why these powers were included in the Bill.
Essentially these provisions are about the export of technology. I think all accept that it is right that an export licence should be required for certain technology such as blueprints and manuals which describe how to build a weapon. Again I think it is generally accepted that if you need a licence to export that technology in physical form, you should also need a licence to export it electronically. But technology—by which essentially we mean knowledge—can also in effect be exported through communications in person. An expert going overseas and drawing up a manual there or directly instructing someone is effectively exporting technology. Again I think that has been accepted as an activity which may be subject to control. But the same expert might communicate exactly the same information to the identical person while in the United Kingdom, or he might telephone that person in the UK while overseas himself. Should that be permitted simply because the location of the individuals is different when exactly the same information is communicated between the same people?
Paragraphs 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) of the Bill are included in order to prevent controls being avoided in this way. It is important to note that these paragraphs of the Bill do not provide a general power to control transfers of technology within the UK or from

1125
overseas to the UK. They only allow controls to be imposed where there is reason to believe that the individual transfer in question will result in the technology concerned being used outside the UK. Moreover, like the other controls in the Bill, such controls could only be imposed if required by international obligations or European Community law in relation to military technology, or if they might lead to one of the consequences described in the schedule. Of course, if government Amendment No. 22 is accepted, it will be clear that these powers cannot be used to impose unreasonable restrictions on the publication of information or the communication of information that is already in the public domain.
We recognise that regulating these types of transfers is difficult; that is why we have made clear that the controls we introduce under these provisions in the Bill will be targeted on the areas of greatest concern: namely, weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes. But we believe that these controls are extremely important in fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, these proposals were strongly supported by the Quadripartite Committee in another place, which described them in its report on the draft Bill as "profoundly significant".
It is worth stopping a moment to consider what the effect of removing paragraphs 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) from the Bill would be in terms of our proposed controls relating to weapons of mass destruction. A UK citizen might know that he could not legally communicate technology relevant to the development of weapons of mass destruction while abroad to a particular individual because he knew of that person's links to a weapons of mass destruction programme. But he would be free to communicate the same information to that person if that person came to the UK. He might do that either in person or by communicating with the proliferator from abroad. I feel sure that the noble Baroness's intention is not to create that kind of loophole.
In conclusion, these amendments would have severe consequences for the Government's proposed controls. The controls set out in the draft dummy orders published last October on the transfer of technology for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction programmes—with which Universities UK has said it is happy—could not be introduced. Neither could our proposed controls on electronic transfers of military technology be introduced in full. The Government simply cannot accept an amendment which would create such huge loopholes in the proposed legislation. An effective export control regime inevitably involves imposing restrictions on certain activities. Although I emphasise that we anticipate the impact on the academic community of these restrictions to be minimal, we maintain strongly that they are necessary.
It is nevertheless possible to provide effective protection for freedom to publish and communicate information in the public domain on the face of the Bill, and Amendment No. 22 will do that. We believe that our amendment strikes the correct balance
1126
between the need to protect academic freedom and the need for an effective export control regime. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my amendment may not be perfect but it could certainly be put right at Third Reading. That would be the appropriate thing to do. The issue of academic freedom is a strong one and I have laid my wares on the table. There is no point in saying anything further. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 150; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fookes, B.

Ackner, L.

Freeman, L.

Addington, L.

Garel-Jones. L.

Alderdice, L.

Geddes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glentoran, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goodhart, L.

Arran, E.

Goschen, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Attlee, E.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hambro, L.

Barker, B.

Hamwee, B.

Blatch, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Bowness, L.

Higgins, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Holderness, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Howe, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bridges, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Brightman, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jacobs, L.

Bumham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Burns, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Listowel, E.

Byford, B.

Liverpool, E.

Caithness, E.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Luke, L.

Chadlington, L.

Lyell, L.

Chan, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Colwyn, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

May of Oxford, L.

Darcyde Knayth,B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dholakia, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Monson, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Montrose, D.

Erroll, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Falkland, V.

Moynihan, L.

Feldman, L.

Murton of Lindsfame, L.

Ferrers, E.

Naseby, L.

Flather, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

1127

Noakes, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northover, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Palmer, L.

Stem, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Stewartby, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Strange, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Razzall, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Tebbit, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Rees, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rennard, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Tope, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Trumpington, B.

Roper, L.

Vincent of Coleshill, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Russell, E.

Walpole, L.

Saatchi, L.

Warnock, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Sandwich, E.

Wilcox, B.

Scott of Needharn Market, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Williamson of Horton, L.

Sharman, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grabiner, L.

Ahmed, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Grocott, L.

Amos, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Andrews, B.

Harrison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hayman, B.

Bach, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Billingham, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brennan, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Chancellor)

Brookman, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Joffe, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Judd, L.

Chandos, V.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Levy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

[Teller]

Currie of Marylebone, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pendry, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rea, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sawyer, L.

1128

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Uddin, B.

Sewel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Simon, V.

Weatherill, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitaker, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Temple-Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 23, leave out "An order under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Technical assistance controls]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 37, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of section (Academic Freedom),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 3, line 13, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)"
Page 3, line 19, leave out "An order under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order"
Page 3, line 22, leave out "Controls may be imposed under this section" and insert "Technical assistance controls may be imposed"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendmert No. 10:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"ACADEMIC FREEDOM
(1) Unless any form of restriction is permitted under or by virtue of any other Act, or is required by any international treaty obligation of the United Kingdom or a Directive of the Council of the European Community, an order made under section 2 or 3 of this Act may not impose any control on—

(a) any information already in the public domain anywhere in the world (whether or not it is the subject of any patent, copyright, or other form of protection for intellectual property);

(b) the placing of any information in the public domain by publication orally or in writing or electronically (including for the purposes of a patent copyright or other form of protection of intellectual property); or

(c) the transfer of any information orally or in writing or electronically in the ordinary course of academic teaching or research unless the person placing or transferring the data knows or ought to have known that such information is or may be intended for use in connection

1129
with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles or other unmanned vehicles or other devices capable of delivering such weapons.

(2) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Comptroller-General under section 22 of the Patents Act 1977 (c. 37) (secrecy directions) or any statutory modification or reenactment thereof which otherwise affects any obligation imposed by any other enactment or at common law relating to the secrecy of official information.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the application of transfer or technical assistance controls to the transfer of any information to a person who, or a place which, is outside the European Community by a person who knows or ought to know that the information in question is or may be intended for use in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles or other devices capable of delivering such weapons.
(4) An order made under section 2 or 3 of this Act may not apply to the supply of services or the transmission of technology if that supply or transmission involves the cross border movement of natural persons."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Trade controls]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 4, line 1, leave out "An order under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order"
Page 4, line 9, leave out from "section" to end of line 10.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Razzallmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. The amendments relate to our simple debate in Committee about whether the Government are honouring in the Bill the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election that the new export control legislation would,
"control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located".
My submission in Committee was that the Bill as drafted does not currently live up to that commitment. I would like to develop that argument further. It is obviously not for me to defend the Government or explain why they are not living up to their manifesto commitment.
I believe that the importance of this issue has been demonstrated more recently by events in Zimbabwe. Paul Farrelly, who, in a former life, was the City editor of the Observer and is now the Member of Parliament in another place for Newcastle-under-Lyme, has discovered two very recent cases of extraterritorial arms brokering by UK individuals or companies, both relating to Zimbabwe. In one case, quite a well known UK-based arms dealer has been identified as the main supplier of arms to Mr Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and he brokers those arms extraterritorially. He would not be
1130
captured by the Bill as currently drafted. The second example discovered by Paul Farrelly shows that it is clear that spare parts for Hawk fighters have been shipped to Kenya and then re-routed to Zimbabwe. We understand that those transactions would not be caught by the Bill as currently drafted.
The Government's position, as clearly set out by the Minister in Committee, is that they will bring in regulations to implement the extraterritorial nature of the Bill. But the dummy orders that have been published, and the Government's stated intention, indicate that full extraterritorial controls on brokering will be imposed only for deals involving transfers to embargoed destinations, transfers of equipment used in torture or transfers of long-range missiles. That is the Government's position.
From these Benches we take the view that that does not go far enough. We believe that arms brokering in general—not limited to the three categories to which the Government have indicated they are prepared to extend the controls—meets at least five of the six Home Office criteria for determining whether extraterritorial legislation is appropriate. We made that point in Committee but the Government do not accept it. The substantive argument put forward by the Government is that, if the proposal, as set out in this group of amendments, were put into law, vulnerable individuals would be sitting brokering arms outside the United Kingdom and would not be aware that their activities were making them liable to criminal penalties in the United Kingdom. In Committee, that was the substance of the Government's defence. I find it an extremely thin argument.
I believe that anyone who has any connection with the United Kingdom and is involved in the arms-brokering business must be aware —if he is not, he should be—that extensive controls are applicable. I find it very difficult to accept the argument that the extraterritorial nature of these controls should not apply to arms dealers in transactions wherever they are located. For that reason, I commend the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I, like many others who are in touch with voluntary organisations throughout the world, am concerned about the apparent ease with which arms, large and small—I include both—are transferable throughout the globe.
I am glad that the UK Government have taken such a leading role within the European Union in pushing for a legally binding convention on arms brokering. That is good and to our credit. I thank them for that. However, it is important that we in the UK put our own house in order. The most vulnerable groups of people in places such as, to quote an area that I know well, central Africa—that is, many of the poor and the powerless, including many women and children—continue to suffer as the result of arms made available through arms brokering. Some such activity is conducted by UK citizens and some by people who are not UK citizens but who are resident in the UK.

1131
Therefore, it is good that the Bill seeks to address the problems created by arms brokering by dealing with arms brokering itself. However, it is hard to understand why Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to assist in and ensure the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction of UK arms brokers. That is very puzzling.
As we all know, the precedent for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction already exists. There is no legal impediment to creating fully extraterritorial legislation. As recently as January this year, the Government placed full extraterritorial controls on corruption offences as part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, ensuring jurisdiction over nationals for offences of corruption committed abroad. That seemed to be eminently sensible, necessary and wise.
Therefore, in some areas this Government are willing to make provision for extraterritorial control but they seem to be reluctant to do so in this Bill. Why cannot similar action be taken with regard to the brokering of arms and with regard to people who, while not being terrorists themselves, are equally resourceful, cunning and deceitful and enable others to engage in activities which are unhelpful towards human flourishing? There seems to be a loophole here for those who deal with non-embargoed countries. One could name some, such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Syria. The loopholes allow for deals to be made off-shore, and those loopholes need to be closed.
I am told that the military procurement documents discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, show that in the midst of the genocide there—I understand that 3 million people died in five years in that country—arms which originated from Albania and Israel were secretly flown to Zaire. At the time, Zaire was not an embargoed destination. From Zaire, it is a short and easy journey for the arms to reach embargoed Rwanda. Documents later found in the secret military archive of the exiled Rwandan government highlighted the central role played by a UK company in brokering those deals.
Arms brokers, such as a UK company which I shall not name, contributed to the carnage but have not yet faced persecution. As I understand it, under the present Export Control Bill, as it stands, they will remain unlicensed, unregulated and legal. I speak having met four African bishops from the Congo, Rwanda and that part of central Africa in the past 10 days. They have to live with the consequences of arms brokering as it is currently allowable. I hope that we shall support these amendments.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate made those remarks about what happened in Rwanda because it is a sad and ghastly story. I agree with him that we shall all be condemned in history for our failure to have faced up to it adequately. However, I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Razzall, for having introduced the amendment after, if I may say so, their aberration on the academic amendment which we have just debated. I believe that this amendment achieves
1132
the purpose which they seek and which I applaud; that is, to help my noble friend the Minister in strengthening the Bill. I do not believe that the amendment on academic freedom did anything to assist in that regard.
In arguing the case, I want to emphasise several points. First, we must recognise that there is increasing evidence that arms brokers are one of the main suppliers of weapons to conflict zones. I, for one, was glad and proud when my party—the Labour Party— said in its manifesto, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, reminded us, that its pledge was,
"to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located".
That was the manifesto. The pledge is not reflected in this Bill.
In a recent opinion poll commissioned by the UK working group on arms, 80 per cent of those questioned agreed that the Government should honour their manifesto commitment and introduce controls on UK arms brokers, whether they operate in the UK or overseas. However, despite the fact that the Bill gives the Government the power to control UK brokers wherever they are located, they only selectively propose to take that power in the dummy orders for secondary legislation. That is a damaging loophole. UK dealers could simply cross over to Paris or Dublin to do a deal and so evade British controls. The point has been argued before but needs repeating. It is important to amend the Bill to ensure that trade controls comprehensively apply to UK dealers operating overseas.
As I recall, my noble friend argued in Committee that according to Home Office criteria extra-territorial controls are justified only to prevent arms brokers supplying weapons to countries under a UN, a European Union or a UK embargo or supplying torture equipment and long-range missiles. Matrix Chambers appears to be quoted fairly freely in our debates and appears to have been active in regard to this legislation. I have seen legal advice from Matrix Chambers that disagrees with that interpretation and says that arms brokering meets five of the six Home Office criteria, reminding us that only one has to be met for legislation to be appropriate. There are many cases where it is vital to control supplies of conventional weapons to countries that are not under an arms embargo.
Perhaps I may give a hypothetical example, which in current circumstances could all too easily be a real example. Consider the case of a UK broker who wanted to organise the transfer of fighter jets, combat helicopters and small arms to Israel, knowing that they would be used against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. He would be unhindered by the current proposals if his activities were carried out overseas as Israel is not under an arms embargo. The Foreign Secretary confirmed on Tuesday in the other place—it was welcomed by all—that controls on direct UK exports to Israel have been strengthened as a result of the worsening situation in the Middle East and the unauthorised use by the Israeli armed forces of British tanks in the Occupied Territories. In those

1133
circumstances, can it be right that a British arms broker would be able to supply weapons that it now seems the Government would no longer export directly? The lack of full extra-territorial controls on arms brokers means that UK dealers will be free to undermine our own foreign policy.
The Government have also raised practical issues about enforcement. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I remind him that in other areas of legislation—the recent Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the Landmines Act 1998—the Government have weighed up the issues and decided that the deterrent effect and the status of the United Kingdom in the international community mean that extraterritorial controls should be introduced. Surely, if it was appropriate in those circumstances, those arguments apply equally to arms brokering.
I conclude by asking specific questions of my noble friend. Does the Minister agree that it will undermine UK foreign policy if arms brokers are able to move overseas and engage in arms deals that would not be licensed directly from the UK? Does the Minister agree that extra-territorial controls would serve as a deterrent effect and prevent our driving this illegitimate, nasty and cruel trade overseas? Surely, it would reinforce our welcome new emphasis on conflict prevention and resolution in Africa if we took all possible steps to prevent British citizens supplying the weapons that often fuel the fighting.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has given me the courage to mention Israel. The need to tighten our export controls, including arms brokering, has come into sharp focus with the revelation that the Israel defence force has, all along, been in breach of undertakings that British military equipment would not be used in the Occupied Territories. Our military attaché in Israel has evidence, quoted this week by the Foreign Secretary, that British armoured personnel carriers have been used in the Occupied Territories. Perhaps we should not be surprised. Therefore, it is quite possible that Britain is unknowingly assisting the present appalling attacks on Jenin, Ramullah and Bethlehem, which have been widely condemned this week in another place.
That shows that the Bill is essential. We must have proper monitoring controls. I believe that in 2000 we sold £12.5 million worth of military equipment to Israel. Israel is also an importer of our production equipment for ammunition. Along with India, Kenya, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, it is a country known to be involved in conflict and yet continually imports from the United Kingdom.
The right reverend Prelate has said, better than I, that there are already extra-territorial controls and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, quoted the examples of controls relating to drugs, chemical weapons and sex offenders and the Landmines Act. There are clear criteria—I shall mention two—on which there is international consensus that certain conduct is
1134
reprehensible and that concerted action, involving the taking of extra-territorial jurisdiction, is needed. One example is the UK Government taking a leading role in the recent convention of arms brokering at the UN conference. Another point is that the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to tackle offences.
That is of particular interest to aid organisations. Quite rightly, Rwanda has been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. Arms brokering in war zones or in places where law and order is breaking down means that the victims of brokering are frequently innocent civilians. They comprise an estimated 80 per cent of all casualties in conflicts. Too often they are women and children.
The Government have given another reason for not proceeding—lack of resources. I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister. We know that the Government have announced an additional £90 million for law enforcement to tackle organised crime, including the combating of drug trafficking. Now is not the time to go into the connections, but they are clear. Trafficking in arms, drugs and humans are typically interconnected because criminals use established routes to branch out into different commodities. I gather that the likely extra costs associated with the recommendations in this amendment would be small by comparison, although one has sympathy with governments looking for extra resources in any event. For those reasons I strongly support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I have an interest to declare as a member of Matrix chambers. I do not have the distinction of having signed the advice which was referred to a few moments ago, although I am sure that had I read it, I would have found its logic and the appropriateness of conclusions compelling.
I rise as a Back Bencher to seek reassurance from the Government. Their manifesto commitment has been mentioned and it is appropriate, as the Bill draws to its close in this House, that my noble friend the Minister should give that reassurance in three areas.
First, it has been my experience, like that of the right reverend Prelate, that the oppression which many people in various parts of the developing world suffer is caused by the use of small arms, not major weaponry. Something must be done, rather than washing our hands and saying that it is too difficult a problem to cope with. It is a permanent practical problem. How do we control small arms brokering which feeds oppressors?
Secondly, on a different but related topic, if the Bill is not to control arms brokering by UK citizens abroad, how does its purpose fit into the scheme of a world-wide campaign against terrorism? The logic that we should embrace united campaigns to trace the funds that finance terrorism and join in a coalition on every front is difficult to follow when any ordinary citizen would choose the option of stopping people getting weapons as his first objective. If such controls

