Sitting of 29 April 2002

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

    Afghanistan
    Kevin Brennan: If he will make a statement on the deployment of British troops in Afghanistan. [50940]
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the work of Royal Marine Commandos based at Bagram, Afghanistan. [50949]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): British troops in Afghanistan have been carrying out security assistance and combat tasks. The United Kingdom has led, and made a substantial contribution to, the international security assistance force in Kabul since its inception. Our troops have been widely praised for their work in helping the Interim Administration to maintain security and stability in Kabul as the Afghans begin the rebuilding of their shattered country. The number of British troops committed to ISAF in Kabul is now less than 1,500, compared with 2,100 at its peak.
    The deployment to Bagram of a battle group formed around 45 Commando Royal Marines is nearing completion. Its first task, Operation Ptarmigan, achieved all its objectives. The Royal Marines searched a high mountain valley and its caves, where they found evidence of occupation by al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. That included large quantities of ammunition, which they destroyed, as well as valuable intelligence material, which we are now studying. The operation enabled our forces to gain vital experience of operating in Afghanistan and to test our battle procedures and command and control arrangements.
    Kevin Brennan: Can my right hon. Friend comment on reports that the Turkish Government have agreed to take over the leadership of ISAF, and can he tell us when that will happen and whether British troops will remain in ISAF under the leadership of the Turkish Government?
    Mr. Hoon: I can confirm that the Turkish Prime Minister's office issued a statement this morning that it had been decided by the Council of Ministers that Turkey would take over command of the international security
    650
    and assistance force from the United Kingdom for a period of six months. Obviously, I warmly welcome that announcement. Discussions on the date of transfer are continuing. However, as I told the House on 11 April, we may well have to remain as lead nation until June. In any event, our commitment to ISAF will continue and a significant number of British troops will remain in Kabul under Turkish command.
    Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is growing instability in Afghanistan and that battles are going on between various warlords. He will also be aware of the recent attack on Gardez, the capital of Paktia province, not too far away from the capital of Afghanistan itself. Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that 45 Commando may become involved in peace operations, trying to separate rival forces? If so, what are the risks posed to the lives of those in 45 Commando?
    Mr. Hoon: There are no plans for 45 Commando to become engaged in such tasks. I have set out to the House on more than one occasion the expectation of what 45 Commando will be engaged in. With regard to the security situation outside Kabul, the hon. Gentleman should not be too carried away with the idea that battles are taking place all across Afghanistan. Incidents are certainly occurring from time to time, and it is important that we are not in any way complacent about them, but the Interim Administration are responsible for the security of Afghanistan in general—that is, outside Kabul. That is why we so strongly welcome the successful completion of ISAF's training of the first battalion of the Afghan national guard. That is an important stage in the process of security sector reform in Afghanistan, and one to which we are determined to continue to contribute.
    Mr. Frank Roy: Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at the report in last Thursday's Daily Record stating that it had been banned from visiting Afghanistan to report on the work of 45 Commando? An MOD press officer was quoted as saying:
    "We prefer to deal with newspapers which are helpful to the Ministry, and not ones which write bad stories about us."
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable for any newspaper to be barred, and will he make sure that that does not happen again to any newspaper that writes either good or bad stories about the MOD?
    Mr. Hoon: I can tell the House that there is simply no truth in that suggestion. The Daily Record has not been banned from any visit to Afghanistan. Indeed, as I understand it, one of its correspondents will join a visit to Afghanistan in due course.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State was right to warn the House that the operations of 45 Commando might result, tragically, in some casualties. Can he give an assurance today that he is satisfied with the existing medical service? We would not expect him to go into detail about that, but is he satisfied about the medical evacuation of troops in the event of any casualties?
    Will he briefly explain what the Government's view would be of any prisoners that we might take? Would we treat them as prisoners of war under the Geneva

    651
    convention? If we transfer them to America, as the Secretary of State has suggested, who would make that decision, and what would we do with those prisoners whom we did not transfer to America?
    Mr. Hoon: It is vital that our forces deployed in Afghanistan have access to the best quality medical facilities. I am confident that our arrangements secure that objective.
    Prisoners will be handed over to the Interim Administration in Afghanistan, who are primarily responsible for security in Afghanistan. I am entirely happy that the arrangements that we have agreed with them are appropriate and within international law.
    Hugh Robertson: Key to the success of any operations in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan is the attitude of the Pakistani military. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they are co-operating with operations and are actively involved in them?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Obviously, we recognise that terrorists may try to escape from remote parts of Afghanistan across a difficult border into Pakistan. That is why we are co-operating closely with the authorities in Pakistan, which maintains a substantial number of troops along the border with Afghanistan. Indeed, it has recently had considerable successes in apprehending people fleeing from Afghanistan.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Secretary of State give us his estimate of roughly how long the commitment will last in Afghanistan? We all know that this matter is very difficult, but is it an open-ended commitment? If so, what impact will it have on other spheres in which the British Army is involved?
    Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that the deployment of 45 Commando is anticipated to last about three months. That will clearly depend, however, on the situation on the ground, the circumstances that 45 Commando faces and whether it can bring the operation to an end more quickly. A period of three months is the planning assumption that has been made.
    On ISAF, I have previously indicated to the House my anticipation that at the end of the current United Nations Security Council resolution mandate, an extension will be made for a period, especially bearing in mind the Bonn timetable. Although Britain would want to continue to make a substantial contribution to the success of ISAF, today's news that Turkey will assume responsibility as lead nation is extremely welcome and will certainly allow us to reduce our forces.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We, like all others in the House, remain filled with admiration for the way in which British armed forces are carrying out operations in Afghanistan, and we send them our best wishes. I welcome the news that Turkey has now made a commitment to take over command of ISAF, although I am a little distressed that the Secretary of State still cannot say when it will do so. Following up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), what exactly will be the level of our future commitment?
    652
    After Turkey takes over, what will be the total UK troop commitment to Afghanistan, and how long will that commitment now last?
    Mr. Hoon: I have already answered the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I hope that the House would not expect me to deal with the issue again quite so soon after the hon. Member for Blaby asked the same question. As I have already indicated, I anticipate that there will be a reduction in total numbers once Turkey assumes lead-nation responsibility for ISAF, but, equally, I have said that it is important that the United Kingdom continues to play its part. It would not be sensible at this stage, before final negotiations with Turkey are completed on the precise handover date and the numbers that are required, to give the House a specific indication of a figure that has yet to be renegotiated. Therefore, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that it will be rather less than the current figure.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does that not rather underline how foolish the Government were to make an initial planning assumption of only three months for the deployment? Does not the present situation also demonstrate that involvement in nation-building is inevitably protracted and makes a heavy call on our limited resources? When will the Government start to plan more effectively? Why leave it all to the last moment? What are they doing to ensure that the additional commitments are fully funded and do not simply contribute to the continued rundown of the rest of the armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman sees things in that light. He moves from congratulating us on the deployment of forces and on decisions taken back in the United Kingdom to being extremely critical about the process. He cannot have it both ways; he needs to make up his mind on which approach he will take and decide whether he will support the deployment or criticise it. At the moment, he seems to want the best of both worlds.
    On the decision that was taken, it is obviously important—he would encounter the same problem if he were standing where I am—that we take decisions not in the light of some abstract suggestion made at the start of operations, but once those operations are under way and we can make judgments about how they develop and the contribution that the United Kingdom can make. I am absolutely convinced that we have taken the right decisions about the contribution that we can make, that those decisions are properly funded and that there will be no financial difficulty in sustaining the operations. If the hon. Gentleman thought about the issues more carefully, he would agree with me.

    Military Communications
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What steps he has taken to improve military communications since engaging in operations to combat global international terrorism. [50941]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): A significant proportion of the funding made available for the immediate operational

    653
    requirements needed in support of the campaign against international terrorism has been spent on military communications.
    We have provided our forces with capabilities to improve interoperability with allies who are also engaged in the fight against international terrorism, and we have provided forces deployed to Afghanistan with the necessary communications assets to ensure maximum operational flexibility in a particularly demanding environment.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. As he will know, many historians argue that during the second world war Britain's superior communications systems proved decisive in winning victory. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that British troops, many of whom are deployed 3,500 miles away in Afghanistan and many thousands of miles away in other places, still have that competitive edge?
    Dr. Moonie: Looking in some detail at what we have done for troops in Afghanistan, we have improved our secure speech assets for deployed aircraft, improved our secure fixed communications links with allies, increased the number of tactical data links fitted to aircraft, undertaken improvements to our intelligence networks and expanded our operational level command information systems. We have procured additional lightweight tactical satellite systems, and 45 Commando now has several of those systems deployed in Afghanistan. We have also taken action to ensure that all those deployed in Afghanistan have the new personal role radio at their disposal.
    Looking to the future, our ability to respond to urgent equipment requirements in support of specific operations is backed by a comprehensive programme of investment in military communications that will be progressively delivered over the next few years: Bowman, the new tactical communications system, in 2004; Skynet 5, the next generation of ground terminals, in 2005; and Falcon, the operational level communications infrastructure, in 2006.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome those improvements, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that however supportive one may be of European defence co-operation, especially within the ambit of NATO, it is important that strategic communications are not duplicated? What improvements are planned for NATO's strategic communications within the overall context of the fight against terrorism?
    Dr. Moonie: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in working that into a question on communications in Afghanistan. Communications requirements at the highest level in NATO are kept under constant review. Should any changes be planned, I am sure that he will be one of the first to be told.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The shopping list of items that the Minister announced was extremely welcome, but will he confirm that even on his own schedule most of the British Army will be left with communications that are well behind those of many third world countries?
    654
    On the battle against terrorism, what steps are the MOD and its sister Departments taking to provide some form of intercommunication between our armed forces and the various civilian agencies that will be used in the event of terrorist attack in this country?
    Dr. Moonie: If the previous Administration had worked a little faster on developing communications, we might have been in a better situation today. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that interoperability with civilian capabilities and communications receives a high priority in our planning and will figure strongly in any future action that we take.