1135
are not in this Bill, what are the Government doing to stop arms brokering activity in the fight against terrorism?
Thirdly, my last appeal for reassurance deals with controlling the self-interest of nations. I read in the information on the debate that was sent to us that the United States controls by law the brokering activities of US citizens abroad. It has no difficulty with so-called problems of extraterritoriality. I also read that neither we nor Germany have such controls. Perhaps that includes other countries of the European Union. A few months ago we were called upon to join Europe in framework decisions for a common arrest warrant, and for the campaign against terrorism to be advanced by Europe. Please may we have reassurance that the Government are pushing the European Community member states to ensure that individually they do not destroy the common wish of the whole, which is that the brokering of arms should not be supported?
In seeking that reassurance, I commend the Government on their general objectives. An ordinary person considering the Bill will ask whether it will stop people getting round arms control. Getting on an aeroplane or living abroad is getting round such controls. How will that be stopped? My questions are designed to be constructive and I await the reassurance that many of us are looking for.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I begin by pointing to the irony of the situation. We have just passed an amendment that will allow someone, because he is an academic, to export the blueprint instructions on how to make cluster bombs, electric shock batons, or indeed, military equipment to Zimbabwe and many other countries with an appalling human rights record. That is within our control to stop.
We are now moving on seamlessly to try stop something that has real practical difficulties in foreign countries.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what is the Bill on antiterrorism about if it is not about inciting terrorism by the very acts that the Minister has described?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this has nothing to do with acts of terrorism. I was talking about blueprints on cluster bombs and other activities. That is exactly what the Export Control Bill will control. If that is not clear to everyone, I do not know why we are spending such a long time debating the Bill. We have just made a large hole in the Bill by saying that if someone is an academic, he can export blueprint instructions on how to make cluster bombs, electric shock batons—they have nothing to do with acts of terrorism—and any military equipment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister is not explaining the position. That is not what the amendment does. The noble Lord is also shaking his head. My amendment may not be perfect, but we took
1136
legal advice, too, and it certainly was not intended to do any of the things suggested. It was intended to protect academic freedom.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if I am wrong I stand corrected, but that is the clear advice that we were given.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thought that I was proposing an amendment regarding arms brokering. We have now heard the Minister addressing his remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on a subject that has nothing whatever to do with my amendment. I did not add my name to the previous amendment, so the Minister might do me the courtesy of responding to my amendment rather than entering into badinage with the noble Baroness.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was merely pointing out that there is a curious context in which the amendment is being debated. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, voted for the previous amendment, but I merely point out that it suggests curious behaviour. There was a vote for one amendment to allow what I described and now we are proceeding to try to tighten up the Bill.
I shall now turn to the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the Minister's behaviour is equally curious. That commitment was in the Labour party's manifesto, so why is it not being honoured now? If that is how debates are conducted in this House, it is not the place I thought it was.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to discuss the noble Lord's amendment and deal with that issue. I wanted to put the debate in context so that people would be clear where we stood. Inevitably in such debates, attention is focused on those aspects of the proposed legislation that your Lordships want to change. That is, of course, right, but I remind the House of the great step forward that the Bill represents with regard to the control of the arms trade, as it is relevant to the debate on the amendments.
The Bill will enable the Government to introduce national controls on trafficking and brokering for the first time. The powers in Clause 4 are extensive and will allow us to introduce controls extraterritorially. We shall be using those powers to introduce controls that apply extraterritorially on trafficking and brokering of torture equipment, long-range missiles and arms to embargoed destinations. If the controls on embargoed destinations were in place today they would apply to trafficking and brokering in arms to 16 countries as well as to Al'Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. Controls on torture equipment, long-range missiles and trafficking to embargoed destinations reflect the proposals set out in our 1998 White Paper. In a significant addition, in response to the White Paper consultations, we decided to go still further and introduce controls on the trafficking and brokering from the UK of all weapons and other military equipment to any destination.

1137
The amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Redesdale, would, as we have heard, provide that any trade controls introduced by the UK Government must apply extraterritorially. Before I discuss the substantive issue of the scope of the extraterritorial controls to be introduced under the Bill, I point out that the Bill gives the Government the power to apply any trade controls extraterritorially. In that sense, it meets all our commitments as a political party.
At the same time, because we put in clear regulations the Bill focuses on the areas in which we believe we can take practical action. The terrorist action is covered by the anti-terrorism legislation, which has another set of criteria here. Perhaps I can also say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that, while the United States has legislation on extraterritoriality, it is not true to say that they find it easy to control the situation; in fact they find it extremely difficult and it leads to many problems.
The general approach of the Bill is to give the Government the powers we need for a comprehensive export control regime that is flexible enough to allow us to respond to changing circumstances, such as new international commitments, while of course setting limits, as the Bill does in Clause 5 and the schedule. We believe that is right in principle. For that reason alone we cannot support amendments that would prescribe the scope of detailed controls.
I turn to the question of the scope of the new controls that we announced we would introduce under the Bill. One of our principal arguments against extraterritorial jurisdiction for the proposed controls on all military equipment to any destination is that that would risk criminalising the involvement of UK nationals settled overseas in the legitimate export of defence equipment from their countries of residence. The amendments would mean that any controls introduced on trade in all military equipment to any destination would apply extraterritorially.
It has been suggested that it would be entirely reasonable to expect a UK citizen abroad to be aware of the seriousness of the offence of deliberately attempting to evade controls on arms brokering, carrying as it would a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment. But trade in military equipment carried out in accordance with the laws of the exporting country may well be perfectly legitimate. Typically, over 97 per cent of licences for exports of items on the UK's military list are granted because the export would be consistent with our announced consolidated criteria.
Similarly, the majority of trade in military equipment is likely to constitute legitimate trade. Whereas it is reasonable to expect a UK citizen abroad to suspect that he may be contravening the laws of his country if he supplies arms to an embargoed destination or supplies torture equipment or long-range missiles, it is not necessarily reasonable to expect a UK citizen abroad to know that an export of military
1138
equipment from his country of residence to a non-embargoed destination, carried out according to the laws of the exporting country, required a licence from the UK Government.
We believe that the right way to deal with the concerns raised is to encourage international cooperation. The Government will continue—this answers the point of my noble friend Lord Brennan—to press for international embargoes to be imposed on countries in regions of conflict. That is the best way to stop the supply of arms to those regions.
We supported the recently adopted European Union statement of principles on controlling arms brokering and we take every opportunity to encourage the growing international consensus on the need for controls in that area. For example, both the UN Firearms Protocol adopted in May last year and the conclusions of the UN conference on "Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects" in July recognised the need to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering.
Therefore I do not accept the principle that the action we are taking in any way undermines our foreign policy. It fits into that policy because it is a practical set of actions on which we can deliver in the future. The real difficulties are the practical ones over and above those of costs. So for the reasons I set out it would be wrong to take the prescriptive approach of these amendments.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I can put this to him. He put to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that there was a paradox between taking the position which the Liberal Democrats took on academic freedom, and then taking the stance that they are taking on brokering. Perhaps I can in all friendship say to my noble friend that there is a paradox between taking the line which he and I took together on academic freedom and the need to infringe academic freedom—a significant thing to do in Britain—and then refusing to do anything about these reprehensible characters who carry on their trade overseas and evade control.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe there is a paradox. There is a comparison to be made. The great difference is that one is easily within our control in the UK. We can control it and the situation is very clear. But these amendments involve trying to control something in far distant places where we could criminalise perfectly innocent people going about their jobs. I do not find that a paradox, though a parallel can be drawn between the two situations. I trust the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister's response, particularly the last part. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the Minister did not answer the fundamental question of how the sorts of activities that were described by all

1139
sides of the House as being of significant concern will be dealt with by the Bill. He appears to suggest that the only way to do it is by international co-operation. I will make a prediction: if that is the way Her Majesty's Government propose to do it, we shall be here in 30 years still debating the issue. It will always be easy to find rogue states that are not imposing embargoes on arms distribution under which unscrupulous UK citizens who wish to broker arms can do so without penalty. So international co-operation, I fear, will not be the answer.
I am also unpersuaded by the Minster's argument that it would be unfair for the UK citizen. The image of the poor UK citizen who is sitting somewhere in the world in one of the other countries and is not aware that Her Majesty's Government have controls over this activity does not persuade me, particularly when we look at the other offences we expect UK citizens to be aware of. However, I shall read the Minister's response in Hansard carefully and come back to this matter at Third Reading, after discussion with colleagues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Joffemoved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"TRADE CONTROLS: ACTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM
(1) This section applies if—

(a) a national of the United Kingdom or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom does anything in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

(b) the act would, if done in the United Kingdom, constitute a trade control offence (as defined below).

(2) In such a case—

(a) the act constitutes the offence concerned, and

(b) proceedings for the offence may be taken in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of this section, trade control offences are—

(a) the acquisition or disposal, the movement or activities which facilitate or are otherwise connected with the acquisition, disposal or movement of—

(i) missiles capable of a range of 300km or more, and specifically designed components therefor; or

(ii) any "equipment" falling within PL5001 paragraph (c) or (g) of the Military List;

(b) any unlicensed—

(i) acquisition or disposal;

(ii) movement; or

(iii) activities which facilitate or are otherwise connected with the acquisition, disposal or movement,

of small arms and light weapons, and ammunition for small arms and light weapons.
(4) Other acts done outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man may also be defined as trade control offences, but only if they are done by a person who is, or is acting under the control of, a United Kingdom person."
1140
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No, 13 sought to apply controls to a very wide range of goods. Amendment No. 15 limits its application to small arms, light weapons and ammunition. In so doing, it aims to meet the concerns expressed by the Minister in Committee, and indeed this evening, that it is impractical to apply controls to a wide range of goods, some of which are equally capable of civilian use.
For the sake of uniformity, the amendment also includes the three categories which the Government intend to control extraterritorially: long-range missiles, instruments of torture and goods to embargoed destinations. In brief, despite its lengthy wording, the amendment seeks to add small arms, light weapons and ammunition to those three categories.
As the Bill stands, controls on the extraterritorial brokering of small arms and light weapons apply only where part of the transaction takes place in the United Kingdom. The means of evading those controls are, accordingly, so self-evident that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is no serious intention by the Government to impose extraterritorial controls on any goods other than the three categories expressly mentioned.
As Roger Berry, MP, the chair of the Quadripartite Select Committee, stated,
"A child of 5 could work out an easy way to avoid the restrictions. You hop on the Eurostar and shake hands in Lille".
Indeed, UK-based small arms dealers could not have asked for more. The Bill produces extraordinary consequences. While arms dealers based in the UK cannot export British-manufactured small arms without a licence, all they need to do is take the Eurostar to France and there they can, legally under UK law, traffic in Russian-manufactured small arms and weapons to their heart's content. It is a curious result.
As I understand the situation, the Government choose not to apply extra-territorial controls to small arms and light weapons for three reasons, none of which I suggest stand up to critical analysis. In order to analyse these reasons I fear that I shall need to detain your Lordships a little longer than I— or I am sure noble Lords—would wish.
The first reason relates to the six criteria about which we have already heard, published by the Home Office in 1996 recommending that the extension of jurisdiction could be considered in certain circumstances where at least one of the criteria was present. The Government have selected the third of these criteria, and possibly the second, on which to base their opposition and have conveniently ignored the other criteria, each one of which would justify consideration.
The third criterion on which the Government rely is where international consensus exists that certain conduct is reprehensible and that concerted action is needed. They appear to contend that there is no international consensus that the brokering of small arms and weapons is reprehensible.

1141
In practice, however, there is a growing international consensus that brokering is in urgent need of international regulation. No one knows that better than the UK Government, who, to their credit, are taking a leading role in pushing for a legally binding convention on arms brokering, both within the EU and the UN.
It is hardly open to this Government, who are leading the way on the international control of small arms, to contend that because a handful of countries do not yet support such controls there is no international consensus and that that precludes them from effective controls legislation.
However, even if there were not such international consensus it is not correct that extra-territorial legislation is justified only in such cases. One needs to look no further than this year's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act where the Government legislated that bribery and corruption committed outside the United Kingdom constituted an offence, even though in some jurisdictions this activity is not criminalised. Similarly, the Government have extended jurisdiction extra-territorially for the brokering of torture equipment, even though some of their European Union partners do not control the export of such equipment.
The second reason advanced by the Government is the difficulty of enforcement. While it is clear that enforcement in relation to extra-territorial activities is not easy, mechanisms will in any event have to be established to enforce controls on the three categories in respect of which the Government already propose to apply extra-territorial controls. These same systems can obviously be adapted and utilised in order to control the brokering of small arms, ammunition and light weapons. Can the Minister in his response explain why, if the Government can enforce controls on missiles, torture instruments and goods to embargoed countries, they cannot also enforce controls on small arms, light weapons and ammunition?
It is instructive that in January 2002, as I have said, the Government placed full extra-territorial controls on corruption offences as part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2002. In the Home Office consultation paper issued in June on the issue, the Government set out their reasoning for introducing such controls in relation to corruption. They stated:
"We have also considered whether we should go further and extend nationality jurisdiction to such an offence, recognising that this could send a strong deterrent message that the UK is determined to act against corruption wherever it occurs. This is a message that will have a real persuasive and dissuasive force … The Government, whilst recognising the practical problems associated with the prosecution of extra-territorial offences, believes that the balance of advantage rests with assuming jurisdiction over its nationals for offences of corruption committed abroad. Such an assumption of jurisdiction would put beyond doubt the UK's commitment to join forces with the international community and the fight against corruption".
We come here to the fight against extra-territorial brokering. The reasoning adopted is directly relevant to arms brokering. If the noble Lord disagrees it would be helpful if, in his response, he could distinguish
1142
between the two cases. First, why is it in order to criminalise brokering extra-territorially? Secondly, why not criminalise small arms, light weapons and ammunition which are the cause of countless deaths and hardship in many parts of the world?
The third reason advanced by the Government is the risk of criminalising the involvement of UK nationals based overseas in what they might think is a legitimate activity. I share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about the matter.
The presumption in law that ignorance of the law is no defence seems to have escaped the attention of the Government. However, setting that aside, one cannot help wondering who are these naive UK arms dealers brokering small arms in foreign lands who would be unaware of the provisions of the widely publicised Export Control Bill. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a subject more likely to interest them. Are they a different breed from those labelled by the Minister, Nigel Griffiths, in another place, as "resourceful, cunning and deceitful"? Are they different from those unscrupulous arms brokers who are skilled at creating shell companies and a confusing paper trail through many jurisdictions to prevent proper oversight of their work?
Is it conceivable that UK nationals brokering small arms deals overseas would not know of the Export Control Bill? They might not realise that they require a licence for brokering machine tools, but any UK national earning a living abroad brokering small arms and light weapons would surely check out whether the export control legislation affected him.
Assuming—and this is a large assumption—that such naive and innocent small arms dealers exist and, if they do, there could not be more than a handful—the Government well know that there is no obligation on them to prosecute them if they feel that an injustice would be done.
In conclusion, while I believe that five out of six of the Home Office criteria would be met, I will draw attention only to two of them, each of which would be considered as sufficiently important to justify the imposition of extra-territorial jurisdiction.
The first one is where it appears to be in the interests of the standing and reputation of the UK in the international community. In that regard, the Government have worked hard to position themselves as playing a leading role in international attempts to develop more responsible attitudes towards the arms trade and especially the control of small arms. Their standing, reputation and credibility to continue to advance these views will certainly not be enhanced by introducing flawed legislation which, while purporting to control the brokering of small arms extra-territorially, does nothing of the kind by providing and creating a loophole which any and every arms dealer will exploit.
The other criterion which seems to have escaped the attention of the Government is where the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to be able to tackle instances of the offence. Arms brokering tends to be prevalent in war zones or localities where

1143
systems of law and order are breaking or have broken down. In such lawless environments the victims of the impact of brokered arms are normally powerless civilians and, all too often, women and children. Indeed, it is conservatively estimated that about 500,000 civilians are murdered each year as a result of the ready availability of small arms in Africa and elsewhere, often provided by the activities of arms brokers including UK nationals based outside the UK.
I have difficulty in believing that this Government, which to their credit are introducing the Bill, most of which I warmly support, appear to consider it a higher priority to protect a handful of small arms brokers based overseas rather than to protect countless innocent victims from the impact of brokered small arms. Can the Minister in his response comment on whether that is a correct conclusion on the Government's priorities? I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. Few members of this House can speak with more authority on the issue. I know personally of the many dedicated and tireless years that he gave as chair of Oxfam, constantly aware of the human consequences of the issues that we are discussing.
The noble Lord put the case so well and argued it so intelligently that I cannot better him, but I should like to try to support him on one or two points. The first is the statistics that he gave towards the end of his remarks. It is important to remember that 92 per cent of the major world conflicts in the past 10 years have been internal affairs fought with small arms and other light weapons. Half of the casualties have been civilian—most of those women and children. Since 1990, during such conflicts 2 million children have been killed, 5 million have been disabled and 12 million left homeless. Small arms have helped to create more than 300,000 child soldiers. The devastation continues today. Those are the human realities to be pitted against the administrative and legal niceties that we were discussing until the noble Lord intervened.
The Government argue that extra-territorial controls on arms brokering are not legitimate because a reasonable United Kingdom person abroad could not reasonably be expected to know that he needed a licence to broker small arms. Like others, I simply cannot accept that. The high profile of small arms on the international agenda means that all arms brokers could be reasonably expected to know that they are involved in a highly sensitive trade in which new controls and agreements are continually being introduced.
Last year, there was a UN conference on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects and a legally binding UN firearms protocol was agreed. It is surely the responsibility of arms brokers to keep up with their obligations under new laws and regulations, not the responsibility of law-makers to slow down until the arms brokers are ready. As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, argued, the Government have helped to create an international consensus on the need to
1144
control the trade in small arms, including small arms brokers. Failing to introduce extra-territorial controls on UK citizens involved in the trade would run counter to that whole endeavour.
Finally, we in this House have a way of rarefying the argument from its human reality by talking in the abstract. The people involved in that brokering are cruel, sinister, calculating, greedy, wicked people, as the result of whom we are faced with the figures cited by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, which I have tried to underline. We need to take tough action and not allow people to think that because they can go off to some country that is not playing the game, they can go on making their money as merchants of death.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Joffe, explained his amendment extremely well and I cannot add to or improve on what he said in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also added to his argument. I simply say that I agree with the amendment. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee—Amendment No. 63—but I did not move it.
I support the noble Lord's amendment but, as I told him, it should go further because it does not cover a person who is not a United Kingdom national but is ordinarily resident here. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and we may then improve the provision in that way.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may make one general point, because it is critical. There has been much talk about the wicked, greedy arms brokers and so on. It should be realised that the amendment applies also to a UK citizen who may be working for an Australian company that is selling rifles to America. We are not dealing with a class of arms brokers whose sole role is trading in arms across the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, suggested that one can just hop on a Eurostar to evade controls. Obviously—this is not a facetious point—France, Germany, Belgium and Holland all either have or are in the process of introducing legislation to control arms brokers. I say that to underline that the way to control such activities is through international co-operation.
The amendment would impose an immediate and complete statutory ban on the trafficking and brokering of certain long-range missiles and two classes of paramilitary equipment—briefly, leg irons and electric shock weapons—and add small arms and light weapons to those categories of goods for which trafficking and brokering controls will apply extra-territorially. It would enshrine in primary legislation some aspects of the operation of trafficking and brokering controls which we propose to include in secondary legislation, but it also goes further than the Government have announced that we intend to go.
As I have already explained when discussing Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, the Bill is designed to provide the Government with flexibility to alter

1145
controls introduced under it as necessary to respond to changing circumstances, including action within the EU, subject to scrutiny of those changes by Parliament. Enshrining details of the trade controls in primary legislation would prevent that and introduce an undesirable degree of rigidity.
In particular, the amendment would introduce a statutory ban on trafficking and brokering in long-range missiles and certain paramilitary equipment. We have made clear that those controls are intended to enable the Government to prevent the supply of equipment whose export from the UK we would prohibit. However, there are certain limited circumstances in which goods within those categories are legitimately exported from the UK. For example, long-range missiles or their component parts may occasionally be exported to our NATO allies, and such exports are fully in accordance with our obligations under the missile technology control regime.
The amendment would prevent the Government from considering any applications to trade in such goods. Moreover, the European Community is currently considering introducing its own controls on exports and trade in torture equipment. To enshrine national controls on these items in primary legislation could lead us into conflict with any future European Community legislation.
The amendment would require trade in small arms, ammunition and light weapons to be controlled whether carried out in the UK or by UK persons overseas. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government consulted last spring on the extent of extra-territoriality for the proposed trafficking and brokering controls and, as I mentioned, decided in the light of that consultation that controls on trafficking and brokering of torture equipment, long-range missiles and of arms to embargoed destinations—where the aim is to prohibit the supply of equipment whose export from the UK we have in effect banned—hould apply extra-territorially, while other controls would apply to activities taking place in the UK.
Those conclusions were announced in October and reflected in the dummy draft orders. I have already explained the basis for that decision, namely the difficulties of criminalising the activities of UK citizens settled abroad who may be engaged in perfectly legitimate trade in their countries of residence. I must also say that it would be difficult to justify drawing a distinction between small arms and light weapons on the one hand, and other weapons on the other.
Nevertheless, as I explained, the Bill would not preclude the introduction of controls along the lines of those proposed in the amendment. It would permit the Government to introduce extra-territorial controls on trafficking and brokering in small arms and light weapons should we consider that appropriate in the light of significant new developments—such as, for example, reaching international agreement to apply trade controls extra-territorially or to ban certain exports.
1146
I turn briefly to the Home Office criteria. It was argued that they would justify extra-territorial jurisdiction in this case. It was argued that the Home Office criteria would justify extra-territorial jurisdiction in that case.
In fact, the Home Office guidelines state that extension of jurisdiction overseas may be considered when certain factors are met. It also makes it clear that meeting those factors is not in itself sufficient to justify extra-territorial jurisdiction but that practical enforcement issues would also be relevant. It has been the policy of successive British Governments to resist strong attempts by other states to impose extraterritorial controls on our territory. We maintain the view that it would not be right to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over activities such as trade in military equipment, including arms, the majority of which will constitute perfectly legitimate transactions.
The Government share the concern of the noble Lords who tabled the amendments about the need to tackle the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. The new controls that we propose would contribute to that end. We have been working with other Governments to achieve international agreement on universal adoption of such controls. We are working to achieve international agreement to take action to regulate the activities of those engaged in brokering, in accordance with the United Nations programme of action on small arms and light weapons, agreed last July. The recently agreed EU common position on the introduction of trafficking and brokering controls by all member states will encourage the introduction of similar controls throughout the EU. The trafficking and brokering controls that we propose are fully consistent with the UN programme of action and the recent agreement in the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, ended by saying that the amendment would send a clear moral message. Saying that we will do something and then being unable to deliver on it does not send the right kind of moral message. The moral message that we want to send is that, when we say clearly that we will do something, we will deliver on it. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the Minister implying that, if the Government were to accept the amendment, it would inhibit progress on international legislation? That leads me on to ask whether, if there were no such international legislation, the Government would accept the amendment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the main point that I was making was that the main way to deal with most of these issues is through international co-operation.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to answer the questions that I put to him, before I reply?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that I had answered them. If there are any specific points, I shall be happy to answer them. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me, and I shall write back to him.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, so far I have not found writing to be very successful.

1147
The Minister drew attention to the importance of international co-operation. I agree with that, but it does not prevent the UK Government from taking action in advance, as they have already done, and leading the way.
The Minister told us that the Government had the power to introduce controls. Indeed they do. What worries us is the dummy legislation and the proposed controls, which provide that any arms dealer who manages to get outside the country to conduct his or her activities will be behaving legally. I am unpersuaded by the Minister's response, but I will have the opportunity to consider what he said and, perhaps, propose the amendment again at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage do not begin again before 8.44 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Services
7.44 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to contain disruption to public services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question raises the general case as to whether any action should be taken and, if so, what action? Should it take place before or after the general election? It is an essentially political decision that is worthy of your Lordships' attention. As I have no other opportunity in this dinner-hour debate, I want to thank the distinguished noble Lords from all parties who have attended this exploratory debate. We will discuss the matter, but we will not divide, and we may change some of our opinions.
Should an effective framework of law be introduced to contain disproportionate disruption of our public services by collective industrial action carried out at the behest of trade unions? That would be the last putative step to be taken in the step-by-step approach adopted by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. It was never taken—rightly, if I may say so in the presence of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. Some 20 years ago, when my noble friend was Secretary of State, it was his opinion that there was no need to take it. I agree that that was right at the time. However, the situation today more or less demands consideration of the question whether the symbiotic relationship between the trade unions and a Labour Government should continue to erode the entitlement of any government to govern under due parliamentary process. Should some framework of law be introduced to meet the concerns of the vast majority of Her Majesty's subjects, many of whom no longer bother to vote?
1148
The Public Services (Disruption) Bill was given its First Reading last Tuesday. It is a tentative proposal for a resolution of the issue. I make it plain that the purpose of this debate is not to pre-empt critical examination of that Bill on its passage through your Lordships' House. We are concerned with the essence of the question, which is whether there is a general case for the introduction of a new framework of law, in whatever form your Lordships may think tit. That is the scope of the debate: it is not limited to my Bill.
The proposals set out in the Green Paper—Command Paper 3470—in November 1996, when there was disruption to the Royal Mail and the London Underground, were strongly opposed by Labour. The way in which they were opposed is irrelevant: the fact is that they were. On 3rd July, after a change of government, when there was disruption again—this time to British Airways and Connex —the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said at the Dispatch Box:
"The Government see no justification for adding to the existing controls on industrial action".—[Official Report,317197: col. 302.]
However, in 2002, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both said that some such action should be taken; hut, as yet, they have not said what that action should be.
The scenario today is that we have to suffer disruption of our public services, and the continuing threat of such disruption, at the behest of trade unions that oppose government policy on public services reforms. For example, the General Secretary of the General and Municipal Workers—the GMB—threatened to withdraw union support for Labour council candidates due to the proposed private finance initiative in hospitals.
Many trade unions have also run media campaigns to oppose public service reforms. UNISON has spent money on an advertising campaign for cinemas,
"with the message that 83 per cent of the public do not want private companies to run public services".
Unions have threatened to withdraw financial support for the Labour Party; for example, last year, UNISON threatened to withdraw its £1.3 million funding. In May 2001, the Fire Brigades Union voted to allow the union to fund organisations and candidates opposing Labour.
There has also been the threat of strike action over proposed job cuts at Consignia. Reports have suggested that militant elements within the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—the RMT—are attempting to use industrial action to force re-nationalisation of the rail system. The TUC conference, individual union conferences, and the Labour Party conferences put across their opposit on and reservations over public services reforms. The GMB, UNISON and TUC websites set out how and why the unions are opposing reform of the public services if it involves the introduction of private services.
In the main, the contest now is between government and the unions. It is a political contest that has little to do with what is ordinarily understood as a trade

1149
dispute, as defined by statute. The main areas of disruption in public services—utilities, transport and communications, including public administration, health, electricity, gas, water, post and telecommunications—taken as a percentage of all working days lost from the period 1971 to 1976, which my noble friend Lord Tebbit will all too well remember, averaged out at about 10 per cent to 12 per cent: from 1987 to 1995 the figure was about 65 per cent. Those are Board of Trade figures that feature on page 4 of the 1996 Green Paper.
I turn to figures for 1994–2000 from the Office for National Statistics—papers that are in the Library of the House—which were taken on a different basis. It is difficult to assimilate both; indeed, one can draw only a broad picture. According to those figures, on a total of 1,303,000 lost days in 1996, 874,000 were attributed to transport, storage and communications; 158,000 days were lost in public administration and defence; 120,000 were lost in education; and 8,000 were lost in the health and social work fields.
The figures regarding days lost for the year 2000 show that, from a total of 499,000, 97,000—again, the lion's share—related to transport, storage and communications; 50,000 days were lost in public administration; 50,000 also in the education field; and, in the health and social work sector, 122,000 days were lost compared with 8,000 in 1996. In my Question for Written Answer tabled on 10th of this month, the percentage is sought for transport, post services and telecommunications, which are the main ingredients of disruption. I make no complaint that such figures have not yet been provided.
However, using a broad brush, is it not wholly apparent to your Lordships that this presentation affords cogent support for the general case that some steps must be taken to contain disruption in the public services? It is right also in this context to acknowledge again, as I have acknowledged previously, that both right honourable gentlemen—the Prime Minister and the Leader of my party—agree that something must be done.
In conclusion, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that, on last St Valentine's Day, The Times leader told its readers that cuckoos had now returned to the crows nests of the trade unions whose members are employed in the public services: and said that something must now be done to contain disruption—the subject matter of this Question. My Lords, what shall now be done?
7.57 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for intervening at this point. Although I put down my name to speak in this debate—as I thought, through the usual channels—it does not appear on the speakers' list. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for giving way.
As noble Lords will know, this is a subject in which I have some interest. My mind is taken back to 1983 when the then Cabinet pressed me to do something
1150
about strikes in the essential services. Your Lordships will recollect that we had just experienced an extremely difficult and damaging strike in the water industry. There was grave public concern at the time. I remember slightly shocking my colleagues by saying that I was against taking any measures specific to the essential, or public, services. I was against creating two categories of workers, except in the most clearly defined and limited manner; that is to say, the armed services and the police, some of whom would have the right to take industrial action but some of whom would have that right restricted in some way.
It seemed to me then—and that is still the case now—that to deny a worker the right to withdraw his labour simply because he is employed by, say, a water company, as opposed to a retailer, would have to be balanced by some quid pro quo, such as binding arbitration in the case of trade disputes. That I did not welcome.
Furthermore, I shuddered at the task of legislating to define an essential service. It would probably be even more complex today. And some public services are not essential—at any rate, not in the short term. For example, about 20 years ago I guessed that Royal Mail would have been seen as essential and that telecoms probably would not. I believe that today we would take precisely the opposite point of view. Would railways now be regarded as essential? Our recent experience has been such as to persuade us that railways are not essential—we have been managing almost without them for some time. Moreover, are they a public service or are they an essential service? What about the employees of subcontractors to water or power companies or the railways? The questions appear to me to be endless and the ethics dubious of legislating in that area.
My argument was that if I got my legislation right, it would work in the essential and the public services just as well as in the non-essential services. And so it did. Across the board, the insane industrial disruption which had tipped both the Callaghan and Heath governments out of office subsided and this kingdom became a paragon of good industrial relations.
However, my noble friend Lord Campbell is right to express concern at the deterioration in industrial relations in what are not so much the essential services as the quasi-public sector and the public sector and the regulated sectors. What is more, the contagion which we see in those sectors is likely to spread to the mainstream private sector in a mirror image of what happened in the spread of peaceful industrial relations in the 1980s.
However, if I was right 20 years ago—and events would suggest that I was—what has changed now to bring about the deteriorating tendency in the past few years to which my noble friend Lord Campbell referred? Certainly public sector unions are today in an ugly mood. They have been paying their subscriptions to the Labour Party, just like the Hindujas, Mr Mittal, Mr Ecclestone and the chap who is the proprietor of some firm which makes vaccines against smallpox. They expected the same kind of favours that all those