    Missile Defence
    Mr. Mark Prisk: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on missile defence. [50942]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We recognise the role that missile defence systems can play as one element of a comprehensive strategy to tackle the potential threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. However, we believe that it is currently premature for the United Kingdom to make decisions on acquiring active missile defences. It remains the case that we have received no requests from the United States for the use of facilities in the UK for missile defence purposes as part of its plans.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that somewhat familiar answer. Last Friday, the American Missile Defence Agency reported that it had received several specific expressions of interest in collaboration from Germany, Spain and Holland, among others. Given that the technologies represent a wonderful opportunity for British science and industry, have the British Government also registered an interest in them? If not, why not?
    Mr. Hoon: I understand that those expressions of interest were from commercial private sector companies, which suggested that they were willing to participate in scientific opportunities for developing such equipment. I am sure that similar opportunities will be available to British commercial interests.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: The focus of such debates has been strategic missile defence—indeed, Conservative Members made that point—but much shorter-range missiles are in widespread use, including by smaller forces and even militia. We have forces operating throughout the world without area protection from missiles. What are the Government doing about that?
    Mr. Hoon: I entirely accept the force of my hon. Friend's point. We are considering the matter, and have a programme in hand to examine ways of protecting our deployed forces. We must have regard to that, although we anticipate no current threat to them. We acknowledge that the ultimate means of protecting deployed forces are similar to methods of dealing with the strategic threats that my hon. Friend describes. Current thinking suggests

    655
    that means of protecting deployed forces when compared with, for example, the territory of the United Kingdom, are increasingly similar.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State recall that more than 200 of his own Back Benchers do not wish the Government to have anything to do with missile defence? Given that it is unreliable against a country with many weapons of mass destruction, will he remind those Back Benchers that it can be decisive against countries with few such weapons?
    Mr. Hoon: United States' thinking has always been that missile defence is designed to deal with a small number of incoming missiles from relatively few states of concern. That remains its position. As I said earlier, it has not yet made a request of the United Kingdom. Until it does, the UK is not in a position to say whether we would respond.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Ministry of Defence regard itself to be subject to normal local authority planning regulations for the possible extension of Menwith Hill or Fylingdales?
    Mr. Hoon: In the past, the Ministry of Defence has accepted the normal rules of planning for acquiring new facilities. However, it is important to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the full range of planning rules and their effect on Departments.
    Mr. James Gray: One of the gravest ballistic threats that faces the world comes from Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the Prime Minister had that in mind when he talked about the "first Gulf war" last Wednesday at column 331 of Hansard. That clearly implies that he expects a second one. Perhaps that is also what General Tommy Franks had in mind when he spoke of Desert Storm 2.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) had tabled a question about Iraq. Indeed, it would have been the first question, but she withdrew it, although she is present. If the Secretary of State is nervous about talking to his Back Benchers about ballistic missile defence, will he be bolder in speaking to them about his plans for Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: That was an interesting set of assumptions, but I do not accept many of them. The Prime Minister and the Government have made it clear that no decisions have been made about any military action that involves Iraq. In those circumstances, most of the hon. Gentleman's comments were highly speculative and theoretical. It is important to say, however, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that the events of 11 September demonstrated the need to take seriously threats to international and regional stability—in particular, threats by states of concern that might be seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. In the light of 11 September, it is important that we do not overlook those developments, but, as I said earlier, no decisions whatever have been taken about military action in relation to Iraq.

    MOD Land
    Tony Baldry: What financial targets have been agreed with the Treasury for returns on the disposal of MOD land surplus to requirements. [50944]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As part of the comprehensive spending review in 1998, the Ministry of Defence was set a target of £700 million in estate disposal receipts over the four years to March 2002. The MOD achieved cash receipts of £819 million against that target.
    The spending review 2000 set another demanding target of £600 million of asset disposals, including equipment and other non-land disposals in the three years between 2001 and 2004. We expect that receipts from the sale of surplus land will make up the bulk of that target. An accrued receipt of £208 million in the financial year just ended represents an excellent start.
    Tony Baldry: In the interests of openness, will the Minister explain whether, if MOD land at Bicester is made available for an accommodation centre, the Home Office will have to pay a commercial rate for the land? If not, will the MOD budget bear the loss?
    Dr. Moonie: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on this matter if I am wrong, but, as far as I am aware, this is based on normal valuation of the land concerned. If that is not the case, I shall send the hon. Gentleman the correct reply to his question.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Surely the truth is that the MOD is hooked on asset stripping to underwrite its day-to-day expenditure requirements. Is it not the case that while the Minister waits for land and other assets to be sold off—including, I must remind him, 27 per cent. of the Aldershot garrison—HMS Monmouth lies idle awaiting a refit, 5 Squadron's Tornadoes have been mothballed, infantry recruitment has been put on hold until September, and Para recruits cannot complete P Company owing to a shortage of C130 crews and aircraft? When will the Government match the resources to the commitments that they are imposing on our hard-worked armed forces?
    Dr. Moonie: I think that one of the points of selling land that is surplus to requirements is to get what receipts we can to offset the costs of the very matters that the Opposition spokesman is talking about. Surely, one can hardly suggest that the MOD ought to hold on to land that is surplus to requirements. That would be commercially and militarily foolish, to say the least.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister bear in mind that, in this age of international terrorism, it is more important than ever for the Royal Air Force to have options to disperse its aircraft? If it is going to concentrate its aircraft in an ever smaller number of bases, they will be inherently more vulnerable. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no more flying stations will be closed in the next few years?
    Dr. Moonie: No, I certainly cannot assure the House on that matter. I have to say, however, that any disposals

    657
    or closures are made on the advice of the service chiefs in the department; they are not just plucked out of thin air by Ministers sitting in Whitehall.

    Veterans' Forum
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What progress the Veterans' Forum has made in addressing the needs of veterans; and if he will make a statement. [50945]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The veterans plenary met for the second time on 17 April and was attended by 172 representatives from veterans organisations. I was able to highlight a number of successes achieved by the nine working groups that were set up last year to take forward the veterans' strategic action plan. We have also achieved agreement on a £100,000 research programme—funded by the Ministry of Defence and other Departments—to understand better the nature of the problems facing veterans and how they arise. In addition, a trial began on I March seeking to provide a much-enhanced package of resettlement advice for those who leave the services on medical or disciplinary discharge, and who are judged to be at greatest risk of unemployment or homelessness.
    Dr. Iddon: I have always felt that we have not cared enough for our ex-service men, particularly those who experienced trauma in service and suffered as a result, so my hon. Friend's remarks are welcome. What practical benefits does he expect the recently formed Veterans Agency to bring to Britain's war veterans?
    Dr. Moonie: In the first instance, we have concentrated on setting up an effective helpline, which will allow all veterans access to a range of services and advice across government. That was not available in the past and it will greatly improve and ease access. I am considering the role of the welfare advisory service within the Veterans Agency to see how it can best work with the voluntary and charitable sector, which provides so many of the services on which veterans depend, to improve services across the board.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: The whole House welcomes the improvements that have come through the formation of the Veterans Agency, but will greater resources be made available in the coming year, in particular to assist the agency with helping three groups—test and nuclear test vets, veterans with asbestos-related illness and Gulf war veterans—to put their claims together and to get supporting medical evidence so that they can make legitimate claims to the MOD in support of genuine veterans' grievances?
    Dr. Moonie: This and previous Governments have spent a great deal of money on providing advice and support for veterans with medical problems. Many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are the subject of potential or actual court hearings, which are a matter for those who decide to initiate proceedings against the Government.
    The Government provide generous help through the War Pensions Agency and the armed forces pension scheme for those who are damaged or ill as a result of their service. The asbestos situation, for example, is the
    658
    subject of test cases. I do not think that this or, indeed, the previous Government need hang their head in shame over the help given to veterans who suffer from the illnesses that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
    John Cryer: Many surviving veterans served in Suez between 1951 and 1954. As my hon. Friend knows, none of those service men and women was awarded a medal for their service between those dates. Has that been raised under the auspices of the Veterans' Forum, and will he hear it in mind that a recommendation was never made to the medals and decorations committee that such an award be made? Could such a recommendation now go to that committee?
    Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have spent a great deal of time over the past two years or so looking into the matter of a medal for Suez veterans. My conclusion is the same as that previously reached by the Department—that there is no avenue available for reopening the matter. However, I understand that it has been referred to the Cabinet Secretary, who is secretary to the honours and decorations committee, to see whether he can identify potential avenue.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that the veterans advice unit that he has set up consists of three warrant officers? Would not those personnel be better used if they were seconded from the MOD direct to the British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association? Perhaps the other warrant officer could deal with prospective veterans who are still in the armed services? Is not that a better way to provide the most immediate, direct and effective link between his Department and veterans?
    Dr. Moonie: There is no shortage of links between my Department and the major agencies responsible for providing help in the charitable sector. The three warrant officers to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are part of the existing MOD structure for providing advice; their work will be drawn into the helpline that is being provided on a much wider scale by the Veterans Agency. I can assure him that we are looking very closely indeed at any avenue for improving communications with the voluntary sector, but so far, and I hold meetings regularly, nobody has raised that as a problem.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What response he has made to the consultation exercise on the new chapter of the strategic defence review; and if he will make a statement. [50946]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have been delighted with the wide-ranging and constructive responses to the Ministry of Defence's discussion paper on a new chapter to the strategic defence review. We have now received more than 300 responses, of which some 250 were from external organisations and individuals. Although last month's deadline for responses has passed, I have made it clear that we continue to welcome views and ideas. The responses have been acknowledged where possible, and are being taken into

    659
    account in the work. As I have previously told the House, I expect to be in a position to publish conclusions in the late spring or early summer.
    Miss McIntosh: How does the Secretary of State hope to achieve the aims that he has set out in the new chapter? As he told the House in February, we are to mount find-and-strike operations and to extend the global reach of the forces, at a time when our Army has a shortfall of approximately 8,000.
    Mr. Hoon: It will depend first on our reaching some conclusions from the work that is under way. Although the hon. Lady has anticipated those conclusions, the material produced previously, and indeed in the discussion document, constituted only our tentative view of what would be required. I expect to be able to tell the House how the funds necessary to support the work will be secured when we are nearer to reaching conclusions.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Has the Secretary of State any plans, as part of the review, to examine the pattern of recruitment, particularly at senior officer level, to ensure that all sections of society and all educational backgrounds are represented? At present, the officer class seems to be drawn from a relatively narrow educational background.
    May I also ask whether the Secretary of State, or his Department, intends to continue to be extremely unhelpful in answering questions about this matter?
    Mr. Hoon: I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend's last observation. I will certainly try to be as helpful as I can.
    The opportunities for individual service men and women to progress to the rank of officer, either directly or indirectly, are currently determined entirely on merit. If my hon. Friend has criticisms of the existing system I shall be delighted to hear the details from him, and I assure him that Ministers will consider them very carefully.

    Hawk Aircraft
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the prospects for selling surplus Hawk aircraft to India. [50947]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Government currently have no plans to sell surplus Hawk aircraft to India.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister has been very courteous, as have his colleagues in both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry, when I have raised issues relating to the prospect of the United Kingdom's obtaining an order for up to 60 Hawk aircraft from the Indian Government, but we seem to be continually marched to the top of the hill and down again. Can the Minister bring us up to date on the present state of negotiations, and can he confirm that in his judgment there are no financial, operational or work-share barriers to the securing of the order once the Indian Government have made up their mind that they want the aircraft?
    Dr. Moonie: In answer to the final part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I can assure him that that is the case.
    660
    We are, to an extent, in the hands of British Aerospace and India, as the order is a matter of negotiation between them. The Government continue to support British Aerospace's efforts to export Hawk trainers to India, but, as I have said, the decision currently rests with the Indian Government. Until they make up their mind, I can only say that no contract has been signed and no application for an export licence has been received.

    Fleet Air Arm
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm. [50948]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The future of the Fleet Air Arm is assured as an integral part of the Royal Navy, under Flag Officer Maritime Aviation and CINCFLEET. Maritime aviation capabilities are provided on a tri-service basis, but led by seasoned Royal Navy and Royal Marines aviators in all three service commands. The three pillars of the Fleet Air Arm are the battlefield helicopters of the commando helicopter force in Land Command, fixed-wing squadrons in Strike Command, and naval helicopters in the Fleet.
    Plans to build two large aircraft carriers are well advanced, with selection of a prime contractor expected in early 2003. Two of the four planned Harrier GR9 squadrons in the Joint Force Harrier will be manned predominantly by Fleet Air Arm personnel, the other two predominantly by Royal Air Force personnel. The first Merlin mark 1 helicopter squadron is already on HMS Ark Royal, and plans are in hand to replace the Maritime Lynx helicopter beginning in 2007. The first upgraded airborne early warning Sea King flight will go to sea later this year, and the joint strike fighter will be introduced from 2012.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that reply. Bearing it in mind that the Sea Harrier has the proven altitude, range and manoeuvrability to provide better advance warning of attack than any ship-based radar, why have the Government reversed their decision in the strategic defence review to keep the Sea Harrier until its replacement is available in 2012, and what is going to fill the gap?
    Mr. Ingram: There is an associated risk attached to all of this, but it is without question a decision based on the balance of investment. We believe it to be an entirely logical step in the smooth transition to future joint combat aircraft. There are significant technical risks associated with the upgrading of the FA2, the Sea Harrier. The decision that we have taken facilitates the capability that we want and will need in future in accordance with the SDR.
    Mr. David Heath: Given that all the procurement information must have been known for some time, why did it take so long before crew members and their families at Yeovilton were advised that they were not going to be moved to the wilderness of Lincolnshire and were going to remain in Somerset? The design of the new carriers will depend on the marine form

    661
    of the joint strike fighter. When will that design be finished, and when will it be possible to finalise the design of the carriers?
    Mr. Ingram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the announcement regarding Yeovilton and recognises that these are carefully balanced decisions. We tell people such decisions as early as we possibly can because a lot of uncertainty and doubt can arise from undue speculation. All this is a complex business. I think that we have handled it in an appropriate, sympathetic and structured way. The hon. Gentleman should await the decision on the future aircraft carriers. It is coming.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The withdrawal of the Sea Harrier represents a major change in the Government's defence policy and we remain concerned about the risk to which the right hon. Gentleman himself refers. Without the Sea Harrier after 2006, and until the Sea Harrier replacement in the 2012, our fleet will be less well protected and therefore less deployable.
    How can Ministers pretend that the new type 45 destroyer can replace the fleet air cover provided by the Sea Harrier when only fighter aircraft can provide both the long-range radar cover and the necessary deterrence to protect ships from air attack? Incidentally, the type 45 destroyers do not come fully into service until 2015. Why do the Government refuse to answer my written questions and to tell the House what savings they are making from the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers six years early? Is not the decision to scrap the United Kingdom's most capable fighter aircraft just another example of how cash-strapped the UK's armed forces have become under this Government?
    Mr. Ingram: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to answers. This is not a savings decision. The decision to upgrade the GR variant of the Harrier to the GR9 has been made on the balance of investment, and it will give us an offensive strike capability that is wholly consistent with the SDR. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that it is a different aircraft. Of course the FA2, the GR7 and the upgraded variant are entirely different aircraft. That is why I referred to some of the significant technical difficulties in seeking to upgrade the aircraft. We have to make a balance of investment decision in terms of where best we can invest to move forward into the future that we have laid down for the expanded fleet and the way in which it will operate as part of the expeditionary force.

    Defence Fire Service
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the future of the Defence Fire Service. [50950]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): There are two separate but complementary studies that could affect the future of the Defence Fire Service. The first is the airfield support services project, a public-private partnership project. The bids from the three consortiums involved are due back at the end of April. The second, Fire Study 2000, will inform the public sector comparator for the airfield support services project.
    662
    The main approvals stage for the airfield support service project is planned for early 2003, and no decisions have been taken at this stage.
    Mr. Grogan: Given that privatisation of the Defence Fire Service is opposed not only by many Government Back Benchers but by the official Opposition as a privatisation too far, given that there is an in-house proposal that would result in a 20 per cent. saving on current costs, and given that, according to a memorandum that I have seen, the United States Air Force is unlikely to allow a privatised Fire Defence Service to provide fire cover for US bases here, is not it now time for a rethink in policy?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend and other colleagues have made representations to me on those very points, and we had a useful examination of the issues. I thought that I had laid to rest the view that he expressed on behalf of one member of the US armed forces and explained that there would be Government-to-Government determination on future use. I hope that he and all the other objectors will at least recognise that we are testing the market to ensure that we get maximum efficiency from every pound that we spend on defence and that to do otherwise would be wrong. I repeat, however, that no decisions have yet been taken on this.
    Angus Robertson: The Minister of State will be aware from previous debates of the overwhelming quantity of correspondence that I have had from RAF personnel and families at RAF Lossiemouth expressing concern about the privatisation proposals. He has said that the issue is being reviewed and that all options are open. Can he name one single neutral observer, trade union, political party or Back-Bench Member of Parliament of any party who supports the privatisation of the Defence Fire Service?
    Mr. Ingram: The one thing that we can say with certainty is that there would not be a Royal Air Force if the hon. Gentleman's party had its way. For him to be claiming support for RAF Lossiemouth is a bit off the beam. Indeed, in relation to the whole future strategy for NATO, there would not be much of a defence footprint in Scotland under the Scottish National party.
    I recognise that there is a lot of concern surrounding this subject. We will examine all the options honestly and openly. To do otherwise would be wrong. Objections will be best made when people understand what the position is and we have explained our decision.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are all the Opposition parties opposed to the privatisation but there is deep unease here on the Labour Benches? Has he consulted the rank and file service people who are protected by the Defence Fire Service at bases throughout the country and is he satisfied that they support the proposed privatisation?
    Mr. Ingram: We do not have a privatisation proposal yet. We are examining the options. If that becomes a decision, full consultative processes will be put in place, as with every other change to the way in which we deliver

    663
    our services. I am currently engaged on such an intensive consultative process in relation to the modernisation of our warship support.