1151
gentlemen received for their money. To be fair, they have not had them and they are disgruntled. And I am not sure that I would blame them.
However, that cannot be the whole story. Union leaders were, after all, far from gruntled when I was Secretary of State, but despite that industrial relations improved. The fact is that although my legislation has not been repealed or openly amended, and nor has that of my successors, it has all been severely undermined by human rights legislation and employment protection legislation conceived in Brussels. Although it has not been tested in the courts, there is a consensus among lawyers in the field that the provisions I made—for example, to allow those breaking their contracts of employment by striking to be dismissed and for an employer then to recruit new labour or selectively to re-employ strikers—would now fall foul of European law.
My conclusion, therefore, is that we do not need to enact any new provisions. If we want to restore the good relations of the 1980s and 1990s, two things are necessary: first, that new Labour should not revert to old Labour by doing favours to its trades union financiers secondly, that human rights legislation and the employment protection legislation of recent years, which has undermined the legislation of the 1980s that made Britain a country of excellent labour relations, should now be repealed. In my view, it is far better that we should deal with the causes of the problem of the deteriorating industrial relations in the public sector and in the essential services than that we should now legislate any complex laws to make fish and fowl of workers according to the nature of their work.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that the debate is limited to one hour. I am sure that we will move on as quickly as we can.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to speak for a couple of minutes in the gap. I do so in the light of the way in which the previous two speeches have gone. I remember the circumstances of the Green Paper issued by the Conservative government in 1996. Indeed, I remember it rather well. At that time, polling was carried out on how people saw the proposals in the Green Paper which were, inter alia, to give the government the right, with proportionality, to take action against strikes in certain industries.
The question was put by a polling organisation in the autumn of 1996:
"What do you think is the biggest problem facing public services?".
It became obvious that funding was the overwhelming problem, with workers going on strike polling only 7 per cent of the votes. People were asked:
"Do you think that the government has brought these proposals forward at this time because there is a growing problem of public sector strikes or because there is an election coming up?".
Fourteen per cent of voters said that it was due to public sector strikes and 79 per cent said that it was because there was an election coming up. Among
1152
Conservative voters, 26 per cent said that it was because of a growing problem of public sector strikes and 63 per cent said that it was because an election was coming up.
People were then asked:
"Would these proposals make you more or less likely to vote Conservative at the next election?".
Four per cent said more likely, 20 per cent said less likely and 74 per cent said that it would make no difference. We therefore did not hear much more of those proposals.
Of course we hear the continuous chatter about trade unions and the Labour Party. During the 20th century, from the Osborne judgment onwards, there have been many opportunities to vary the system. It is not a question of trade unions giving money to the Labour Party—they do not do that. Members of trade unions which have political funds and which are affiliated to the Labour Party, and individuals who are not contracted out, are members of the Labour Party. They pay X as their subscription as members of the Labour Party.
In conclusion, I remind the House and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in particular—I imagine that he will remember it ruefully—that it was thought that it would be wildly unpopular for unions to carry on having political funds and it was made mandatory that they should ballot on whether they would continue to do so. One hundred per cent of the unions with political funds voted to continue with those funds and 17 additional unions voted to have political funds.
It cannot seriously be said that at this time we do not have a more co-operative trade union movement than we had 20 or 30 years ago, a period to which reference has been made. I believe that most people would accept that the degree of co-operation between the trade union movement and the government has improved. Clearly, there is in the minds of some people confusion about the role of the Government as the employer and their role as a government—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. With the greatest respect, I should make the point that I am not criticising the trade unions. Because the leaders of two political parties, including the noble Lord's own, think that something should be done, I ask only that something should be done. I am not here either to criticise the trade unions or to suppose that the Green Paper proposals are the answer. I have done neither.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I shall say a few words in the final seconds of my intervention. What is happening at the moment in the debate about the public services is that understandings and negotiations are properly being carried out and concluded between the Government and the unions in the public services concerning the protection of the rights of the workers at the point at which they are transferred from the public service to the private sector, or on the introduction of PFIs and so forth. That is what in the main is happening at present.
8.11 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, this debate has attracted attention as it has gone along. It is as though the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Tebbit, were passing an open bar door and said, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?". The debate has been the richer for seeing both noble Lords back in the saddle.
I shall try to get us back on tack because we are all eager to listen to the Minister's response to the interesting Question put before the House tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble Lord said in his intervention that he is not attacking the trade unions. I do not wish to tempt a second intervention, but to a certain extent in his presentation, I thought that he almost suggested that the trade unions should not have a campaigning agenda. I see nothing wrong with the trade unions attempting to influence the government of the day through adverts, rallies and so forth. A few years ago I believe that it was Mr Stephen Byers who raised the question whether the direct link between the Labour Party and the trade unions was wholly healthy. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, with his usual pugnacity and effectiveness, demonstrated, it remains something that seems strange.
This is a timely debate and one that will focus Parliament and the country much more than perhaps has been the case tonight. There is a feeling that we are entering a rougher industrial relations climate. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed out, rumblings of discontent can be heard throughout the public sector: teachers, the police, railway and Tube staff, health service workers, university teachers and postal workers. Almost every sector mentioned in the Bill introduced a couple of days ago by the noble Lord is expressing some kind of discontent.
Of course, even using the word "discontent" takes me back to an era with which I am very familiar. I worked in Downing Street as a political adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, during the winter of discontent in 1978–79. At that time, the labour movement, both political and trade union, got itself into a most unholy mess. I shall leave it to the judgment of history how we got into that mess, but it is worth recalling some of the clear lessons that came out of it.
First, it cannot be doubted that it is within the power of organised labour to summon the capability to inflict damage, disruption and discomfort on its fellow citizens. If we needed a recent reminder, then the disputes on the railways and the Tube demonstrated that it is possible for industrial action to hurt people who have no relationship whatever with the core dispute. The recent strikes by teachers did not hurt the education authorities. Those affected were working mums who had to make different provision for their children. As I have said, it is the hard-pressed commuter who suffers the pressure in the sandwich of the struggle between the unions and the employers. It was reported in today's Guardian that the Fire Brigades Union is to pull out of a no-strike agreement. Again, that is action which recalls the disputes of almost a quarter of a century ago.
1154
So the lessons of yesterday and today are clear: industrial action by the public sector can and does hit the wider public. But there are other lessons from the past which those who preach the new militancy should put into the equation. The militancy of 1978–79 did not bring about a breakthrough in the pay, status or job security of the workers involved. On the contrary, it produced a government which brought about a major reduction in trade union power—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—oversaw an increase in unemployment from under 1 million to over 3 million and carried out a massive transfer of employment from the public sector to the private sector. A capacity to hurt does not inevitably lead to an ability to win.
We are told that the new breed of union leaders have risen to the top seeking a pattern of more confrontational industrial relations, particularly in the public services. All one can say in response to such militancy is that the lesson of 1979 is very simple. The public at large are fairly slow to anger and often sympathetic to individual union grievances. But if they see themselves being used as a political football by public service unions, if they see pain and discomfort being used as a weapon in industrial disputes in which they have no part, they will demand action and protection from the government of the day. If the government of the day cannot or will not provide such protection, then the public will replace the government of the day with one willing and able to do so.
I say that as a simple lesson of history which I hope that Tube workers, teachers and others do not have to learn the hard way. That does not mean that the Government should be passive in the face of a changing mood in the public services. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that an holistic approach is needed. It may be that yesterday's Budget proved to be a genuine crossing of the Rubicon in terms of the Government's attitude to public service workers.
Earlier this week, in response to a question from myself, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave an assurance that the Government do not work on the basis of public sector bad, private sector good. I am not sure that that has always been made as clear over the past five years. Public servants need to be valued, not only in terms of pay, but also in terms of esteem, in their training and in the career prospects built into their chosen professions. For example, in a recent edition of the Public Service Magazine, an article stated that,
"the NHS needs to prepare people for leadership roles. Here is where we will build and nurture talent. It may take a bit longer, but over time it will provide the NHS with sustainable solutions".
Quite so.
Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, pointed out that if the Post Office had been given the commercial freedom promised in the last Labour manifesto, and if it were properly funded and free of political interference, it would he safe to assume that it would be able to deliver its objectives. Almost every teacher will say that they need the freedom to escape an over-centralised bureaucracy that puts a mountain of form-filling between them and the children they want to teach.

1155
Two years ago, I served on a Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. We looked at the impact of the changes made in the 1980s and 1990s on the public service and public servants. We were amazed but encouraged to find that the commitment and dedication of our public servants, in all sectors, was still in place.
All three of my children go to state schools. For 51 weeks of the year I stand in awe of the dedication of our teachers. The one week of exception is when the National Union of Teachers comes together for its annual conference.
But the public service ethos is still there and needs to be encouraged by the Government as part of the holistic approach that I advocate. We have to restore quality and commitment to our public services. Of course they have to meet tests of efficiency, cost effectiveness and quality of delivery but they have to be convinced that they are not second class or second best services. That is the Government's side of the equation. I have tried to think of a phrase for it. I came up with the idea of a "social contract", but perhaps the Government would not want to go back to that.
There is a quid pro quo between demanding commitment and loyalty from public servants and being able to rely on them not to inflict damage on the wider community. Sometimes we must wonder what a profession such as nursing, which shows tremendous commitment, learns from the fact that its members are left on the pay ladder at a position where they cannot even afford social housing. So there is more to this matter than simply further legislation. It is a matter of providing the resources, training and a career structure to win the confidence of our public servants.
Nevertheless, within that context, one would hope that they will resist the siren voices for the short-term fix of a return to industrial militancy. There have been legitimate frustrations in our public services over the past few years that need to be addressed. Regardless of what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said—although his experience is valid in this regard—there is a case for exploring whether compulsory and binding arbitration, certainly in some industries, is the best way forward.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the problem with binding arbitration is that if one side does not accept it, it is not binding. You then have to have some further sanction against them—and that is a road down which I would not wish to go.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from experience—experience from which, as he pointed out, the Government have not been hasty to reverse.
It has been demonstrated by the debate that there is an agenda to be discussed. If we can encourage a genuine debate we may be able to head off the solution
1156
of the militant quick fix and restore the confidence of our public services and our public servants in the deal that they are given by the community at large.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, I go along totally with his concept that there must be mandatory arbitration. That is not something that ought to be discarded.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I certainly do not discard it. I shall be very interested to hear how the Minister's argument develops on this issue. I remember that during the 1980s there were all kinds of pendulum and other arbitration.
The public want to see that the Government are aware that the storm clouds are gathering and that they are not just waiting for the storm to break. They want to see that they are thinking constructively about how we can build a system of industrial relaions within our public services which gives the freedom of trade unions but also recognises the rights of the wider community.
8.24 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell on initiating the debate and thank him for giving us the chance to explore this matter today. It opens up a further and hugely important strand of the ongoing debate about the state of public services, defined recently by Bruce Anderson in the Independent as,
"the greatest paradox in modern British politics—They spend vast sums of the public's money, yet few of the public feel well served".
The fact is that this stands at the very top of the domestic political agenda—notwithstanding hurting or anything odd like that. Indeed, as we all know, public service reform is the platform upon which the Government came into office. The Labour Party manifesto states:
"Renewal of our public services is at the centre of new Labour's manifesto".
Against this background and for the avoidance of doubt, I should make one point abundantly clear at the outset. For our part, we on these Benches believe strongly in the ideals of the NHS and other public services. We are wholly and wholeheartedly committed to them. The public have a right to no less. But, under the current Government, we are lurching ever further away from these ideals. It is evident that over the past five years taxes have gone up and public services have become worse.
That is why my noble friend's debate today is so timely and so valuable. It acknowledges not only that the cycle of decline in public service delivery needs to be addressed urgently but also that its context, the social and political climate in which it finds itself, has changed out of all recognition in recent times. It is this upon which I wish to focus in my remarks.
A measure of this is to be found in an interesting, even refreshing, document published recently by the Government. I am sure the Minister will recall the

1157
reply that he gave last month to a Question for Written Answer from his noble friend Lord Tomlinson seeking an outline of the Government's strategy for reform of the public services. The noble Lord's reply referred to the pamphlet, Reforming our Public Services; Principles into Practice, published by the Prime Minister. That document states on page 8:
"Public services…have to be refocused around the needs of the patients, the pupils, the passengers and the general public rather than the problems of those who provide the services".
Hooray to that. On page 11 it suggests:
"The starting point must be that the public has a right to good quality education, to healthcare, to law and order, to local authority services, to income support, and that it is the duty of the Government to secure these rights on their behalf".
Again, hooray—although I express surprise that there is no mention here of a right to, for example, efficient public transport. Moreover, I also express surprise that this is in stark contrast with the Chancellor's obsessive attachment to statist models of public service delivery.
None the less, the relevance of these statements to my noble friend's proposition is profound. As I said, in recent times there has been a sea change both in the public's perception of and policy attitudes towards the public services. As the pamphlet states:
"Rising living standards, a more diverse society and a steadily stronger consumer culture have increased the demand for good quality schools, hospitals and other public services, and at the same time brought expectations of greater choice, responsiveness, accessibility and flexibility".
So we have to be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that it is the Government's wish to deliver customer-focused public services as a direct response to public demand, if not, as it were, an inalienable public right. This is the internal logic of the text of the pamphlet.
But, as the Prime Minister's observations about the "dark forces of conservatism", "the scars on his back" and "wreckers" indicate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip. It is all very well having the best of intentions but these are utterly worthless if they are not translated into reality. As I said, the reality that the long-suffering public have to live with on a daily basis is that services are deteriorating. On top of this, Gordon Brown is dipping ever deeper into people's pockets, demanding that they pay for the Government's failures in public service delivery.
This is the stark legacy of the current Government after five years in office. As Peter Riddell observed earlier this week in The Times:
"The Government needs not just to extend patient choice (often limited in practice) but to make a reality of its rhetoric that the system is run in the interests of patients rather than NHS staff"—
a remark that could equally well be applied to other public services such as those that are the focus of my noble friend's attention—the transport, post and telecommunication sectors.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell has outlined, these sectors have seen a rising tide of union militancy in recent times. Strike action within Consignia is a running sore accounting for more than half of all the strikes in Britain. As the travelling public know only
1158
too well, disruption on the railways has risen over the past few months. The trend line of public service disruption is upwards. But the essential point is that such actions cut across the grain of the Government's aims as stated in the Prime Minister's pamphlet. And yet, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit has illustrated, they are also, at least in part, a direct result of the Government's policies.
It is impossible to say which strand of policy the Government have faith in, to which they are wholly committed. But if the Prime Minister's pamphlet is to be more than just soothing rhetoric, we could presume that the Government are not averse to some sort of measure to constrain the rights of public service workers to take industrial action.
In a nutshell, my noble friend is suggesting a method by which that could be achieved. If I may paraphrase his proposal—I hope accurately—the right to strike of those in the public services in the transport, post and telecommunications sectors should be made subject to adjudication of the High Court as to whether the industrial action envisaged would be excessive or disproportionate as the means to resolve the dispute. For example, there may be a legitimate question to be asked; namely, whether the recent strikes by security workers at Manchester airport can, in the wake of the events of 11th September, be deemed proportionate. It is worth remembering that these strikes have taken place against the background of a serious security breach on 8th February, when fake explosives, detonators and genuine firearms were taken on board a British Airways flight to Gatwick. That begs the question as to whether strike action—whether or not by public service workers—can ever be proportionate if it exposes the public to that level of risk?
The Government maintain that public services should be,
"shaped around the needs of their customers".
In other words, they are increasingly seen to be a legitimate right of the public. Accordingly, it is reasonable to argue that a building-block in securing the climate in which to achieve appropriate reform to this end should be to define in law the relationship between the workforces of the public services concerned and the customers who use them. In this way, the virtue of the Government's stated aim that public services should be made to work more effectively and efficiently to the benefit of their users would be cemented. It would shift the balance away from vested internal interests to the needs of the individual customer.
Here, we should be mindful of a further change in the context in which public services now operate; namely, the Human Rights Act, referred to also by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. If we are to accept, as the Government maintain, that the public have a right to essential services in the transport, post and telecommunications sectors, it is logical that such a right should not be withdrawn "disproportionately" as a result of industrial action. Moreover, if access to services is to be conceived as rights-based, there is logic to the presumption that rulings as to whether

1159
disruption to them is disproportionate or excessive should fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court. None the less, my noble friend Lord Tebbit—I bow, as I must, to his expertise in this area—makes a further powerful point. As he suggests, we can speculate as to whether the rights-based culture that has necessarily arisen as a result of the Human Rights Act has made it easier for trade unions to resort to industrial action. Nor should the effect of the Government's blithe acceptance of directives from Europe be underestimated. There is a real sense in which the Government's stated aim is to some degree being undermined by their policy approach in these areas. In reality, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit so astutely points out, there is also the difficulty of potentially creating two classes of workforce.
Viewed realistically, there is no reason why people should not have access to proper delivery of all services, irrespective of whether they are public or private. Indeed, this gets to the heart of the matter. Should not people have access to the same standards of service from the public sector—and by implication a relative freedom from the inconvenience and hardship of disruption—as they have come to experience from the private sector.
Be that as it may, like my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I acknowledge the antecedents of the proposal. The Green Paper, Industrial Action and Trade Unions,. published in 1996 by my noble friend Lord Lang when he was President of the Board of Trade, postulated various options for change in this area. Drawing from their thrust, my noble friend has drafted but one solution to the problem in his Bill, which we shall no doubt debate in due course.
As I say, the important point is that the context and the public perception of public services have changed markedly over the past five or so years. I merely note in passing that, as cited in the Green Paper, most other countries have provisions in law to restrict strikes in essential services. Recent and increasing experience of hardship and inconvenience by the public in the transport, post and telecommunications sectors implies that there is a burgeoning problem in these services, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out. And of course the problem is exacerbated both by the Government's consistent failure to address the problem of public service delivery adequately and the increasing levels of disruption to which the public are being exposed.
I conclude by returning to the theme enumerated by Peter Riddell earlier this week in The Times. Again, his remarks apply equally to the transport, post and telecommunications sectors as to the NHS. He said:
"The NHS can also be made more consumer-friendly…That is the heart of the Government's political dilemma. Its emphasis so far has been primarily managerial, on changes such as the new primary care rusts. But this means little to most patients".
I make no judgment as to whether the proposition of my noble friend Lord Campbell, or something like it, would be an appropriate step to take towards establishing more "consumer-friendly" public services. But, as I have tried to explain, the context of the
1160
problem makes its resolution a matter of urgency. As the Government know only too well—and wholly justifiably—the public's patience is wearing decidedly thin.
So what is really at issue here is whether the Government have the courage of their own convictions—or rather, whether the Prime Minister's or the Chancellor's policy approach is about to hold sway. Will the Government translate the Prime Minister's Office of Public Services Reform pamphlet into reality? Or is the country to be condemned by Gordon Brown to paying through the nose in taxes for ever worse services? On the evidence of yesterday's Budget, I fear that under the current administration the vision of "consumer-friendly" public services is no more than pie in the sky.
8.37 p.m.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I am conscious of the time that I have to address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He was listened to with great respect, given the way in which he has specialised in industrial relations over the years, and also for the measured way in which he advanced his arguments. I shall not attempt, as he suggests, to pre-empt debate on the details of his Public Services (Disruption) Bill. I merely mention it in passing.
Let us take the issue of strikes first and our approach to the public sector. It is our hope, as I am sure it has been of previous governments, to move forward in partnership with public sector workers—with doctors, nurses, teachers, and the police. We want reform in the public sector; and they tell us that they, too, want reform. We believe that the way to better services is to try to enlist everyone in the pursuit of excellence and to try to move forward in consensus, backed by increased investment.
We have heard a list of the industrial relations problems that might be faced in the near future, but we should also welcome the end to the industrial action in Jobcentre Plus, where there were difficulties over claims regarding staff safety at work in benefit agencies. I hope that those will be resolved in the very near future through patient negotiation. Last week, we heard my noble friend Lord Mackenzie talking about the fears of police officers over their new contracts. He expressed the belief that it would be unthinkable for the police to strike. That view seems to be shared by the great majority of his former colleagues. Progress is being made on the issues in the police dispute through the Police Negotiating Board, and precedent suggests that consensus will be reached. I also welcome the recent decision by head teachers to co-operate with the proposed extension of performance-related pay for teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned statistics, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, talked about trend lines, but I think we should look at the comparisons to see how well we have done in recent times compared with the darker days of the 1970s

1161
mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the troubled times of the 1980s experienced by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The comparisons show that, whereas 1.3 million working days were lost in labour disputes in 1996, in the 12 months to December 2001, the number was reduced to fewer than half a million days lost. Also consider that figure in the context of the 1980s, when an average of 7.2 million days were lost annually in strikes. In contrast, in 1999, only 242,000 working days were lost, the lowest since records began.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, gave a very interesting résumé of his thinking in the 1980s. Although many would think that his cautious approach was uncharacteristic, I thought it was very convincing—although I shall never be convinced by a description of him as "holistic". He rightly drew attention to the problems which could arise in matters such as binding arbitration and the judgments made in trying to define disproportionate action.
As a former trade union shop steward, my mind goes back to some of the lessons we were taught in those days. One of the most striking examples occurred in 1941, when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was himself in Colditz. Although it seems almost unimaginable now, there was a very serious strike in the coal mines in 1941, when 4,000 men were idle and an attempt was made to use the law against them. In those terrible times, simply because of the nature of these disputes and the facts of human nature, we ended up with bands marching at the head of striking miners and union officials being put in prison. The officials were rapidly released by the government, who realised that it was all going wrong, but there was an attempt to find enough magistrates to issue warrants against thousands of miners. It was soon realised that they could not put them all in gaol. Ultimately, of the 1,000 men involved, nine unfortunates had to pay their fine and did not receive their money back.
After all that chaos, there was a happy ending when the miners returned to work and coal output trebled. The incident has served ever since as a caution to Ministers and employers to ensure that action is proportionate.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the Labour government of the 1970s also suffered. We remember the farce of the dockers being put into Pentonville prison, only to be sprung very rapidly under the government of Ted Heath and with the intervention of the Official Solicitor once it was realised that the situation could get out of hand. We also remember the 1941 Betteshanger disputes in Kent and the 1970s London dockers disputes.
In the recent fuel protests, when serving as Minister of Transport, I realised that it can be very difficult indeed to take legal action against some activities. Although we have emergency powers legislation which has been invoked perhaps a dozen times, it is not something to which one turns lightly. We rely on the good sense of British workers when they see the
1162
precipice looming in many such cases. It is to the trade unions' credit that strike levels have been so low in recent times.
As I said, I do not want to tread too far into the territory covered in the Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, as my noble friend Lord Lea said, the 1996 Green Paper attempted to introduce certain proposals which were judged ultimately as much by the public as the trade union movement as confused, unworkable and likely to introduce uncertainty to industrial relations. I believe that even the Institute of Directors was very concerned about the implications of those proposals. It was also judged very difficult to achieve a workable test of proportionality.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but the noble Lord has a few more moments. Could he very kindly say whether he agrees with the Prime Minister that something has to be done to contain disruption in the public services? That is the point of the debate.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my interpretation of the Prime Minister's comments is that he believes there has to be a better way than going on strike. We are pursuing an approach entailing partnership allied to investment, which we believe is the way forward. It is not a question of ending the right to strike but a matter of trying to end the need to strike.
We believe that the investment we have been making in the public sector has had a profound effect in the labour market. We have achieved the lowest number of people claiming unemployment benefit for more than 25 years. That will of course have a dynamic, knock-on effect in the marketplace when there is a tight labour market and people start flexing their muscles and asking for more money. People in the public sector can see a tight labour market in the private sector. Remarkably, however, 1.5 million more people are employed now than in 1997. That has to have an effect on the way in which people view their salary in relation to others. That is one of the issues that any government must face. It is also one of the problems that comes with our success. However, success for the workers involved has been demonstrated by the fact that pay for good and experienced teachers, for example, has increased by 30 per cent since 1997. The same applies to qualified nurses. The pay of hospital doctors has increased by at least 20 per cent since 1997.
We believe that the trade unions should be reassured both by the assurances we have given them and by other action such as changes to the TUPE regulations, transfer terms and pension rights. As the Prime Minister said, it is investment in return for reform.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, mentioned our pamphlet and our four principles of reform. Had time allowed, I should have liked to go into them more deeply. Nevertheless, the four principles are higher national standards and accountability; greater devolution and delegation to the front line; increased flexibility in the sense of an end to demarcation; and,

1163
very importantly, more choice and contestability. So, far from encouraging statist models, we are looking to PPP and PFI partnerships to have increased choice in order to ensure more customer-focused public services.

Export Control Bill
8.50 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 5 [General restriction on purposes of control orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 16:
Leave om Clause 5 and insert the following new Clause —
"5 GENERAL RESTRICTION ON CONTROL POWERS
3 (1) Subject to section (Exceptions from the general restriction), the power to impose export controls, transfer controls, technical assistance controls or trade controls may only be exercised where authorised by this section.
(2) Controls of any kind may be imposed for the purpose of giving effect to any Community provision or other international obligation of the United Kingdom.
(3) In subsection (2) "international obligation" includes an obligation relating to a joint action or common position adopted, or a decision taken, by the Council under Title V of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on a common foreign and security policy).
(4) Export controls may be imposed in relation to any description of goods within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls.
(5) Transfer controls may be imposed in relation to any description of technology within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls.
(6) Technical assistance controls may be imposed in relation to any description of technical assistance within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls.
(7) Trade controls may be imposed in relation to any description of goods within one or more of the categories specified in the Schedule for such controls."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 32 and 35. Noble Lords may recall our discussion about the Government's Amendments Nos. 43 and 46 to Clause 5 made in Committee on 4th March. During that discussion one of the issues we focused on was the expression "description of thing" which is now in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 5. I explained why Clause 5 was drafted in that way, but the language used was nevertheless criticised and described by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as Orwellian "newspeak" when he presented his related amendments.
While it seemed to me that the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was a trifle harsh, the language used could not be described as a model of eloquence or clarity and I said that I would look at the matter again and consider whether we might produce text that 'was clearer. That, in essence, is what these amendments seek to achieve.
1164
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is not present to see the death throes of "description of thing". I hope that he and others will be pleased to see that the offending words have been removed. In getting rid of that phrase, we have restructured Clause 5 and made it into two clauses. 1 believe that that achieves greater clarity and simplicity and makes the Bill easier to understand, which is an important objective.
The revised clauses would have exactly the same effect as the existing Clause 5. Our amendments maintain the essential link between the control orders and the schedule. That will enable us to control any military goods or technology and also any goods or technology that might have any of the potential consequences set out in the table to the schedule.
Amendment No. 18 is simply subsections (4), (5) and (6) of the current Clause 5, again with some minor drafting improvements, which will be shown separately for clarity under a separate heading and side note that mentions "categories".
Amendments Nos. 32 and 35 are straightforward consequential changes needed to Clause 11 relating to the resolution procedure for orders made under what is now subsection (4) of Clause 5.
I hope that noble Lords will see these amendments as a modest triumph for the English language and clarity in respect of powers that we have already agreed are necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 17
Line 3, after first "to" insert "section (3A) and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this very short amendment would insert a minor qualification to the new Clause 5 that the Government seek to introduce in place of the former Clause 5. The new clause requires one further important drafting amendment. Subsection (1) of the new clause imposes a limitation on the power to make control orders. That limitation is to be subject to the provisions of another new clause, at the moment temporarily numbered 5A.
However, now that your Lordships have passed Amendment No. 10, which incorporates an important new Clause 3A into the Bill, it is necessary that the limitation on making control orders that are contained in subsection (I) should also be made of that clause which also limits the powers to make a control order.
This is only a technical amendment, not one of principle. I imagine that the Government will have no problem in accepting it. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are happy to accept Amendment No. 17 as a consequential amendment.
On Question, Amendment No. 17, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"5A EXCEPTIONS FROM THE GENERAL RESTRICTION
(1) Section (General restriction on control powers) does not apply to the power to impose any controls if the control order which imposes them provides for its expiry no later than the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which it is made.
(2) Section (General restriction on control powers) does not apply in relation to provisions of a control order which—

(a) amend an earlier control order: or

(b) revoke and re-enact (with or without modifications) provisions of an earlier control order,

unless they impose new controls or strengthen the controls previously imposed.
(3) In subsection (2) "an earlier control order" does not include an order made by virtue of subsection (1)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Control powers: supplementary]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 19 at end insert ", but such disclosure shall not be permitted except—

(i) insofar as is necessary in order to monitor or enforce compliance with the order or any licence granted under it and shall (except when provided for the purpose of regulation or enforcement of export controls and the investigation or prosecution of alleged offences) only be permitted on condition that the recipient shall treat such material as confidential: or

(ii) in order to enable the United Kingdom to comply with its international obligations by virtue of any treaty, international agreement or its membership of any international organisation.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one I moved in Committee, but I have altered it to take into account the objections that the Minister raised to it then. The original amendment is contained in paragraph (i) and seeks to limit the use and disclosure of information obtained under the section solely for the purpose of monitoring or enforcing compliance with the Bill.
I reminded the Committee that the human rights convention seemed to have been overlooked in the unlimited power of disclosure that the Secretary of State seeks for herself under Clause 6(1)(f).
In the notorious Guinness case, Ernest Saunders was convicted on the basis of information that he was compelled to give to the inspectors appointed by the DTI—the same department that is promoting this Bill and has defended this clause. That testimony was passed to the prosecution but was later held to be in breach of his elementary right against self-incrimination.
Paragraph (i) of this amendment ensures that records and information will be used for the purposes of the Bill and nothing else. There should be no disclosure to potential competitors, other government departments or NGOs. I pointed out to the Committee that this Bill will be largely administered by Customs and Excise. It will be wrong for the information
1166
demanded and obtained by it under this Bill to be passed on, for example, to the VAT department. The Minister told the Committee:
"The Government also wish to have the power to exchange information within Government…for the regulation and enforcement of export controls and investigation or prosecution of offences".—[Official Report, 7/2/02: col. 838.]
I entirely agree with that statement. Paragraph (i) of my amendment makes it clear that that is definitely a permissible purpose. My concern at the time of the debate in Committee on 7th February has been heightened by the kite recently flown by Downing Street when it suggested that information held by one government department should be freely passed around to other departments and agencies.
There are serious libertarian implications in that. If that facility is to be granted, it should be after full parliamentary scrutiny and debate. It should not be slipped in as a sub-paragraph to a subsection of a Bill which has a rather specific application. Next we shall see this provision cited as a precedent for further dissemination of private information that the Government have been given power to demand.
In Committee I also suggested that it would be wrong for the Government to pass that information on to foreign governments. I quote the Minister's words in an abbreviated form, also at col. 838 on 7th February:
"The Government require the power to obtain and share information…By virtue of its membership of a number of international organisations".
The Minister went on to give three examples. In withdrawing my amendment in Committee, I invited the Minister to put down a similar one on Report adding a provision about international agreements. I regret that he was not able to do so. Therefore, I have been left with no alternative but to reintroduce the amendment which already included a description of the proper reasons why the information could properly be shared within the Government which fully accords with the Minister's own reasons which he gave to me.
I have now added a saving about the United Kingdom's foreign obligations in order to meet the Minister's objections. Now that I have done so, I very much hope that he will find it possible to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this amendment was discussed in Committee on 7th February and is with us once again. It would place conditions on the Secretary of State's power to disclose information obtained through an order under the Bill, but it now has a provision under paragraph (ii) intended to allow disclosure of information where that is required by the UK's international obligations.
As I explained previously when we discussed this issue, the Government require the power to obtain and share information connected to export licensing issues for two reasons. By virtue of its membership of a

1167
number of international organisations, the UK is committed to disclosing certain information to those bodies. Specifically, under the UN arms register and the Wassenaar arrangement, we are required to provide details of the numbers of certain categories of military or dual-use goods exported each year. Paragraph (ii) of the amendment seeks to deal with that point, but it fails to do so because it does not apply to some commitments. The Wassenaar arrangement is one example. It would be unfortunate if, as a result of the amendment, the UK could not participate in or cooperate with some important international bodies simply because they did not fit into the description in the amendment. The Government also wish to have the power to exchange information within government—for example, with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—for the regulation and enforcement of export controls and investigation or prosecution of offences.
The proposed amendment would restrict the uses for which the Government could share information simply to monitoring and compliance and require any such information-sharing to be in confidence. The result would be to prevent the Government from meeting their international reporting obligations. It would also prevent the Government from being able to assist authorities in overseas governments or authorities in enforcement of their own export controls, except in accordance with formal international agreements. The condition on confidentiality is of course unenforceable in respect of information disclosed to authorities outside the UK. Sharing information appropriately with other authorities is an essential part of supervision, investigation and enforcement generally. It is important to have the power to go to other countries and give them information when we believe that activities are taking place that would not be compatible with their views.
As for the concerns about the Human Rights Act and protecting disclosure on the grounds of commercial interests, those issues have been taken into account. The Bill itself is compatible with the Human Rights Act—an explicit statement to that effect was made by the Secretary of State. That statement, which is a statutory requirement under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, was included with the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. The Government need to share information with other departments for the purpose of making decisions about licences. There would be no improper disclosures.
In view of those reassurances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment at an earlier stage and took into account what the Minister said on that occasion. I am disappointed that he did not return with an amendment that took note of all of the relevant concerns. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be a defence to any charge under subsection (1)(g) of an offence described wholly or partially by reference to the uses to which any goods, technology or technical assistance may be put that the person charged did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that there was a risk that the goods, technology or technical assistance in question would he put to such uses."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I moved an identical amendment in Committee, I said that although I was not happy with the Minister's explanation why the amendment was not acceptable, I would read his remarks carefully. As he knows, I always read his remarks carefully. If anything, I am even more convinced of the need for the amendment.
I remind noble Lords of the reasons for what I described as a self-explanatory amendment.. I reminded the Committee of the notorious Matrix Churchill case, where tubes were supplied ostensibly for oil pipelines but it transpired that they were the cunningly disguised barrel of a so-called "super gun".
Clause 6(1)(g) empowers the Secretary of State to create criminal offences that will carry penalties—depending on which part of the intended regulation is breached—of an unlimited fine or an imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. Past events have shown us that wholly innocent people can be unwittingly caught up and imprisoned and that they and their businesses can be completely ruined and their employees thrown out of work. It is for that reason that it is essential that they should have the defence that they did not know and—I stress this—that they could not reasonably have been expected to know about the use to which the export involved was going to be put.
In opposing the amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
"This is essentially a defence based on the level of reasonable knowledge about intended end-uses".—[Official Report, 7/2/02; col. 839]
Exactly, my Lords. I am glad that the Minister agreed with the point that I was making. He went on to say:
"The amendment is not required and is inappropriate…It would not be appropriate, therefore, nor indeed possible to provide in the Bill for a defence in respect of offences to be created in secondary legislation".
There is absolutely no justification or precedent for that statement.
The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to create offences attracting severe punishments. There is no reason why the same Bill should not indicate what defence or defences there may be. Of course, the Government prefer to rule by secondary legislation rather than with full parliamentary scrutiny that primary legislation receives, at least in your Lordships' House, but where the liberty of the citizen is concerned, it should not be left to the whim of Whitehall as to what defences a defendant may have. The Minister in his response prayed in aid the wording of the dummy regulation. He said,
"perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness…that appropriate defences would…be available in respect of offences to be introduced in secondary legislation".

1169
I took the Minister's advice and read the secondary legislation. I can only wonder whether he had done so before he made that statement in Committee. That statement was contained in a brief that had clearly been prepared for him by his department. I quote Article 15, which is entitled "Offences and Penalties". It states:
"A person who contravenes a prohibition or restriction in (a) or (b) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty",
and so on. That is an absolute offence. There is no trace or hint of a defence of lack of knowledge. The regulation goes on in two further paragraphs to refer to a person "knowingly concerned" with certain actions,
"with intent to evade any prohibition".
At least to that extent the regulation is satisfactory because it does put the onus of proving both knowledge and intent on the prosecution, but it clearly illustrates that two types of offences are being created. Both are in respect of an alleged breach of the identical articles of the dummy order. The first is an absolute offence and the second involves the element of a defence available to a defendant. Nevertheless, a person could be entirely ruined by a conviction, even in a magistrates' court, and there is no justification for depriving him of a defence simply because the prosecution chooses to try him in a lower court rather than on indictment.
The dummy order does not live up to what the Minister claimed for it. I firmly believe that if Parliament is going to allow the Secretary of State to create criminal offences, the same legislation that gives those powers should prescribe the limits of those powers and should not leave it to the Secretary of State to decide for himself or herself what limits—indeed, whether there should be any limits at all—there are on how they are to be exercised. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness reminded us that this matter was debated in Committee. On that occasion she graciously agreed to withdraw her amendment but gave a clear indication that she might return to it on Report. She has certainly done so. Clearly, she was not reassured by our response on the previous occasion and, therefore, the amendment is the same as it was last time. The burden of the argument that I shall put forward as to why the amendment is not required is essentially the same as before.
First, I want to provide some background as to how the current regime works so that it will be clear, I hope, why the amendment is not appropriate on the face of the Bill. The first point to make is that the goods and technology that are subject to control are all set out in secondary legislation, in particular under the 1939 Act and in the draft dummy orders which we published in October. Prohibited destinations are also set out in the commitments list which is included in the annual reports on strategic export controls. Such information is also available on our website.
1170
The details of the items which are subject to control and prohibited destinations must be in secondary legislation because they are obviously subject to change. The offences and, of course, the penalties for those offences are also set out in secondary legislation. They, too, may change over time subject to parliamentary scrutiny but, on the whole, they are fairly constant. However, that is not to say that it might not, at some stage, be the Government's wish to increase potential penalties, particularly if certain offences became more common and we needed to deter them or if it was generally felt that penalties should be increased because of greater risks, as, for example, following the atrocity on 11th September last year.
With those offences go legitimate defences, and such matters also belong in secondary legislation. Frankly, it would be a nonsense to separate the offences set out in secondary legislation and the defences set out in primary legislation. The draft dummy orders which we published in October set out the various requirements related to persons either knowing or being informed about intended end uses. In the case of dual-use items, which are controlled by the EC Dual-Use Items Regulation as applied by UK regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972, offences arise only where the person concerned has been informed by government or is aware or suspects that an item is or may be intended for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction.
In the case of suspicion, the prohibition is displaced where the exporter has made all reasonable inquiries as to the proposed use of items and is satisfied that they will not be used in connection with a weapons-of-mass-destruction programme. The language used elsewhere in the dummy orders makes the nature of offences and defences quite clear. That was explained in Committee and examples were given. Including such provisions in secondary legislation does not weaken the defences available to those accused of offences.
A further point which is perhaps worth making is that the Bill will achieve a long-overdue consolidation and rationalisation of powers and procedures for national and EU controls. That will be one of the many benefits which we hope to achieve with the Bill. However, the amendment would have unfortunate consequences in relation to our EU commitments. The words,
"could not reasonably have been expected to know",
are simply not compatible with the end-use control provisions in the EC regulation to which I have just referred.
One consequence of the amendment could be to undermine our intended rationalisation of controls by making it necessary to continue to rely on the European Communities Act 1972 to implement EU controls. We believe that that would be unfortunate. It would also mean that the amendment would not have any effect on such controls and defences to offences created to enforce them under a 1972 Act order.
The basic point that we wish to make—we make it again—is that these are specific matters which have always been set out in secondary