    Afghanistan
    Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with his European Union colleagues on military operations in Afghanistan. [50951]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I continue to have regular discussions with my European Union colleagues about operations in Afghanistan. All members of the coalition are committed to the fight against international terrorism, and to supporting the Afghan Interim Administration as the Afghans begin the rebuilding of their country.
    Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need not only to root out al-Qaeda but to ensure that Afghanistan cannot become a safe haven for terrorists in the future? If we are to achieve that, a reform of the whole security apparatus will be needed. What steps are we taking, alongside our colleagues in the European Union, to assist the people of Afghanistan to achieve that?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. I described to the House earlier the efforts being made by military forces, particularly by part of the international security assistance force, to train Afghan armed forces for their role in defending Afghanistan. It is equally important to explain how closely we, together with our European partners, are working with the Afghans to reform other areas of their security sector. For example, Germany is leading on the training of the Afghan police force and Italy on the reform of the judiciary, while France, working closely with the United States, will train two battalions of the new Afghan army.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Did the agenda of the discussions that my right hon. Friend had with his European counterparts include the setting up of a taskforce, either within the European self-defence force or under the auspices of NATO, to block the drug route from Afghanistan through the Balkans? I ask that question because at the annual meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO the Civil Dimension of Security Committee, on which I serve, was given a presentation by Interpol in which it was said that heroin is finding its way from Afghanistan through the Balkans. There was a view that bin Laden had been in the Balkans only two years before, and may have been involved in setting up the route through to Europe, so the taskforce would be very important.
    Mr. Hoon: There are no specific plans for a particular taskforce, but I can tell my hon. Friend that determined efforts are being made, in co-operation with the Interim Administration inside Afghanistan, to deal with the current poppy crop. Further efforts will be made in each succeeding year. Each country along the route that my hon. Friend mentioned has been approached with a view to persuading it, where necessary, of the urgent action that should be taken against drug smuggling. That is certainly
    664
    the case in the Balkans, where I know that determined efforts are being made to deal with the supply of drugs, especially heroin originating from Afghanistan.
    Patrick Mercer: During the Defence Committee's recent visit to Afghanistan, I was impressed to see a rather unexpected additional French battalion of infantry, which was fully recruited. Meanwhile, 1 Royal Anglian, alongside, had struggled to find the recruits that it needed. Last Saturday four of my constituents tried to join their county infantry regiment, which expects to go on operations to Afghanistan in the not too distant future, only to be told that there were no places available for infantry training until at least September. Can the Secretary of State explain?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well, from the correspondence that he has entered into with the Ministry of Defence about this issue, that there is a temporary difficulty as a result of the fact that we are consolidating infantry training at Catterick. There is no secret about that, nor is this the shocking revelation that the hon. Gentleman and the "Today" programme appear to claim to have uncovered. That has been said to the hon. Gentleman clearly and plainly in recent correspondence.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of a properly trained and accountable Afghan national army is an important step towards Afghanistan's future peace and stability? Can he tell the House what role he sees such an army playing to achieve that goal in the longer term?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. As I have explained already, it is important that we continue to support the Interim Administration's efforts to train an army that reflects the ethnic diversity of the Afghan people and can gain the confidence of people across the country in undertaking both internal and external security responsibilities.

    Iraq
    Mr. George Osborne: If he will make a statement on preparations for future military action in Iraq. [50952]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We have made plain our concerns about Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and the potential threat the Iraqi regime poses to the international community. Allowing those programmes to continue unchecked is simply not an option. However, no decision on military action has been taken and no such action is imminent. Any decision that we make will be taken carefully, cautiously and in accordance with international law.
    Mr. Osborne: Both the Prime Minister and the American President have made it clear that military action against Iraq is at least an option, even if no decisions have been taken. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House—or at least, the Opposition—that intensive

    665
    preparations are under way for the contingency of military action, including a possible ground campaign; otherwise, the threat against Saddam Hussein is hollow?
    Mr. Hoon: Intensive efforts are being made to require Iraq to comply not only with a series of resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, but with international law. Specifically, weapons inspectors, who have not been in Iraq since 1998, should be allowed to return. It is vital that we see for ourselves whether or not Saddam Hussein is, as we suspect, continuing in his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. That is the diplomatic and international political route that we continue to take.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Do the Secretary of State's recent comments concerning the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq signal a change of Government policy, whereby Britain is reneging on assurances given to non-nuclear weapons states under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Indeed, are the Government abandoning the policy of successive British Governments of regarding nuclear weapons as a deterrent of last resort?
    Mr. Hoon: There has been no change in the British Government's policy—the use of nuclear weapons is still a deterrent of last resort. However, for that to be a deterrent, a British Government must be able to express their view that, ultimately and in conditions of extreme self-defence, nuclear weapons would have to be used.
    Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about today's press reports, suggesting that weapons are being smuggled from eastern Europe, through Syria and into Iraq? If so, will he investigate the matter? Does he also agree that, if the reports are true, they are a further indication that Saddam Hussein has no intention of voluntarily complying with the UN resolutions and allowing an inspection team into Iraq? His sole interest appears to be his own power, rather than a peaceful future for the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is quite right: the matter must be investigated. So far as we have been able to discern, the Iraqi regime have no obvious intention of complying with either international law or the UN Security Council resolutions.
    Ms Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State referred to the possible use of nuclear weapons in circumstances of
    666
    "extreme self-defence". Can he help the House by explaining what that phrase means? People either defend themselves, or they do not.
    Mr. Hoon: I accept that there are those—some of whom may well be sitting on the Labour Benches—who do not believe in the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances, but that is not the position of the Government or of the Labour party. It is therefore important to point out that the Government have nuclear weapons available to them, and that—in certain specified conditions to which I have referred—we would be prepared to use them.

    Sierra Leone
    David Taylor: What recent assessment he has made of the involvement of UK forces in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [50954]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I visited Sierra Leone in March, and I was therefore able to see for myself the excellent progress our forces have made in helping to develop a professional, accountable and effective Republic of Sierra Leone armed forces and Ministry of Defence. Our goal, however, is that the Sierra Leonean armed forces be able to protect the country's security and territorial integrity without the need for substantial external assistance, and much work needs still to be done if that is to be achieved. Following the May elections in Sierra Leone, the UK-led international military advisory and training team will continue to help build the capacity of the Sierra Leonean armed forces and Ministry of Defence over the longer term.
    David Taylor: I am pleased to hear that IMATT will continue to operate after the May elections. However, how confident is the Minister that the Sierra Leonean armed forces will indeed be able to maintain security in that country in the period after those elections, which could well prove to be a time of considerable internal conflict?
    Mr. Ingram: Our training is successfully transforming the Sierra Leonean armed forces into a more effective, disciplined and accountable fighting force, under a now functioning Ministry of Defence. British short-term training teams provided basic infantry training to some 10,000 men. Such training of all the Sierra Leonean armed forces should make them increasingly capable of protecting the country's security, and they are already deployed throughout the country to that end. In addition, under UNAMSIL, the largest UN mission in the world, some 17,500 troops are deployed throughout the country to keep the peace.