1171
because they are detailed and may change over time. It is right to continue with that practice and, we believe, quite mistaken to seek to introduce defences on the face of the Bill. That is our primary argument.
The second argument is one to which the noble Baroness referred in moving the amendment. It concerns the offences set out in the dummy order. She referred, first, to Article 15(1) and quoted from it as follows:
"A person who contravenes a prohibition or restriction",
in various articles. She is right. That is an absolute offence. Article 15 ensures that there is consistency between the treatment of export control offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the new offences created under powers in the Bill. Like Section 68 of the 1979 Act does in respect of the export of goods, the order prohibits the electronic transfer of control technology. It is a matter of fact. It is possible for a person to commit such an offence without knowledge. The point that I want to make is that it is a much lesser offence and it is subject to a much lower penalty than those offences that appear under Article 15(2) and 15(3). The maximum sentence for such an offence is a level three fine.
The chance of people being prosecuted for the absolute offence of contravening a prohibition or a restriction is extremely unlikely. The suggestion that somehow someone's reputation would be damaged for ever by doing that is inconceivable. The answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness is that serious offences in Article 15(2) and 15(3) have in them the word "knowingly". That means that the defendant does not in any sense have to prove his innocence, but that the prosecution, as in all criminal trials, has to prove that the defendant knew about the transfer of the software technology in Article 15(2) and 15(3):
"Any person knowingly concerned in the provision, or attempted provision, of technical assistance related to the supply…of any goods, with intent to evade".
In other words, anyone charged with the serious offences under Article 15(2) and 15(3) is protected by the natural defences that follow from the need for the prosecution to prove knowledge.
On the summary offence under Article 15(1), that is a contravention, a prohibition or a restriction which is not likely to be prosecuted. If it were, the maximum sentence is a level three fine. It is an absolute offence, as there are other absolute offences in the English criminal law.
That is the second reason why we argue that the noble Baroness is wrong in wanting to amend the clause in this way. The first reason is that it is in secondary legislation and should remain there, and the second is that no injustice is caused to any defendant by the clause as it now stands. Therefore, I ask her to consider what I have said and to withdraw her amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am definitely disappointed by the Minister's reply. I do not believe that that will surprise him, even though he
1172
gave a lengthy reply. I made the point that there ought to be a defence if the person charged did not know or could not have known, or whatever. It may be that the Minister is right in saying that the words would not be acceptable according to some other treaty, but am sure that the Minister and the department could have found words that would have been acceptable.
I understand that the Minister does not want the defence on the face of the Bill, but it seems to me extraordinary that regulations can create offences and that the offences can incur—never mind what the Minister says, because it is clearly in he Bill—penalties of up to 10 years just like that. That is to be done by regulation. The Minister suggested that the penalties could be even greater and that that is why the matter needs to be covered by regulation.
It is a sad day for the British legal system and for parliamentary democracy when clauses such as this can be dealt with by secondary legislation. It is a poor show. I have listened to what the Minister has said and I can see that I shall get no further with it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert—
"(3) An order under any of the preceding provisions of this Act shall (unless there shall be in force a general order applying the requirements set out in this subsection) make provision—

(a) for a prescribed form of application in which descriptive details of the goods or technology in question, their value and the identity and address of the proposed consignee and, if known, both the potential uses and the actual uses by the consignee are set out;

(b) prescribing the time after receipt of an application in which further information can be sought by the liter sing authority to supplement the information contained in the application;

(c) prescribing a time (which may be varied between different types of applications or between different types of goods and technology) after the receipt of the application and any further information when an application shall he deemed to have been granted unless refused;

(d) for written reasons for refusal of any application to be given to the applicant, provided that if the refusal is for security reasons that fact should be stated.

(e) for reasons under paragraph (c) above to contain sufficient information to enable the applicant, if so advised to challenge the reasons on appeal; and

(f) prescribing an appeals procedure, either by way of a hearing or by written representations or both and for reasons for the dismissal of any appeal, subject to security considerations being made known to the exporter in writing.

(4) In any case where a licence is deemed to have been granted pursuant to subsection (3)(c) the Secretary of State shall provide the applicant on request with a written document confirming that the export of the goods or technology is authorised."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the genesis of the Bill is unarguably the gaps in the law—a law that has been in existence since 1939—that were revealed by the notorious Matrix Churchill case and the remedies suggested in the Scott report following the inquiry that was set up by the previous government.

1173
The report made a number of specific recommendations that were accepted by all parties. I stress the words "accepted by all parties" because I have just noted that I was reported in the Official Report of the debate in Committee as saying that they were "expected by all parties". From time to time, if one does not hand in one's notes quickly enough, mishears unfortunately occur.
I said to the Committee that when I read the Bill I was surprised that nowhere in it were the basic Scott recommendations carried into effect. My former surprise has now been compounded by the vehemence with which the Government rejected my amendment. I shall not trouble your Lordships by going through each of the five paragraphs (a) to (f) and subsection (4) of the amendment. They are all self-explanatory and I emphasise that they follow the recommendations of the Scott report which the Government quite clearly do not wish to put into effect in primary legislation. I quote what the Minister said in his reply to the Committee:
"The Government set out their views about what are essentially procedural matters in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, published in 1998".—[Official Report, 7/2/02; col. 847.]
Indeed, they did.
The Minister quoted from the White Paper, which states:
"The Government considers that there could be merit in setting out the basic elements of the licensing process in primary legislation, but not the detailed procedures. The latter are, in the Government's view, best included either in secondary legislation, or in guidance material, as at present, or a mixture of the two".
My amendment clearly and unequivocally does what the Government suggested in the White Paper. It sets out the basic elements of a licensing regime without being prescriptive of the detail. The amendment says that an order shall make provision for the five factors set out in paragraphs (a) to (e). Those provisions are in general terms, not in detail, which the amendment leaves specifically to the order that will be made.
I shall deal with some of the specious arguments that have been made as the Government's reasons for rejecting the Scott proposals which, in opposition, they endorsed. The first refers to licensing by default. That is the Government's default in dealing with a licence application. The Minster suggested that there was a risk of licences being granted contrary to the United Kingdom's international obligations, or of more licences being refused. The fact that there is a time limit will concentrate the Department's mind on the matter, and there is nothing to prevent regulations to provide for the applicant to grant additional time to avoid a refusal. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsman who framed the regulations could easily cope with the simple provision. If he cannot, I know someone who can.
The second argument refers to security provisions that might preclude the giving of detailed reasons for a refusal, but as the Minister conceded, that aspect was covered by paragraph (d) of the amendment. Scott similarly covered the same point. Thirdly, the Minister
1174
said that the appeals procedure is already set out in the regulations. I agree that the regulations more or less cover the point that I am making in paragraph (e), but there is no reason why the Bill should not prescribe that such regulations should be made and kept in place, and not arbitrarily cancelled at some time without something adequate being put in its place.
Fourthly, it was said that regulations may need to be changed over time. I agree, but there is nothing in the amendment saying that they cannot be changed and there is nothing that modifies the wide regulatory power that the Secretary of State is given under subsection (1) of the clause, which states:
"An order under any of the preceding provisions of this Act may—make provision"
and goes on to list a menu of eight items which the Secretary of State can order.
All that my amendment does in general terms is specify the criteria for any order. It asks for a prescribed form to be used, which could be changed from time to time. It asks for the Secretary of State to set a time limit for seeking supplementary information; it does not specify the length of that time limit, nor does it specify the time after which an application is deemed to be granted if it has not actually been refused, and so on.
It seems that from the Minister's remark about regulations needing to be changed from time to time, he has read my amendment as if it were prescribing the details of the regulations themselves, which I hope your Lordships will see does not. I said in Committee that I considered the amendment to be a test of whether the Government accepted the Scott recommendations or whether they wanted to depart from them. Clearly, now that they are in office, they want to depart from those recommendations that they accepted while in opposition.
More than that, now that they are translating their own White Paper into legislation, they are rejecting the principles that they set out there as well. This is a case of the Government propose, but Whitehall disposes, and it is time that the Government translated their publicly announced policies into legislation. I urge them to be consistent. They should accept this nonpartisan amendment and put into place the procedures which they previously said they espoused. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness described her amendment as non-partisan, but I noted that there was quite a lot of partisanship in her speech. However, perhaps I shall put that on one side.
I hope that my response to her amendment will not be vehement, but I shall try to reply with some force and perhaps a little common sense, too. We do not accept that such detailed procedural matters as she proposes belong in the Bill. There is a fundamental difference in approach with regard to licensing by default, represented by her Amendment No. 21, which we cannot accept.

1175
As with the earlier version of this amendment, Amendment No. 21 seeks to add a number of detailed matters to the Bill. It requires orders to make provision for a prescribed form of licence application; a time within which any additional information must be sought by the licensing authority; a time after which a licence would be deemed to have been granted unless refused; written reasons for the refusal of a licence application which should be sufficient to enable the applicant to make an appeal; and for prescribing an appeals procedure. Proposed subsections (3)(c) and (4) would require the Secretary of State, in effect, to issue a licence by default if a decision had not been made within a prescribed timescale. Those various provisions concern procedures or, in the case of licensing by default, a fundamentally different approach to export licensing.
As was explained in Committee, the 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls set out our views on procedural matters. We stick by that judgment, which was that the basic elements of the licensing process should be provided for in primary legislation but not detailed procedures. Indeed, the basic elements are set out in Clause 6. That clause contains powers to make provisions relating to prohibited activities, exemptions, record keeping, the provision of information and so forth. It is comprehensive in what it enables us to include in orders. There is absolutely no need to include the sort of detail proposed in subsection (3) of the amendment.
Let us look again at the various subsections of the amendment. We do in fact have standard licence application forms, but that does not need to be provided for in primary legislation. When we discussed this earlier, the noble Baroness said that such applications,
"would mean that there would be no question of delay on the grounds of inadequate details being supplied".—[Official Report, 712/02. col. 846]
That is not quite right. For example, it is necessary to obtain details in addition to information on a licence application form, so the intended effect would not be achieved because there would be cases where further clarification and further details might be required. That is the nature of the process, which needs to be thorough.
Prescribing the form of application brings home the point about it not being appropriate to include powers to prescribe detailed matters in the Bill. The form of licence application is an administrative matter, plain and simple.
I move on to the issue of licensing by default or, as it is expressed, exports that are "deemed" to be permitted. The White Paper also made clear that there were unacceptable risks associated with that. We need to be able to assess all licence applications against guidance that will be published under Clause 7 of the Bill and laid before Parliament. We need to be able to ensure that licences are granted in accordance with the UK's international obligations and commitments. That cannot be achieved by a casual and risky licensing by default approach. While we accept the need to process export licences expeditiously, we should not put pure speed of processing licence applications above much more important objectives. As was said before, and I repeat, a licensing by default approach would result in
1176
many more licences being refused because that would be the only responsible approach if an arbitrary processing deadline was imposed.
Our view was shared, quite rightly, by the last Conservative government in their response to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. I wart to reassure the noble Baroness—this is perhaps what is really behind her amendment, if I may be so bold as to say—that we try to deal with applications expeditiously. I know from her Second Reading speech that the noble Baroness's concern is about delays which sometimes occur. We work hard to try to reduce processing time. In particular, all long-standing cases are now regularly reviewed to ensure that they are progressed as quickly as possible. Nevertheless it is true that in a small proportion of particularly difficult cases—it should not he underestimated how difficult some cases are to determine—delays can occur.
We already give written reasons for refusing a licence application. However, in some cases, for reason, of national security, only a broad explanation can be given. We write to ensure that there is sufficient information for an unsuccessful applicant to make an appeal. The dummy orders we published last October provide for appeals. Article 14 on the export of goods, transfer of technology and provision of technical assistance and Article 8 on trade in controlled goods of the dummy draft order include such provisions.
We are certain that the Bill will enable us to modernise our existing export control regime. That is the purpose behind it. We think that it would be a mistake to try and attempt to include a number of specific procedural powers. I hope it will satisfy the noble Baroness if I repeat that it is our intention to try and make sure that there are fewer and fewer delays in processing export licence applications. I therefore invite her to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I shall accept what he says that there are fewer and fewer delays. I said that it was a non-partisan amendment. I am surprised that the noble Lord thought it was not. He has obviously not been opposite me enough. If I had meant to be political, I think he would have known the difference. Having said that, I can see that I shall not get anywhere with the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"6A RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLISHING INFORMATION OR COMMUNICATING PUBLISHED INFORMATION
In exercising any power to make a control order, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to avoid any unreasonable restriction on—

(a) the making of information generally available to the public; or

(b) the communication of information that has already been made generally available to the public."

1177
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 goes rather further in some respects than a similar amendment we agreed earlier. I commend it to the House. I begin by reiterating what I made clear when the issue of academic freedom was discussed in Committee. The Bill will not lead to control of information in, or being placed in, the public domain, and the Bill, all secondary legislation and all actions or decisions taken under it, must comply with the Human Rights Act which protects freedom of expression. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Warwick, who is the chief executive of Universities UK, stated in Committee that discussions between the Government and Universities UK had convinced it that the Government in no way wanted to impinge upon academic freedom by way of the Bill. None the less, Universities UK and many noble Lords have argued for this to be made explicit on the face of the Bill rather than being left to secondary legislation, and indeed have repeated those arguments today.
The Government have listened to these concerns and wish to make their position on this important issue clear. The Government's proposed amendment therefore provides on the face of the Bill for protection of the principle of freedom to publish and to communicate information that has already been published. The amendment rightly applies to all persons, not just to the academic community. It concerns a general principle which is not of unique concern to the academic community. We believe that it achieves essentially what the Opposition were seeking to achieve by their amendment but avoids the damaging loopholes created by that amendment.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to avoid unreasonable restrictions on putting information in the public domain or communicating material already in the public domain when making secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government will need to bear this provision in mind when entering into any international commitments to ensure that these do not require the imposition of unreasonable restrictions on the freedom to publish or to communicate information in the public domain. Any order under the Bill which did attempt to place an unreasonable restriction on publication or communication, and any action affecting an individual based on such a restriction, could therefore be opposed in the courts.
At the same time, the amendment retains the crucial degree of flexibility required to enable the Government to place restrictions on publication where that is necessary to control activities which might cause real harm, such as contributing directly to the development or production of weapons of mass destruction. For example, as I explained in Committee on this issue, the European Community's dual-use items regulation imposes controls on the transfer of technology, whether or not in the public domain, which is intended for use in connection with a particular weapons of mass destruction programme. The Bill must allow us to continue to be able to impose such controls where necessary.
1178
The proposed amendment adds to the protection of freedom of expression already enshrined in the Human Rights Act. Under that Act an individual can challenge any order made under the Bill which impacts on his convention rights. The amendment would strengthen this further by providing that the order itself could be challenged if it attempted to place an unreasonable restriction on publication or communication, irrespective of its impact on an individual. For the order to stand, the Secretary of state would need to be able to demonstrate to the court that the restriction in the order was justified by the circumstances.
I add that the amendment applies not only to orders on transfer of technology or technical assistance, but to all control orders introduced under the Bill. Moreover, unlike Amendment No. 10, the amendment applies to all controls under the Bill, including those required by international regimes. At the same time, it allows any reasonable or justifiable restrictions imposed by European legislation or joint actions or international obligations including voluntary agreements, such as the Wassenaar arrangement, to be implemented in the UK.
The amendment strikes the correct balance between the need to protect academic freedom and the need for effective export control and I urge noble Lords to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we certainly accept the amendment, because anything that helps to stop total government control of academic freedom must be good. I shall say only that it is a weak amendment—I do not wish to be impolite to the noble Lord; I think that he thinks that I have done that quite enough this evening, but I have not meant to. It is difficult to know what,
"to have regard to the need",
means; but it does not mean much. However, the new clause will prevent the severe limit of academic freedom in the Bill, which can only be helpful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"TEMPORARY EXPORT LICENCES
(1) Any order made under section I shall include provision for the activity to be authorised by a temporary export licence.
(2) A temporary export licence is one which authorises goods to leave the United Kingdom on a short term temporary basis for the purposes of exhibition or demonstration during which time the goods remain under the control of the United Kingdom exporter.
(3) Any application for such a temporary export licence shall be granted within 20 working days from the lodging of the application (or such extended time as the applicant may agree) and if it shall not be so granted, unless it is refused it shall be deemed to have been granted and the provisions of section 6(4) shall apply."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a modest amendment that contains three simple provisions. First, it specifically allows the Secretary of State to grant temporary export licences—as, indeed, she already does—to facilitate the showing of samples, giving of demonstrations of equipment to potential customers and sending of goods to exhibitions. It