Israel
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Israel and the occupied territories, specifically in relation to Hebron, Bethlehem and Jenin, and to the better news involving a UK contribution to ending the siege of President Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah.
Since the House last debated this subject on 16 April, the situation in Israel and the occupied territories has remained very tense. On Saturday, after four Israelis, including a five-year-old child, were killed in the west bank settlement of Adora, the Israeli defence forces moved into the nearby town of Hebron. There have been reports that at least seven Palestinians have been killed there and 20 injured in the fighting that followed.
At the same time, the stand-off continues at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where 200 Palestinians, some of them armed, have taken refuge from the Israeli forces for the last three weeks. Three of the Palestinians inside the church compound have been shot dead by Israeli forces, including one last night.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has raised his concerns at the situation with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, as have leaders of many other denominations and faiths. However, talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are under way in an attempt to resolve the situation. Nine Palestinians have already left the church compound. I understand that several dozen more Palestinian civilians may shortly leave, and that there will be deliveries of food to those who remain inside.
During the debate on 16 April, many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed their concerns at reports alleging that the Israeli military had used disproportionate force during its action in the refugee camp at Jenin, which began on 3 April. At our instigation, the United Nations Security Council on 19 April agreed resolution 1405, which welcomed the initiative of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to send a fact-finding team to Jenin to establish what had happened.
Following that resolution, the Secretary-General appointed a team led by Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and including Sadako Ogata, the former UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Cornelio Sommaruga, the former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Bill Nash, a retired American major-general; and Peter Fitzgerald, a senior Irish police officer. At General Nash's request, Lieutenant-Colonel Miles Wade, a serving officer in the British Army, has been added to the team.
However, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my serious concern that. 10 days after Israel first agreed to that fact-finding mission, it has yet to be admitted to Jenin. During the meeting of the Israeli Cabinet yesterday, further objections were raised to the arrangements for the team's visit. Let me repeat what I said last night to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: Israel must co-operate without delay with the UN team in order to establish the facts. The Israeli Government have claimed that their action in Jenin was necessary and
668
proportionate. If that is so, they have nothing to fear and much to gain from such a fact-finding mission composed of such distinguished and internationally respected individuals.
Potentially the most positive development over the weekend was the acceptance in principle by Israel and the Palestinian Authority of a US-UK initiative to allow the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to leave his compound in Ramallah, which has been under siege continuously since 29 March. Under the terms of that initiative, Israeli forces would pull back from President Arafat's compound, and from Ramallah itself, and leave him free to travel both within the occupied territories and elsewhere, and free to return.
At the same time, six Palestinian men would be removed from the compound to a Palestinian facility in a secluded location in the occupied territories. Of these six, four have been convicted by the Palestinian Authority for involvement in the murder last October of Israeli Cabinet Minister Rehavam Zeevi. One is secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the group that claimed responsibility for Minister Zeevi's killing, and one is being detained because of alleged involvement in the Karine A arms shipment in January.
Under this initiative, Britain and the United States have agreed to provide a small number of supervisory wardens to oversee the men's detention. The wardens will be unarmed. Let me make this clear: it is the prime responsibility on the Palestinian Authority to ensure the physical security of the facility and the personal security of the United States and United Kingdom wardens.
A British scoping mission visited the region last month. An advance party of experts from the United Kingdom is due to arrive in the region this afternoon to begin to set the detailed arrangements in place and to satisfy themselves as to the personal safety of the wardens. The United Kingdom wardens all have experience of working in similar capacities with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The proposal was first put to the Israeli Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in early October last year. I drew it to the attention of the House again in our last debate 13 days ago.
I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work of United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, of others in the Bush Administration and of American and British diplomats in Israel and the occupied territories who have helped to achieve the progress that we have made. However, there is still much work to be done to bring this initiative into effect. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing the hope that no last-minute hitches occur and that these arrangements can be put in place with all dispatch.
This is a significant step forward, but on its own it is not enough. It is now imperative that the two sides build on this modest measure of agreement, stop the violence and start talking to one another. In a series of resolutions in recent months, the Security Council has laid down clear imperatives on both parties. Both are obliged to move to a meaningful ceasefire and to resume security co-operation. Israel should withdraw from Palestinian-controlled areas and must heed Security Council demands. Once he has been released from the siege, President Arafat will plainly be able to exercise a much enhanced political leadership of the Palestinian Authority. He must take that

669
opportunity and do all in his power to stop the violence and work for peace. Ministers and officials have been in constant touch with both sides to the conflict to stress the need for a constructive approach.
The Government's commitment to helping restart a peace process is absolute. The same unity of purpose exists throughout the international community, but the hopes and expectations of a generation of Israelis and of Palestinians rest, above all, on the shoulders of two men—Prime Minister Sharon and President Arafat. Now is the time for them to grasp the opportunity that international efforts have created and to demonstrate that they are truly committed to peace.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I welcome today's announcement of the decision to send British and United States monitors to Ramallah to guard the six Palestinian detainees and thus to enable the Israeli siege of Chairman Arafat's headquarters to be lifted. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House so promptly with details of what is involved. It is, as he says, a small but significant step in the essential process of restoring dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and moving gradually back towards acceptance of the Tenet ceasefire plan and the Mitchell proposals for resuming the peace process. I congratulate President Bush and the British Government on their part in building this small but important bridge.
There will he concerns, however, that our involvement should be carefully planned and suitably restrained. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that this small deployment is not the forerunner of any larger peacekeeping or nation-building deployment being planned for the future?
We must all be aware of the importance of today's announcement. It is in the building of such small bridges, rather than in grand gestures, grandstanding conferences or veiled threats, that progress can be made to turn back from the staircase of violence on which the middle east has recently been embarked and, in doing this, to set out once more on the route that can lead to agreement on the establishment of two states west of the Jordan: the state of Israel, secure within acceptable boundaries, and a viable, economically sustainable and independent Palestinian state. This bridge is important. I hope that it will be followed by other steps, not least in Bethlehem.
Today's development in Ramallah must go hand in hand with the continuing and urgent need for Israel to cease the military incursions into the territories. If, however, Israel is to withdraw with confidence that her security from vicious acts of terrorism will not once again be compromised, there must be clear indications that the use of the territories as a base for the preparation, equipping and delivery of terrorist acts will be ended. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is primarily a challenge for Chairman Arafat and that, as President Bush has stated, his newly regained freedom of movement must be accompanied by the delivery of a genuine cessation of violence on the Palestinian side? This must now be a test of his leadership.
Many, while doubting Chairman Arafat's desire to deliver a lasting peace and settlement, still see him as I do: as the only effective Palestinian leader with whom real negotiations can be held. He must respond to today's settlement by both condemning and actively thwarting terrorist activities and by showing a real willingness to
670
re-engage on all the elements that were on the table at both Camp David and Taba. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me, however, that if Mr. Arafat is genuinely to deliver leadership in that regard, he will require assistance in rebuilding the civic structures through which he can operate in terms of law and order? Can the Foreign Secretary indicate what help is likely to be forthcoming to enable him to do so and, at the same time, what precautions will be taken to ensure that any financial aid given is not siphoned off into support for terrorist organisations and plans? In the same context, what conversations has he had with the Israeli Government about the retained Palestinian revenues?
These are delicate but vital matters on which both sides need clear assurances if the confidence to move back towards the talks table is to be established. In that context, can the Foreign Secretary report on what steps he is taking to persuade other Arab states to support today's initiative? If Mr. Arafat either cannot or will not deliver the cessation of violence and terrorist activity within the territories, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support other initiatives that can produce the same required levels of security?
The positive step forward today in Ramallah is a small ray of light in an otherwise dark and frightening scene. It is only a first step, but it is a well-grounded one. As we know, every journey begins with the first step. This journey is about confidence on both sides, which is hard to build when the truth on which it must rely is too often distorted on all sides. It is therefore vital for both the Palestinians and Israel that truth is established openly and fairly, not least in relation to what happened in Jenin and the reasons for it. I join the Foreign Secretary in urging that the truth be established swiftly through the United Nations, on a fair and acceptable basis.
May I finally and seriously ask the Foreign Secretary to reflect that, on the same day on which the President of the European Commission is in Oxford disparaging the usefulness of Anglo-American relations, the joint efforts of the United Kingdom and the USA have begun to deliver, as they so often have in the past, showing once again the value of that unique relationship?
Today is a better day. It carries a positive step towards peace. We must all wish it well.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for welcoming the initiative. It is extremely important for those people from the UK who participate in it to know that they go there with the support of the whole House and all the parties represented in it.
Our involvement is being carefully planned. As I explained, we preceded this stage by an earlier scoping measure and visit, which was obviously contingent on agreement. I should also say, as I said in my statement, that it is possible that there will be last-minute hitches, although we hope not—such is the nature of events in the middle east. All of us are working with the United States to ensure that those do not arise.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether this is a forerunner of any larger deployment. It is not, in itself. He asked whether any deployments are currently actively planned, and the answer is no. However, as I made clear in my speech to the House on 16 April, if and when peace develops in any greater depth, in our judgment, there will be a greater role for such people and perhaps, down the

671
track, for an international force, and none of us should rule that out. As I explained to the House on 16 April, our policy is very clear: there should be two states, a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine, consistent with the clear decisions of a sequence of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the most important recent one of which is 1397.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the importance of Israel ceasing its incursions into the occupied territories. I accept also what he says about the responsibility that now rests on the shoulders of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. That is why I made the point that as soon as he is released from his siege, he will in practice be able to exercise a much higher degree of leadership and authority over the Palestinians and the Authority, and it is incumbent on him to do so in a responsible way.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether there are plans afoot to provide further assistance for rebuilding the facilities of the Palestinian Authority and, indeed, those on the west bank as a whole. The answer is yes, and there have been very detailed discussions with colleague Ministers in the European Union. This time last week, I was at a two-day meeting in Valencia of what is called EuroMed, an EU-Mediterranean states meeting, which was completely dominated by the middle east crisis. So far as I am aware, EuroMed is the only forum attended by representatives of both the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority, and, after some difficulty, they stayed in the same room for what turned out to be a poignant but very important discussion. I also saw the new Japanese Foreign Minister this morning, and Japanese assistance for rebuilding facilities in the occupied territories was part of our discussion.
We are, however, conscious of the fact that if there is to be, as there will have to be, a rebuilding of the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure—schools, hospitals and so on—it can only be on the basis of undertakings from the Government of Israel that this will not be under threat in the future. It will have to be in the framework of an overall settlement. There will have to be better and more transparent arrangements to ensure that the money paid in is used for the purpose.
I have not seen President Prodi's speech, but I say to the House that we should judge institutions by their actions. Javier Solana, the European Council's high representative on foreign affairs, has been tireless in his work to secure a settlement. The United States Administration would be the first to say that much of what they have done has been in concert and collaboration with Javier Solana, to whom I spoke just before I came to the House to make this statement. The second thing that has to be said about the European Union is that, over many years, it has been by far the largest donor of aid to the Palestinian Authority, and it stands ready to act in that constructive way as soon as it can in the future.
Mr. Clive Soley: The deployment of British and US personnel to resolve the question of President Arafat is a very welcome development and a tribute not only to my right hon. Friend and the British Government but to those personnel who carry out these incredibly difficult tasks, and we should place that on record. However, I hope that the
672
Foreign Secretary is aware that we should press on the Israelis the importance of bringing an international aspect to the matter, not least because the Israelis, while they occupy the territory of the Palestinians with illegal settlements, might one day have good reason to call on international observers of the type that we are employing at this time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make sure that the Israelis never forget that.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We found it difficult, and quite painful, when it was first suggested that outside intervention might help us to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland, but in the event it turned out to be a very sensible move.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: There is nothing in the Foreign Secretary's statement with which I take issue. I offer him my support and, indeed, congratulations on the ingenious initiative to free President Arafat from de facto captivity. In addition, it is worth recognising that there will be physical risks for those who will be deployed on that difficult and dangerous task, and we should take every step to ensure that they are minimised.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the Church of the Nativity, where conditions surely do not bear thinking about, given the duration of the siege. In the name of humanity, is it not now essential to end the incarceration of those inside? Does the Foreign Secretary, like me, feel a sense of irony or perhaps even discomfort, because he and I and others in the House have asserted, by reference to UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, Israel's unqualified right to live within secure boundaries, but Israel persists in its defiance of the United Nations and its Secretary-General on the necessary inquiry into events in Jenin? Finally, what is the Foreign Secretary's response to those who allege that Israel's operations in the occupied territories will have the effect of dismantling the Palestinian Authority and emasculating Yasser Arafat, consequently leaving a vacuum, which will severely undermine the possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's welcome for the initiative; as I said, please God that we can deal with the final details and it can go ahead. I am in no doubt that resolving the issue of the continued detention of the six suspects in a way that satisfies Israel's legitimate anxieties about the manner in which the Palestinian Authority in the past have or have not detained such individuals is important. We need to recognise that the Palestinian Authority have been open to entirely justified criticism that too often in the past they have picked people up, detained them for a period, then the revolving door has got going, and they have let them out the back, which is unacceptable behaviour. We are seeking to resolve the issue without absolving the Palestinian Authority of its principal responsibility of ensuring the security of those who are detained and those doing the detaining.
As for the physical risks, of course one understands that monitors could face a risk, which is why a further mission is going out today, arriving shortly, and why every effort will be made to minimise the risks. It is worth repeating that all the individuals in our team have police, prison or military backgrounds, although they are not serving

673
officers and have, as I said, previously worked for the OSCE. In the Church of the Nativity, conditions are dreadful and negotiations must continue. As for the question of dismantling the Palestinian Authority, at the meeting last Monday and Tuesday in Valencia, we were given a lot of detail and tables by Nabil Shaath, the foreign affairs representative of the Palestinian Authority, about what he claimed was the gratuitous destruction of Palestinian Authority facilities, which is obviously of concern, especially if and where they serve no military purpose whatsoever. It just adds to the challenge facing the Palestinian Authority to rebuild that infrastructure as quickly as possible.
As for President Arafat, if under the arrangement he is released and can travel, whatever has happened until now—we must not forget the increasing terror suffered in Israel in recent months and the assassinations—and in the past, he has a heavy responsibility to act for peace once he has his new freedom.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With regard to the potential lifting of the blockade on Yasser Arafat, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is distinctly unimpressive that it has taken six months' work by the British Government, together with the wheedling of the United States President and the British Prime Minister, to persuade the Israeli Government to do what they should have been made to do weeks ago, and as they continue rampaging through the Palestinian territories?
Will my right hon. Friend understand further that throughout the Arab world and the Muslim world, and much more widely, it will he seen as double standards that we threaten military action against Iraq because it will not allow United Nations arms inspectors in, as they should be allowed in, while we allow the Israelis to get away with dodging UN resolution 1405, which provides that a fact-finding mission should be admitted? The more that the Israelis continue postponing the implementation of the resolution, the more others will take the view that that is because they have something to cover up. If the Israelis do not get on with allowing the mission in immediately, it will be time to impose sanctions and an arms ban on them.
Mr. Straw: It was always our view that Chairman Arafat should not have been incarcerated at the facility in Ramallah or anywhere else. We made that increasingly clear over many weeks. Indeed, we were pressing the Israelis—unsuccessfully as it turned out—to release President Arafat from his detention in Ramallah so that he could attend the Arab League summit in Beirut a few weeks ago.
I am fully aware of the concern in the Arab world and the wider Muslim community about what has happened in the occupied territories. As it happens—this is not the moment for a lengthy debate about these matters—I do not believe that there is a parallel between the position of Iraq and its flagrant violation of nine separate Security Council resolutions and the fact that all the Security Council resolutions relating to Israel and the occupied territories impose obligations on both sides in Israel and the occupied territories. It is fair to say that neither side has implemented these obligations with sufficient alacrity or assiduity in the past.
There has been a serious obligation on the Palestinian Authority and on Palestinians not to engage in terrorism, and we must bear that in mind.
674
I understand entirely what my right hon. Friend says about Jenin. It is a point that I have made repeatedly to Israeli Ministers. If, as they say, the action in Jenin was proportionate and justified, the quicker an international inquiry of the standing of that appointed by Kofi Annan gets in there, the better it will be for Israel itself.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Has President Arafat given a clear and unambiguous statement that he deplores the activity of suicide bombers and believes that those who organise them should be brought to justice? In a complex and difficult situation, does the Foreign Secretary think that such a statement, highly publicised, would be a major contribution to bringing about a peaceful settlement?
Mr. Straw: The answer is yes to both questions, but it is important that President Arafat speaks not only in English, in which he is very competent, but also in Arabic to his own people. That is an important element in him exercising leadership.
Dr. Brian Iddon: As chairman of the Britain-Palestine group, may I thank my right hon. Friend and his team for all the efforts that they are making at this difficult time?
From the Palestinian point of view, it must be difficult for Palestinians and their sympathisers now to believe that Israel is serious about establishing a Palestinian state. In my opinion, it is up to the Israelis to make a bold gesture—for example, at the least to stop building the 32 settlements that have been started since Ariel Sharon came to power. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should be done to bring back confidence to the Palestinians?
Mr. Straw: While I accept what my hon. Friend says, there is not one view in Israel about the nature of any final settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The UN is clear about what needs to be done, which is that we have a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine, and that there is also a solution to the problems of refugees and the siting of capitals in Jerusalem, and the settlements of Israeli residents in the occupied territories.
We have always been clear that the physical settlements must be ended quickly. There cannot be a lasting solution to the problem of Palestine until that happens.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The Foreign Secretary has been forthright, and rightly so, about what he expects from President Arafat. Will he be equally forthright about what he expects from Mr. Sharon; and will he tell Mr. Sharon that if he expects a newly released President Arafat to behave as a responsible leader, it is essential that the siege of the Church of the Nativity be lifted and that the international team, which is about as respectable an international team as has ever been assembled, be allowed in immediately?
Mr. Straw: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes.
David Winnick: Would it not be useful to recognise that that should be the first step in international intervention to try and end the long, bloody conflict which has taken the lives of so many innocent