1179
would also cover the temporary export of cultural items that are included in the Bill; otherwise, where is such a power authorised?
Secondly, it defines the purposes, which I have just described, for which a temporary export licence may be granted. Thirdly, it imposes a time limit for the granting of such a temporary licence, after which it will he deemed to be granted unless refused.
Despite the Minister's argument in Committee that a time limit might result in applications being arbitrarily refused, I should think that, on the contrary, it would concentrate his department's mind to get on to deal with applications in recognition that they are inevitably time-sensitive. If a supplier cannot show his goods quickly to a potential customer, a valuable export order may be lost. In more complex cases, an applicant could grant a time extension for further consideration by the department.
I fully understand that such an amendment is unwelcome to the Whitehall machine, but the question is whether it works for our export industry, or whether our manufacturers work for it. As long as the department fails to meet its target of dealing with applications within 20 working days, as it continually does in a substantial proportion of cases, applications for temporary licences need to be specifically authorised and defined, as they are in the amendment, and a time limit set for them to be dealt with because of the commercial urgency that they involve. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the amendment would add a new clause to the Bill to require orders under Clause 1 specifically to provide for authorisation under a temporary export licence to cover short-term temporary exports for exhibition or demonstration overseas. Such temporary export licences would be deemed to have been granted unless refused within 20 days of application, unless extended by agreement with the applicant.
First, I should make clear that the definition of export in Clause 1 includes any removal of goods from the United Kingdom, even temporary removal. The draft dummy orders allow a temporary export licence to be issued and we do issue such licences, so it is unnecessary to provide for them in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, explained that she believed that temporary licences should be granted automatically within 20 workings days of application, in order not to hamper British industry. The Export Control Organisation is conscious of the needs of industry and places a high importance on the speedy and efficient processing of export licence applications. Its progress against its target of processing 70 per cent of applications within 20 working days has improved year on year. The amendment would not improve that situation; its effect could well be counter-productive.
In the specific case of temporary exports, there is an open general licence in force for the temporary export of military goods to exhibitions. That permits exporters to exhibit all but the most sensitive military
1180
goods in a number of countries—including major trading partners such as the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan—without the need to apply for an individual licence. The licence ensures that, for a substantial number of the cases that were of concern to the noble Baroness, there is no question of any delay. In addition, the Government issue temporary individual licences, details of which are given in the annual report under the heading for the relevant country.
Destinations not covered by the open licence are, by definition, those where exports, even on a temporary basis, may give rise to concerns under our consolidated EU and national export licensing criteria. The need to process such applications promptly cannot outweigh the need for thorough assessment of export licence applications. Indeed, the small minority of licence applications for which consideration took more than 20 working days were, in general, applications that raised particularly difficult issues. With the amendment, we would be forced to refuse any licence still unprocessed after 20 days, if we were to avoid the risk of contravening our obligations under the consolidated criteria or other commitments by issuing licences by default. The amendment could therefore result in exporters being refused licences that might otherwise have been granted.
The Government appreciate fully the effect that delays in the processing of an export licence application can have on the competitiveness of individual companies and British industry generally. We are working hard to reduce such delays by building up more productive customer relationships, improving our IT systems and working to establish even closer and more effective partnerships with other departments involved in the licensing process. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I was interested to hear the Minister say that for licences of this kind, there is no delay. I am pleased to hear that I find it extraordinary that, on our side, we are lobbied to do something about temporary licences because, we are told, there is a huge delay. I accept what the Minister said, and I am sure that he will look into the matter in view of my comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Guidance about the exercise of functions under control orders]:
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—
"Where—

(a) the description of thing being controlled is within one or more of the categories mentioned in the Schedule; or

(b) the activity being controlled could have one or more of the possible consequences that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule,

the guidance required by subsection (3) must state that regard shall be had, when exercising such powers, to—"

1181
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line I, after "development" insert "including those pertaining to the study, conservation, protection, enjoyment and sustainable use of heritage resources of cultural interest"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who could not be present this evening.
I shall speak briefly on the issue; we spoke about it at length during the previous stage of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to include heritage as a resource, not under the title of sustainable development but as a subject in its own right. We do it because we saw the opportunity to do so; I can put it no more clearly than that. I suspect, however, that the Minister will come up with many reasons why heritage should not be included. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise to express my support for this amendment. In Committee, I recall the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, rather teasingly saying that whenever the expression "weapons of mass destruction" was mentioned I suddenly thought of heritage and cultural objects. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, one of our objectives throughout these proceedings has been to ensure that a Bill, which, in greater part, does deal with weapons of mass destruction but which, in its minor part, deals with relevant issues to the DCMS, should pay due respect and attention to such issues. That is especially so because when the legislation was introduced cultural organisations outwith Parliament were not perhaps fully aware of the impact of the Bill upon them, or of how a smaller part of the Bill affects culture. Such issues are important to the cultural world.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for returning to the matter. I rather suspect that we shall not move much further on the issue tonight. However, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renfrew, I can say how much we have appreciated the conduct of the Government throughout the proceedings on the Bill. They have made efforts to recognise heritage in its proper place during our discussions, even if it did not quite receive the attention that it deserved both in the other place and in the Explanatory Notes before it came to this House.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall say straightaway that I welcome the opportunity to debate the amendment, even if I do not welcome its contents. After all, it has given us culture vultures the chance to play our part in the proceedings. As usual, the all-star cast is in action—apart, that is, from the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who, regrettably, as he indicated, was not able to participate in this crucial part of the debate.
1182
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that he did not expect to make too much progress with the amendment. He presented some attractive arguments but, in our view, not quite winning ones. It is not that we do not share with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the objective to ensure that we protect the cultural heritage of this country, and various aspects of it that we know are under threat through the practice of illicit trade. However, we do not believe that this Bill is the way to achieve that aim, or that the amendment now before the House will advance the cause that we all share.
I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill provides for the export control of objects of cultural interest. It is not designed to solve the problem of illicit trade in cultural goods, which, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, is best addressed by international agreement. To this end, noble Lords will recall that I said in Committee on 4th March that we expected accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention to take place very soon. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, took my words at face value and, as we would expect, has been pursuing the issue through Written Questions.
I should tell noble Lords that on 20th March my noble friend Lady Blackstone stated in a Written Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—Official Report; col. WA 157—that we expect to publish a Command Paper by the end of April, together with an explanatory memorandum, as is the custom before acceding to a treaty. I should remind noble Lords that, thereafter, it will lie for 21 sitting days before action is taken to bind the United Kingdom. For those reasons, the Government expect to achieve their aim to accede to the convention by July.
As I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the intention behind the amendment is that the Government would apply additional criteria in exercising export controls so that a licence would not be granted for an object that has been looted from an archaeological site here, or overseas. We applaud those sentiments and recognise their strength. We are committed to fighting the very real problem of illicit trade. However, we are not convinced that the Bill is the appropriate mechanism to protect and conserve archaeological sites and their future sustainable use for study and enjoyment. As I said earlier, the way to tackle the issue is through international agreement. The effort that we are making to ensure that we accede to the 1970 UNESCO convention is the most obvious and tangible step forward, and one that we shall be taking shortly to achieve that end.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we subscribe to his intentions but that we do not believe that the amendment will advance the cause. However, we have in mind a way in which we will be tackling the issue thoroughly and I hope that therefore he will think in terms of withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is most welcome to hear of the progress of the UNESCO convention. His answer raised one

1183
particular issue, and one to which I am sure we will return; that is, ensuring that adequate staff are provided to police the export controls on objects of cultural interests, especially looted archaeological finds. However, taking the Minister's reply in the spirit in which it was given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdalemoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 10, leave out subsection (6) and insert"
( )— Changes made to guidance

(a) required by subsection (3) which includes guidance about the consideration to be given to—

(i) issues relating to sustainable development; or

(ii) issues relating to any possible consequences of the activity being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 3 of the Schedule; or

(b) referred to the consolidated criteria relating to export control licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000

shall require a draft of that change to be laid before and be subject to a resolution of each House of Parliament.
( ) Changes to any guidance other than those described in the subsection above shall be laid before Parliament and published within 28 days."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one of the main concerns of the Scott report was that existing government powers lack,
"the provisions for Parliamentary supervision and control that would be expected and are requisite in a modern Parliamentary democracy".
In Clause 11, the Bill addresses that concern by setting out the role of Parliament in approving or refusing orders made under the authority of the Bill. Depending on the nature of the order, that may involve either the draft or delayed affirmative resolution procedure or the negative resolution procedure. However, that element of oversight is not extended to cover changes to the guidance. In such cases the Secretary of State is required only to inform Parliament after the event.
Where the nature of the amendment to guidance is purely dministrative—for example, with regard to the procedures to be followed in submitting a licence application—that level of oversight is appropriate. Where guidance relates to changes to export licensing criteria, it is not sufficient.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when changes to guidelines refer to export criteria, those will require prior approval by both Houses of Parliament by the affirmative resolution procedure. Where the guidelines refer to other matters—for example, licensing procedures—the Secretary of State will simply have to inform Parliament within 28 days. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 27.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the amendment would have the effect that any changes to guidance relating to the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers would be subject to parliamentary approval.
As the House will know, Clause 7(8) states that the consolidated criteria represent guidance which fulfils the duty laid upon the Secretary of State in Clause 7(3) to give guidance about the general principles to be followed when exercising licensing powers.
As I have explained on previous occasions in the House, the consolidated criteria derive to a very great extent from the European Union code of conduct on arms exports, which is an international agreement. It would not be right for governmental commitments entered into following negotiations with our international partners to be overturned by Parliament and indeed were Parliament to have a capacity to do this, it would make it virtually impossible for the Government ever to negotiate such international agreements.
I realise that the amendment has been tabled out of a desire to ensure that no future government could weaken the guidance on which export licensing decisions are based without the approval of Parliament. However, I would remind noble Lords that Clause 7 places a statutory obligation on government to include within guidance guidance relating to sustainable development and the matters listed in the table of consequences in the schedule to the Bill.
This obligation is in fact stronger in relation to sustainable development than the previous situation under the Bill. In earlier versions of the Bill, it would in theory have been possible for a future government to alter the schedule by secondary legislation and thus, for example, give no further attention to sustainable development.
Clause 7 now requires the Secretary of State to give guidance and it also requires that guidance to address sustainable development and the schedule table issues. As noble Lords may observe, there is no provision in the Bill for Clause 7 to be amended short of by primary legislation. Thus there are already limits on the extent to which the Government are free to alter the guidance on the general principles they follow when exercising licensing powers.
The proposed amendment also seeks to ensure that any guidance under Clause 7 is laid before Parliament and published within 28 days. Yet, as I explained in Committee, the Government would be subject to legal challenge if they were to make a licensing decision on the basis of unpublished guidance. Hence the Government are unable to use any guidance before it is published, providing a powerful incentive for prompt publication of guidance relating to the exercise of their licensing powers.
As concerns other guidance relating to export licensing functions, this is typically published to exporters by way of the Export Control Organisation

1185
website. We would expect to do this simultaneously with laying the guidance before Parliament and see no need to make statutory provision for this.
For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Annual reports]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Campbell-Savoursmoved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
"DEFENCE EXPORTS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
(1) There shall be a Committee, to be known as the Defence Exports Scrutiny Committee (in this section referred to as "the Committee") to examine United Kingdom defence export licence applications and the licensing process.
(2) The Committee shall consist of nine members—

(a) drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords; and

(b) none of whom shall be Ministers of the Crown.

(3) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, within the meaning of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (c. 27); and one of those members shall be so appointed as the chairman of the Committee.
(4) Schedule 2 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the tenure of office of members of, the procedure of and other matters relating to, the Committee; and in the Schedule "the Committee" has the same meaning as in this section.
(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
(6) The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Committee under subsection (5) together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (7).
(7) If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Committee, that it is evident that the publication of any matter was exempt under the Code of Practice to Government Information, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is one of three dealing with aspects of prior scrutiny. It provides for the establishment of a defence exports committee which would be subject to the arrangements set out in Amendment No. 41, which would in turn introduce a new Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I do not intend again to set out the case for prior scrutiny by a defence exports scrutiny committee. The case was fully debated at cols. 860–874 of the Official Report of 7th February 2002. However, I shall take the opportunity to update the House and those outside campaigning on this issue on developments over recent weeks.
The amendment was originally moved on 7th February. At that stage the Minister undertook to consider the proposal, based on the ISC model. Since
1186
then, extensive lobbying of Ministers has taken place. An Early Day Motion was introduced in the other place which read:
"This House believes that specified defence export licence applications should be subject to prior scrutiny by a committee comprising Honourable Members of Parliament".
To date the Motion has been signed by 217 Members of—Parliament—that—number—will—increase substantially over the next couple of weeks—20 of whom are former Labour Ministers of the Crown and five of whom are current chairmen of Select Committees.
Extensive work has been carried out by lobbies outside Parliament, in particular Saferworld, which supports the amendment, despite correspondence suggesting the contrary which I understand has been circulating in some departments.
A meeting was convened with the Trade Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, who promised to consider the amendment. Discussions took place with Clare Short, who promised to consider it. A meeting was arranged with the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw; he promised to consider it. A meeting of the Quadripartite Committee was convened. Jack Straw gave evidence to that committee. He referred specifically to this amendment and said that it was being seriously considered by the Government. A further meeting was convened with the Overseas Development Secretary, Clare Short, who undertook again seriously to consider it.
Over the weeks, a number of discussions held with some members of the Quadripartite Committee have taken place on the substance of the amendment. I then met the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. With his permission, I shall quote from a letter that he wrote to me on this amendment. He stated:
"I think the constitutional objections that in the course of the second reading debate I voiced about prior scrutiny (quoted by Lord Sainsbury: see Hansard p. 872) have little, if any, application to the proposed function of your Defence Exports Scrutiny Committee.
The committee would not, as I read the proposal, represent Parliament. It would be appointed by the Prime Minister and would report to him, not to Parliament—at least not directly. Its function would be akin to that of a Special Adviser."
He went on to state:
"Subject to that, I cannot see any constitutional objection to the Prime Minister appointing a number of Parliamentarians to act as Special Advisers to the executive on export licensing decisions—which, in effect, is what your proposal comes to".
There were then further discussions with the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and again he undertook to consider further the substance of the proposed amendment to the law.
Ann Clwyd, a colleague of mine in the other place, had a meeting with officials in Downing Street, and I also followed that up with a further meeting with a Downing Street official to arrange for a briefing of the Prime Minister specifically on this amendment. I understand that he has been briefed.
I met the Defence Manufacturers Association and I understand that while some of its members have expressed concern about the Quadripartite Select

1187
Committee's original proposals, others support the DESC compromise proposals. We are also trying once again to meet Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, over the next week. Indeed, I hope to meet my noble friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box today to discuss the matter.
I believe that there is strong support throughout the system for this proposal. It is based on a compromise, but it is a compromise that will work. I say that it will work on the basis of my own experience on the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have not been given any guarantees by the Government, nor do we expect them at this stage. The Government are clearly listening and consulting, and that is all I ask for at this stage.
The debate goes on and I hope that by Third Reading we will have a positive response. I do not expect a substantive response on the amendment today, but it will be interesting to hear what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 41 because they cover substantially the same ground.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I was advised that we may have some procedural difficulty with that. I was intending to move Amendment No. 31 separately, so my noble friend may wish to be very brief in replying to the first amendment.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may reply generally and we can take matters from there.
Before turning to more detailed points, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the care that he has taken with his proposal and his amendments. I am also grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken to discuss his proposal with a wide range of bodies and to take their concerns on board.
In particular, I noted when the noble Lord tabled these new amendments, as he has just explained, that he has taken particular care to address industry concerns in relation to commercial confidentiality by introducing a reference to the code of practice to government information. I also noted that he has taken steps to consider the possibility of delay during the Recess and the care he has taken to consider sensitive information in all its forms. The Government recognise that the noble Lord has made very great efforts to provide a compromise and an innovative way forward, and I pay tribute to his efforts in this area.
I also express my personal gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for making me aware of his views on this proposal. I noted with great interest his view that the constitutional objections to prior scrutiny he had voiced in Committee had "little, if any, application" in this case as the Committee would not represent Parliament or, "at least not directly", report to it. As many noble Lords will remember, when we
1188
last discussed this important issue I felt that the constitutional issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, were a major concern, so I was very interested to see that he has said that he,
"cannot see any constitutional objections to the Prime Minister appointing a number of Parliamentarians to act as Special Advisers to the executive".
However, I should like to draw the attention of the House to another point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. In his letter commenting on the proposal now before the House, he added that he thought,
"one of the most important functions of a Select Committee is that of holding the Government to account for its—executive acts or omissions, so I think there would be some conflict of interest if a member of your"—
he means the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—
"committee were also a member of, say, the Trade and Industry Committee or Quadripartite Select Committee".
This comment touches on a concern that we had had about the proposal. Were a defence exports scrutiny committee to be established, we have some concerns about how it might inter-relate with the Quadripartite Committee in another place. The defence exports scrutiny committee would almost certainly need, and might well seek to take on, major parts of what is now the role of the Quadripartite Committee. For example, the defence exports scrutiny committee would almost certainly need to undertake a degree of retrospective scrutiny of both individual cases and strategic export licensing policy, if only to investigate and discuss why their advice was, or indeed was not, being followed by the Government. At its extreme, this could even be seen to cast doubt on the exact nature of the continuing role of the Quadripartite Committee. Moreover, in merely practical terms, it would also present difficulties were the Government to be required to account for their actions 10 two different committees.
That brings me to a related concern that we have had about this committee. One of its key features—the fact that it would meet in secret—also poses a potential problem. As the House will know, the Government have, wherever possible, sought to bring greater democratic involvement and accountability to the export licensing process and have tried, to bring about greater transparency wherever possible.
One of the key achievements of the Bill will be to increase transparency and accountability. Given the potential for overlap between this committee and the Quadripartite Committee, we remain concerned in particular about the potential impact such a new committee might have on current levels of transparency and accountability.
These are only some of our concerns. The noble Lord may say that these and other concerns could be addressed. But these are issues that need careful thought. That brings me to my conclusion. We have given the noble Lord's proposal careful consideration and this has served to demonstrate both some possible attractions and some significant problems. I would add that it has shown that the issues, both of principle and of detail, are not straightforward.