675
people, including children, in the past two years? Although we should criticise Israel, and Israel should recognise the depth of criticism—which is by no means anti-Semitic, and it is nonsense for Sharon to describe it as such—is it not also necessary for the Palestinians to accept that suicide bombings and public lynchings do nothing to further the Palestinian cause? Those messages to both the Israelis and the Palestinians should be clear and sharp, and there should be no illusions on the part of the Israeli and Palestinian leadership about our feelings on the matter.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the balanced way in which he expressed that. It is not possible to understand the depth of the hatred of Israel in the occupied territories without understanding the fact of occupation and the way the Palestinians have been treated; nor is it possible to understand the depth of fear and, in many cases, hatred in the state of Israel without understanding the way in which the increasing crescendo of suicide bombings going off indiscriminately and without warning has terrorised that country.
As for public lynchings, that is no justice in any territory or any country, and it damages the reputation of the Palestinians. We must look forward, and rather than trying to allocate blame, which in my judgment is an impossible and hopeless task in a desperate situation, recognise that people have been profoundly damaged on both sides. They need our moral, practical and physical support. We are proposing small but significant steps—in the hope that by going forward rather than backwards, we may in the end secure some peace.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I wholeheartedly support everything that the Foreign Secretary said in his statement this afternoon, particularly in respect of sending experienced British monitors to the region and an international inquiry into what happened in Jenin. Is it not worth while pausing for a moment and reminding ourselves that Israel is one of the few complete parliamentary democracies in the middle east? If, therefore, we are to win over Israeli opinion so that there is a withdrawal from the occupied territories, it is essential that there be an end to terrorism, suicide bombings and the lynching of so-called collaborators. If that does not happen, the situation will go from bad to worse.
Mr. Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I also say that, in any conflict, one side has a significant responsibility to the other side to take account of the way in which its own political processes operate.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If the Sharon regime continues to act in flagrant defiance of the United Nations, international law and fundamental human rights, will Her Majesty's Government consult our American and European allies about the possibility of putting economic pressure on Israel?
Mr. Straw: I object to the failure by all sides fully to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions as quickly and assiduously as possible. I say to my hon. Friend, however, that it is important that we use words in a particular context. "Regime" is generally applied to
676
countries that are undemocratic. Whatever else one says about the Israeli Government and Parliament, they cannot be criticised for not being democratic. They are democratic. Some of us, were we writing the Israeli constitution—I speak entirely personally—might come up with a slightly different voting system, but that is another matter.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: D'Hondt?
Mr. Straw: I do not want to go into that now. I mention it in passing and as an entirely parenthetical remark.
My hon. Friend spoke about economic sanctions. The economies of Israel and the occupied territories have already been very severely damaged by the conflict. Nabil Shaath, the foreign affairs representative of the Palestinian Authority, told the gathering in Valencia last week that what had been a $4 billion economy was now reduced to a $2 billion economy, and Israel's has also suffered. In that context, the argument that making the suffering worse on both sides will somehow advance a settlement is not one that I find especially convincing.
Angus Robertson: The Foreign Secretary urged other parties to give their support. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the major opposition parties in Scotland and Wales in giving the full support of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru for the diplomatic initiative. I share the concern felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the continuing lack of access of the United Nations to investigate circumstances in Jenin. Are the UK Government expressly ruling out the possibility of economic and military sanctions? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Plaid Cymru Members of the European Parliament, who have voted in favour of suspending the EU-Israel association agreement as a first step toward trying to bring the Israelis to a decision to allow UN access?
Mr. Straw: I understand what the European Parliament has done, but it is not a decision-making body; it expresses points of view. [Interruption.] That is true; I am not seeking to make a point, but explaining the way in which its constitution operates. If I had accepted its agenda, I would have brought it before the House. The honest truth is that, with a bit of luck, we are engaged in the beginnings of a negotiation. In those circumstances, difficult and delicate though the process is, we should give it some time to operate rather than apply measures whose purpose, apart from an expression of anger, which will not get us very far, I have yet fully to comprehend.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Many, especially in this country, who wish to see a Palestinian state as well as an Israeli one, feel very frustrated that while we put an onus on Yasser Arafat to deliver, we do not place quite the same onus on Israel to do so. As I have understood the successive international agreements, they have required an end to the making of settlements and negotiations about reducing their number. More significantly, it is now very important for Israel to recognise that it must agree in the next few hours to the entry of a United Nations team. The longer it leaves the issue, the more suspicious people will become. May I also

677
ask my right hon. Friend where we will go from here if Israel does not agree? Should we consider the question of sanctions?
Mr. Straw: The Jenin inquiry was set up with the agreement of the Government of Israel. The formal position is that it was set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and it was welcomed by the Security Council. I still hope that Israel will acknowledge and respond to the international pressure, not least from the United Kingdom and the United States, to which it has been subjected, and will admit the fact-finding inquiry. I spoke with Shimon Peres last night, and it is fair to point out on behalf of the Israeli Government that they are anxious not about the possibility of any fact-finding mission, but about its nature and how far its inquiries will deal with the discipline of individual soldiers. I think that we understand that.
As to sanctions, we can if we wish get into the blame game, in which case many people on both sides might choose to drag up what happened at Camp David and at Taba and try to allocate blame to the Palestinian side as much as to the Israeli side. I am far from convinced that that would produce anything hut further difficulty for both sides. It is important instead to accept that the current situation is desperate and to take small steps such as this—which has taken a huge amount of work by British and American diplomats, especially by Secretary of State Colin Powell—to try to achieve some easing of tensions, then to get a peace process on the road.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I welcome the progress announced by the Foreign Secretary. Does he accept that one of the imbalances involved in the problem is that when Israel behaves badly, as it does from time to time, everybody knows who is responsible, but when Palestinian terrorism occurs there is much greater uncertainty? In that context, will he tell the House whether he believes that there is a direct link between the Palestinian suicide bombers, the Al Aqsa martyrs brigade, the Fatah organisation and Yasser Arafat himself?
Mr. Straw: It is true that because Israel is a nation state, a member of the United Nations and a democracy, it is expected to observe higher standards than any group of terrorists. That point was made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in his speech on 16 April and it has been widely endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We had to recognise that fact in respect of Northern Ireland too. Of course, democratic nation states that subscribe to the charter of the United Nations have to accept higher standards of behaviour than groups of terrorists. On the other hand, that does not mean—I would be the last person to suggest this—that we should indulge the terrorists or ignore their funding. It was I who, as Home Secretary, introduced the Terrorism Act 2000, which banned Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organisations in this country.
I cannot comment with certainty on precise connections between the different organisations and the suicide bombers. However, I can say that there must be a determination by everybody in authority in the occupied
678
territories—above all, but far from exclusively. President Arafat—to clamp down on terrorist activity in Israel and those territories.
Ann Clwyd: It is now more than two weeks since I came back from Jenin, and I consider it an absolute outrage that the United Nations has been frustrated in its efforts to send a team to the area. It is disgraceful that people think that they can behave as though they were in a pick-and-mix shop, picking sweets as they like, and we have had enough of it.
When I came back from Jenin, I was very careful about what I said because I wanted to keep a sense of proportion, but now I would say that on the day we were in Jenin for eight hours many of us heard witness statements. We heard about people coming out of their houses in the refugee camp with their hands above their heads and being shot dead. We heard about people being injured and lying there to die without any help. While we were there, the humanitarian teams were denied access. I am therefore not surprised that Israel does not want people there to find out the truth. Those of us who heard some of the truth will be pleased to place it on the record at some time in the future if the team does not get in.
This is a test of the credibility of the United Nations and of the position of Kofi Annan. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). We take sanctions against other countries that defy UN resolutions; we should also take sanctions against Israel, which has perpetually defied UN resolutions.
Mr. Straw: I not only understand but share my hon. Friend's frustration about the Government of Israel's failure so far to make satisfactory arrangements to admit Kofi Annan's inquiry team. Following her visit to Jenin and the debate in the House on 16 April, I determined that the United Kingdom Government should take the initiative to get such an inquiry established. I was glad that we did that and that we gained support in the Security Council. My frustration therefore relates not only to my office but is personal.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the credibility of the United Nations. It is important that Israel recognise that point and that its reputation is damaged as long as it refuses to admit the inquiry. Under its terms of reference, it is only a fact-finding inquiry. The people in the team have been carefully chosen for their experience, record of distinguished international service and, I believe, ability. For example, the former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross is a member. The membership of the team is balanced between the two sides.
Whether or not the inquiry team is admitted, I hope that my hon. Friend produces and submits her witness statements.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: In respect of United Nations resolutions and Israel, are there any consequences for not complying? The Foreign Secretary argued that we should not apply sanctions to democratic countries. One could argue that it is more legitimate to apply sanctions to such countries because sanctions hurt many people apart from the Government.