1189
For that reason, I ask the noble Lord whether he is willing to withdraw his Amendment No. 30 and not to move Amendment No. 31. In asking that of him, I stress that we have taken legal advice and we are clear that the Government, were they to decide to take this approach, would be able to set up a defence exports scrutiny committee in all its essentials, without a requirement for new legislation.
However, we feel that it is essential to get to the bottom of the important issues that I have raised and indeed some other serious concerns, including legal concerns and points of detail—such as the nature of the supplementary information that the committee might request. That will take time and, given the vital issues covered by the Bill, the Government would be reluctant to see it delayed still further. It is vital that we can start the process of consultation on the secondary legislation and thereafter implementation as soon as possible so that we can be assured that the UK has the export controls that it needs in these uncertain times.
However, I should like to assure the noble Lord that the Government intend to continue their examination of his proposals and their consideration of how best to achieve greater accountability and transparency in the export licensing process. I would add that I hope to meet with him soon to discuss his proposals further.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I agree with the reservation expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, and the caveat that he entered. In moving the next amendment, perhaps I may deal more substantially with the issue that my noble friend raised in his reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell-Savoursmoved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
"DEFENCE EXPORTS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (NO. 2)
(1) There shall be a Committee, to be known as the Defence Exports Scrutiny Committee (in this section referred to as "the Committee") to examine United Kingdom defence export licence applications and the licencing process.
(2) The Committee shall consist of nine members—

(a) drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords; and

(b) none of whom shall be Ministers of the Crown.

(3) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, within the meaning of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (c. 27); and one of those members shall be so appointed as the chairman of the Committee.
(4) The Prime Minister may by order make provisions as to the tenure of office, members of, the procedure of and other matters relating to, the Committee.
(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
1190
(6) The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report made by the Committee under subsection (5) together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (7).
(7) If it appears to the Prime Minister that it is evident that the publication of any matter was exempt under the Code of Practice to Government Information, the Prime Minister may exclude the matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment that I should like the Government to accept at Third Reading. It may be termed an enabling amendment. The distinction between it and Amendment No. 30 is to be found in subsection (4), where the reference to Schedule 2 in Amendment No. 30 has been deleted and replaced by a power to introduce secondary legislation by order.
The amendment would enable the Government to establish a committee and leave the detail on tenure of office by committee members, committee procedures, access to information, definitions of sensitive information, staging of notification of licence applications, measures for the avoidance of delay and conflict of interest rules to secondary legislation, following up detailed consultation with lobbies and with the defence industry. Again, I do not expect to receive a substantive response today; I leave that for Third Reading. As this is an enabling amendment. however, I hope that the Government themselves will table an amendment that will bring my Amendment No. 31 into proper order.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for this proposal. However, as I said, the Government are still considering, and are concerned about, matters of principle as well as matters of detail. I outlined in earlier discussion some of those areas of concern.
As the noble Lord said, this amendment would be an enabling power. However, as he will appreciate, agreement to the amendment at this stage would commit the Government to taking action. As he knows, the Government take such matters and their commitments very seriously. It would be very difficult to argue that agreement to an amendment such as Amendment No. 31 was not an effective commitment to introduce such a committee. Moreover, even were we not of that view, as the noble Lord may be aware there are persons in Parliament who would most definitely be of that view. Indeed, there are noble Lords and Members in another place who regularly ask the Government for information on what parts of Acts have not yet been brought into force and view the answer that there are areas where the Government have been "tardy" with great disapproval.
Therefore, while I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord proposed an amendment stating that the,
"Prime Minister may by order make provisions as to the tenure of office, members of, the procedure of and other matters relating to, the Committee",
I am afraid that I cannot agree to make the commitment to introducing the committee that acceptance of this amendment would entail.

1191
I stress, however, as I have indicated before, that we feel it essential to get to the bottom of the important issues of principle which I have already mentioned and address points of detail. That will take a little time. Given the vital issues it covers, we would be very reluctant to see the Bill and its implementation delayed still further. However, we are clear that the Government, were we to decide to adopt this approach, would be able to set up a defence exports scrutiny committee, in all its essentials, without a requirement for new legislation.
Finally, I again say to the noble Lord that the Government intend to continue their examination of his proposals and their consideration of how best to achieve greater accountability and transparency in the export licensing process. I also hope to meet him soon to discuss his proposals further. For all those reasons, which are very similar to the previous ones, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: On the basis of my noble friend's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 23, leave out from "order" to "shall" in line 24 and insert "made by virtue of section (Exceptions from the general restriction) (1)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 24, after "section" insert "I, 2, 3, 4 or"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34. I can do so briefly as they are to the same effect.
The amendments would require orders made under this legislation to be approved by Parliament by the positive resolution procedure and not by the negative procedure. I need not take up much time by explaining the difference in detail as this argument has been rehearsed before your Lordships on many occasions. I think it is relevant, however, for me to remind noble Lords that secondary legislation receives far less scrutiny than primary legislation. The latter at least has to go through three stages in each House, although in the other place it is possible for entire clauses or parts of Bills not to receive any consideration whatever, and when they do it is a matter for the Speaker or the Standing Committee chairman to decide which amendments will or will not be called. That is why your Lordships' House is justly called the finest revising Chamber in the world. Every Bill can be scrutinised line by line, every amendment can be debated and every noble Lord who wishes to speak is heard.
Negative resolutions receive scant attention in both Houses. They rarely get on to the Floor of the other place, and it does require some effort to get them on to the Floor here as well. Positive resolutions do
1192
theoretically receive the attention of your Lordships' House—although the Chief Whip is shaking his head. I am sure that he will agree that positive resolutions certainly receive more scrutiny than negative ones. Now he is nodding; this is a very visual amendment. With the nodding I missed out an important paragraph.
I confess that I sometimes find myself talking to the Minister and our respective Whips in an empty Chamber during the dinner hour. But at least if there is something to be said, it will come to the attention of those noble Lords who are interested in the subject as they can read it in Hansard.
The Act that this Bill is replacing was passed in 1939—63 years ago. It was not an enabling Act with whole tracts of it left to ministerial decree. However, this is a Bill which imposes heavy burdens on exporters and severe penalties for those who breach either its provisions or, more relevantly for the purpose of these amendments, the provisions decreed by the Secretary of State. It is only right that they should receive the higher degree of scrutiny that Parliament is able to give to secondary legislation.
I cannot understand in the least why the Government do not want that to happen and do not want positive vetting of ministerial orders. The negative resolution procedure was originally intended, and in my submission should still be used only, for orders that are inherently non-controversial. The Minister told your Lordships when opposing these amendments previously that—I feel that I must quote him—
"Such orders will frequently be of a technical nature. That is perfectly understandable to Members of this Chamber, but they may not want to spend a great deal of time talking about them ". — [Official Report, 4/3/02; col. 92.]
I am sure that the Minister did not intend to be as condescending as that sounds, but that is how it appeared. I made the point that if noble Lords were not interested in a particular subject they would not become involved in it. However, many noble Lords wish to scrutinise Bills. They understand them and they think it only right that they should scrutinise them.
It is a negation of the democratic process that the onus of bringing a matter to the attention of either House should rest on either the Opposition or an individual Member rather than on the Minister proposing the order. This Bill is in principle relatively uncontroversial apart from some provisions which will have been settled by the time we reach this clause, as they have been.
The Government have nothing to fear from putting their secondary legislation before Parliament on the basis of positive resolutions. I urge the Minister to put aside what seems to be an instinctive dislike of that procedure and to accept these amendments willingly and happily. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that my tone was in no way condescending. I believe that it showed rather a touching faith that wise Members of this House would not want to spend their valuable time discussing detailed technical questions.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That may be rather a touching faith. Perhaps I shall not make such a foolish mistake again. However, my tone was in no way condescending.
The effect of these two amendments would be to subject control orders made under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill to parliamentary scrutiny by the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure. I should like to explain why the Government continue to believe that the negative resolution procedure is the more appropriate method for scrutinising orders made under these sections of the Bill.
As I explained in Committee, the Bill provides for different scrutiny provisions for different kinds of orders which reflect the distinction between orders that can change the reasons for which export controls can be imposed and orders that set out the details of those controls. The Bill properly provides for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to orders that modify the schedule or which operate for a limited time for reasons outwith the schedule.
We believe, however, that scrutiny of orders which simply set out the details of controls is best achieved by means of the negative resolution procedure. As well as being of a frequently technical nature, I emphasise that such orders will be both restricted in their scope by the schedule, which cannot be changed without Parliament's express approval, and restricted in their application by the terms of the guidance issued and laid before Parliament under Clause 7. The Government believe that these restrictions, coupled with the negative resolution procedure, provide the necessary democratic accountability with regard to the making and use of such orders.
The Government recognise, however, that Parliament quite properly has an interest in the controls that are to be introduced by order under Clauses 1 to 4. That is why we published dummy draft orders in October that set out the details of the new controls, to allow Parliament to see how the Government are proposing to use the powers in the Bill. Additionally, as I made clear in Committee, the Government have announced that they will be holding a full public consultation on draft secondary legislation before the new controls are introduced. That will provide a further opportunity for all those with an interest to consider and comment on the new controls that are to be introduced.
In view of that, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am of course disappointed. I always think that it is important to have affirmative resolutions for such matters. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1194
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 35, leave out from "which" to ": or" in line 36 and insert "is not made by virtue of section (Exceptions from the general restriction) (1)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Purposes for making control orders]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 7. leave out "equipment" and insert "goods"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 to 40. These are all minor amendments whose purpose is to ensure that paragraph 1 of the schedule is as comprehensive as possible. Noble Lords will remember that paragraph 1 was introduced by government amendment in Committee in order to put beyond any doubt the Government's ability to impose controls on all the firearms and other military equipment or technology that we currently control. That amendment responded to a concern that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, on this issue at Second Reading.
In these minor amendments, we are essentially dotting our "i"s, and crossing our "t"s, as it were, in order to ensure that paragraph 1 covers all military equipment and technology and all the equipment and technology that is designed to produce military equipment and technology.
Amendment No. 36 replaces the term "equipment", which is used in paragraph 1(1)(c) but which is not used elsewhere in the Bill on its own, with the more appropriate term "goods", which is used throughout the Bill. Amendment No. 37 ensures that controls could be imposed on equipment that is intended, designed or adapted for use in the development of military technology, as well as military equipment. Amendment No. 38 brings sub-paragraph (2) into line with sub-paragraph (1) by providing that transfer controls may be imposed in relation to technology for use in the development or production of military technology. Amendment No. 39 ensures that technical assistance controls may be imposed in relation to any of the goods and technology that are described in paragraphs 1(1) and 1(2). Amendment No. 40, by inserting the text in parentheses, brings the definition of "military technology" in sub-paragraph (4) into line with the definition that is already contained in that sub-paragraph of "military equipment": by an oversight, the definitions that are currently in paragraph 1(4) are not completely aligned.
To sum up, these are all minor changes, which rationalise the definitions used in paragraph 1 of the schedule and ensure that paragraph 1 covers all equipment and technology that is designed for the development and production of military equipment and technology, as well as military equipment and technology as such. I therefore invite the House to support the amendments.

1195
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillemoved Amendments Nos. 37 to 40:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert "or military technology"
Page 9, line 9, at end insert "or
(b) technology intended, designed or adapted for use in the development or production of military technology."
Page 9, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—

"(a) any goods falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or(c); or

(b) any technology falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b)."

Page 9, line 21, leave out from "includes" to "for" in line 24 and insert—

"(a) technology intended, designed or adapted for military use (whether or not in military use); and

(b) technology intended, designed or adapted"]

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Campbell-Savoursmoved Amendment No. 41:
After Schedule, insert the following new schedule—
"SCHEDULE 2
DEFENCE EXPORTS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Tenure of Office
1 (1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, a member of the Committee shall hold office for the duration of the Parliament in which he is appointed.
(2) A member of the Committee shall vacate office—

(a) if he ceases to be a member of the House of Commons;

(b) if he ceases to he a member of the House of Lords;

(c) if he becomes a Minister of the Crown; or

(d) if he is required to do so by the Prime Minister on the appointment, in accordance with section (Defence Exports Scrutiny Committee) of this Act of another person as a member in this place.

(3) A member of the Committee can resign at any time by notice to the Prime Minister.
(4) Past service is no bar to appointment as a member of the Committee.
Procedure
2 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, the Committee may determine their own procedure.
(2) If on any matter there is an equality of voting among the members of' the Committee, the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.
(3) The chairman may appoint one of the members of the Committee to act, in his absence, as chairman at any meeting of the Committee, but sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply to a chairman appointed under this sub-paragraph.
(4) The quorum of the Committee shall be three.
(5) Procedures shall be agreed between the Committee and the Prime Minister for the discharge of functions of the Committee when either House was in recess.
Access to Information
3 (1) If a Secretary of State is asked by the Committee to disclose any information, then, as to the whole or any part of the information which is sought, he shall either—

(a) arrange for it to be made available to the Committee; or

(b) inforrn the Committee that it cannot be disclosed because it is sensitive information (as defined in paragraph 4 below) which, in his opinion, should not be made available under paragraph (a) above.

1196
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make a determination under sub-paragraph (1)(6) above with respect to any information on the grounds of national security alone and, subject to that, he shall not make such a determination unless the information appears to him to be of such a nature that, if he were requested to produce it before a Select Committee of either House of Parliament, he would think it proper not to do so.
Sensitive information
4 The following information is sensitive information for the purposes of paragraph 3 above—

(a) information that would directly threaten national security subject to paragraph 2 above;

(b) information that involves operational considerations in crises or conflicts;

(c) information provided by, or an agency of, the Government of a territory outside the United Kingdom where that Government does not consent to the disclosure of the information;

(d) information prejudicial to the operations of a government department.

Stage I notification of licence applications
5 (1) Subject to paragraph 3(1), the Secretary of State shall notify the Committee of a licence application prior to determining that application under section 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the Export Control Act 2002.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph 5(1), the Secretary of State will not be required to notify before a determination of an export licence if—

(a) the licence application is for export to a NATO state and other close allies, on the basis of a list of criteria to he agreed between the Committee and the Secretary of State,

(b) the licence application is not for any equipment specified in Part I of Schedule Ito the Export of Goods. Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order, and

(c) the licence application is not circulated to other departments.

Stage 2 notification of licence applications
6 (1) The Committee may request the Secretary of State provide supplementary information regarding a licence circulated to the Committee under paragraph 5(1) within a period of ten working days from the receipt of the information.
(2) Information circulated to the committee under this section shall be considered classified.
(3) It will be an offence to disclose or authorise the disclosure of information received under sections 5 and 6 unless disclosure is authorised by the Secretary of State.
Delay
7 (1) On receipt of information provided by the Secretary of State under paragraph 6(1), the Committee shall advise the Secretary of State of its opinion within ten working days unless an extension is granted by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State will not be restricted by paragraph 6(1) if in his opinion a contract may otherwise be lost.
Conflict of interest
8 A member of the Committee shall so organise his private affairs so that they do not conflict with his public duty."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides the new schedule to which I referred in our debate on Amendment No. 30. The amendment has been tabled to indicate to those outside the House who have been following the development of the prior scrutiny debate the nature of the further work that is being carried out in the detail of the proposal.
The new schedule would enshrine in primary legislation matters relating to: the tenure of office of committee members; the procedure of the DESC; the issue of access to information by the DESC; definitions of sensitive information; stage one and stage two arrangements for the notification of licence applications; measures for the avoidance of delay in the treatment of applications; and conflict of interest issues.
The amendment might be of assistance to the Government at a later stage, in particular with regard to the work that we have carried out in that area. In completing my contributions to this evening's debate, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I detect a slight shifting of the ground in his responses. I do not mean that in any critical way, but in the sense that we have set out to respond to each of the very important and detailed objections that Ministers have made to the whole principle of prior scrutiny. I note that some new thoughts have been given to this matter and some new objections have been raised. I can assure my noble friend that we shall set out to respond to those over the coming days.
My noble friend referred to the question of transparency under the present quadripartite arrangements. But, of course, he will know that the Quadripartite Committee's objections are essentially
1198
that the post-scrutiny arrangements and not the prior scrutiny arrangements are being looked at. That brings us to the core of the committee's objection.
He also referred to the whole question of later legislation, although I believe that I heard him say that a route may be available which does not necessarily go by way of legislation. The problem with later legislation is that which arises in relation to the hedges Bill: there is never a slot. We must take whatever opportunities we can find. This is a golden opportunity to bring about the changes in the law which so many people in the United Kingdom want. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to the comments that I made in relation to Amendment No. 30.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I accept that response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock

  Northern Ireland: EU Funding to Victims' Organisations
  Northern Ireland: EU Funding to Victims' Organisations
  Register of Lords' Interests
  Register of Lords' Interests
  Cambodian Embassy
  Cambodian Embassy
  Reserve Forces
  Reserve Forces
  Meteorological Office: Quinquennial Review
  Meteorological Office: Quinquennial Review
  Commission for Racial Equality: Code of Practice
  Commission for Racial Equality: Code of Practice
  Sterling
  Sterling
  UN Assembly on Ageing: PrepCom Session
  UN Assembly on Ageing: PrepCom Session
  Fox and Mink Predation
  Fox and Mink Predation
  Abandoned Vehicles: Disposal Costs
  Abandoned Vehicles: Disposal Costs
  Camelid Trekking
  Camelid Trekking