679
We applied sanctions against South Africa, which had democracy for some of its citizens. In Israel and the country occupied by it, not all citizens are entitled to vote. And not all citizens who are entitled but not allowed to live in Israel can vote.
Mr. Straw: I understand that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the matter. He asks about United Nations Security Council resolutions that have not been accepted or followed in full by Israel. Elements of such resolutions have not been followed in full by Arab states that are expected to recognise the state of Israel. Of course, they have not been followed by those behind the terrorist activities. We should bear in mind the imperative of United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 against terrorism.
If my hon. Friend had listened to my comments, he would realise that I talked about Israel being a democratic state in the context not of sanctions but of having to accept a higher standard of behaviour than any terrorist organisation.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I recount to my right hon. Friend a story that was e-mailed to me last week by my constituent, Isabelle Bennett-Humphries, who works for a human rights organisation in Palestine? Last week, she spoke to an elderly woman in Jenin who described soldiers coming to bulldoze her house. She told them that she had a disabled son in the house and asked them whether they would wait for a couple of minutes while she got him outside. They refused and held her back. She had to listen to her son's screams as he was killed by falling masonry. Does not my right hon. Friend believe that, with such stories coming out of Jenin, it is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians to get to the bottom of the matter as soon as possible?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes the case for a proper fact-finding mission to go in without delay more eloquently than I ever could.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the essential answer to the questions that many hon. Members have asked is that clear evidence exists that atrocities in Jenin and possibly elsewhere were committed, not only by individual soldiers, groups or operations, but by the state? That very state obstructs the inquiry that the United Nations requires. If that state continues to obstruct these inquiries, will my right hon. Friend give a clear, distinct and short answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the
680
Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? If Israel continues to obstruct this inquiry, what are we going to do about it?
Mr. Straw: The fact that there have been allegations of very serious misbehaviour by soldiers and others in Jenin makes the case for the inquiry. My hon. and learned Friend asks what we are going to do about it. We are but one member of the United Nations Security Council, which has to agree unanimously at the level of the permanent members before further action can be taken. We have been vigorous in pursuing the case for an inquiry and, as I have said, it was as a result of concern expressed in the House and of the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that we were able to get the inquiry. I hope that the Government of Israel will, even at this stage, acknowledge the need for this inquiry to take place without delay under the arrangements set by Kofi Annan. If they do not, the short answer is that we and the international community will have to consider very carefully what further action may be taken.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend understand the frustration of people at hearing that we "will have to consider" what further action may be taken, when Israel is using the full panoply of its military might against civilians, including women and children, day after day—while we sit saying, "We will have to consider this"? Will he take the lead in the UN to ensure that Israel, as a democracy, respects the human rights of the Palestinian people, which it is demonstrably failing to do every day at the moment?
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. Most of the time, I share it. I must also say, however, that we have to work in the world that exists, not in the world that we wish to invent. The world that exists is a world in which there are five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—my hon. Friend knows which they are—and we have to work in concert with them if we are to achieve the enforcement of international law and of UN Security Council resolutions. I understand her frustration, and I understand the attraction to people of venting their anger and frustration about this situation.
I happen to know, however, that had it not been for some painstaking work by British and American diplomats—with the full support of and great activity by American Secretary of State Colin Powell, and with my active support—we would not be where we are today, with a little bit of luck, with a solution to a long-standing problem. The six detained people may now be moved to a secure facility elsewhere, and President Arafat will be released to restart his activity in effective and constructive politics inside the occupied territories and elsewhere. That seems to be the kind of positive contribution that the House expects of the British Government, and which it sought in the debate 13 days ago.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a delicate matter of jurisdiction as between the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, on which I would ask you to reflect, and which I have outlined to your advisers? On the Easter Adjournment, I asked in relation to Lockerbie:
"Now that the appeal is over, what steps are being taken to preserve the productions amassed by the Crown for use in the Lockerbie trial? Can an assurance be given that they will not he destroyed in the same way as certain police note books have apparently been destroyed?"
I must tell the House candidly that I am not a lawyer. It was suggested to me, however, by the professor of Scottish law at the university of Edinburgh, Robert Black QC, that I should ask this well sculpted question, which he and other lawyers regard as of considerable importance.
At the end of the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary replied:
"My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, referred to Lockerbie, as he has done on several occasions in the House, and sought careful reflection from the Government. I certainly take note of his concerns and his long-standing involvement in seeking to get to the truth of that dreadful episode. He will not be surprised to hear that the only response I am able to give him today is to say that he has had the opportunity to ventilate that issue. He will be aware that most of the issues that he mentioned are devolved; they are matters for the Scottish Executive. I will ensure that the Lord Advocate is made aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made and seek an answer from him."—[Official Report, 26 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 724–93.]
What is not devolved is the United Nations report on the appeal proceedings at the Scottish court in the Netherlands in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi v. Her Majesty's advocate by Professor Hans Koechler, international observer of the International Progress Organisation nominated by the United Nations Secretary-General on the basis of Security Council resolution 1192.
On Thursday, I saw Dr. Koechler for four and a half hours to discuss his submissions to the UN. Various avenues of appeal through the UN and the Court of Human Rights, not to mention the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, are possibilities. Dr. Koechler said that it is vital that the productions be preserved for further proceedings at inquiry.
682
On Friday morning, we learned from the press that the productions are to be collected by 47 families and sent by post to another 41, and that other material is to be destroyed. Without going into the matter, that has horrified the officially appointed solicitor, Mr. Eddie McKechnie, with whose approval I raise this point of order. Given the UK interest in the need for a public inquiry into the international aspects of Lockerbie, does the House have a locus in commenting on whether the productions at Zeist should be dispersed or destroyed? Such hurried dispersal or destruction at this time would suggest that there is something to hide. I therefore look forward to a ruling at your convenience.
Mr. Speaker: The Father of the House has raised a lengthy point of order. He will understand that I must think about the matters that he has raised.
Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any indication from Ministers of their intention to come to the House to make a statement on Thursday night's breakdown of the 999 emergency service covering the Isle of Wight, Hampshire and parts of Wiltshire; the widespread failure of the telephone system on part of the island and in Southampton and surrounding suburbs; the apparent breakdown of BT's back-up systems; and the appearance of television announcements saying, "If you want to call the emergency services, please go to a police station."?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from any Minister regarding the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, but it is now on the record and I hope that the appropriate Minister will look into his deep concern.
David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Three days ago in the town of Kalamata in southern Greece, 12 British citizens were found guilty of various charges associated with the innocuous activity of plane spotting. Six received one-year sentences and six, including my constituent, Garry Fagan of Kegworth in North-West Leicestershire, received three-year sentences. Have you received any request from the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on what the Government intend to do to assist those 12 citizens in their hour of peril, in relation to charges that would have been dismissed out of hand in any other country, especially one as closely allied to us as Greece is in NATO and the EU? Has any such approach been made?
Mr. Speaker: No such approach has been made to me.

Orders of the Day

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The Eighth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2001–02 on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, HC 474, and the Government's response thereto, included in the Committee's Fourteenth Report, HC 674.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government came to office with a commitment to ban tobacco advertising. Today we are able to honour that commitment. The Bill will ban both tobacco advertising and tobacco sponsorship. It will do so to reduce health inequalities, to protect public health and, most important of all, to safeguard children from the dangers of smoking.
  This is a policy for which we have fought over the past five years, first in the European Union, then in the European courts and then in the British courts. At all stages this measure has been resisted by the tobacco industry; nor has it been helped by the attitude of the Opposition. In the last Parliament, we also introduced a Bill to ban tobacco advertising. It completed all its stages in this House, and was introduced in the other place before the last general election. Had it not been for the Opposition's refusal to agree to its passage, that Bill would by now have become law.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would make a distinction between the Conservative Opposition, sometimes called the official Opposition, and the Liberal Democrat Opposition, who have constructively supported the measure. I mean that as a helpful comment.
  Mr. Milburn: That would make a change. It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference, but in this case I am able to differentiate.
  After the election the self-same Bill was reintroduced in the other place by Lord Clement-Jones, to whom I pay tribute for his skill in taking the Bill through that House. I believe that it benefited from the scrutiny it received on both sides there, but, with the addition of one or two helpful amendments that were made during its passage, the Bill before us today is the same as it was when Parliament was dissolved before the last election. I am pleased that we have been able to find Government time for it to conclude all its remaining stages, and I look forward to its successful passage.
  Pete Wishart: I do not deny the contribution made by Lord Clement-Jones, but will the
  684
  Secretary of State also acknowledge that of Nicola Sturgeon, an MSP who took a similar Bill through the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sure that they and others have played their part in ensuring that we secure what we all want—an improvement in public health for all people in our country.
  This Bill forms a core part of our strategy to reduce smoking and so improve health. Smoking is the single biggest cause of early death in our country. As Sir George Alberti, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said in the college's report "Nicotine Addiction in Britain",
  "the humble cigarette is responsible for a dozen times more deaths in the UK in the past 40 years than British casualties from world war two—over 5 million."
  Every year, smoking kills 120,000 people. It causes one in five deaths in Britain. It causes 85 per cent. of lung cancer deaths. It causes cancer of the mouth, larynx, oesophagus, bladder, kidneys, stomach and pancreas. It causes one in seven deaths from heart disease. Smoking is also one of the principal causes of health inequalities in our country. In pregnancy it contributes to low birth weight among babies, itself one of the principal causes of higher rates of infant mortality. Quite simply, it is a public health disaster, and we are determined to tackle it.
  Our 1998 White Paper "Smoking Kills", published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), was the first comprehensive programme of action produced by any Government to prevent and reduce deaths from smoking. That programme has helped us to secure a reduction in smoking prevalence. Among adults, tobacco consumption had been falling consistently until 1994. It rose in 1996, but I am pleased to say that, according to figures obtained from the general household surveys undertaken in both 1998 and 2000, it has now fallen again. Perhaps even more significantly, smoking among manual groups, where tobacco consumption is highest, has also fallen, after rising between 1992 and 1996. Because the fall among manual groups has been faster than that in society as a whole, it is helping to tackle health inequalities in our country.
  That progress reflects the approach we have been taking in recent years to tackle the problem of smoking. First, we have taken fiscal and other measures. We have increased tobacco duties, because there is a clear link between price and consumption levels. We have also taken measures to crack down on the real problem of illegal smuggling of cigarettes and other tobacco products into the UK. More than £200 million is being spent by the Government on tackling that illegal trade, which poses such a health hazard to our country. Again, that effort is beginning to pay dividends, with Customs successfully seizing almost 3 billion cigarettes in 2000–01 alone—1 billion more than in the previous year.
  Secondly, we have launched a major public education campaign, including television advertising and an NHS smoking helpline, which so far has taken 400,000 calls. In my view, people have a right to choose to smoke. If that is what they want to do, they have a right to do it, but they also have a right to know the implications of their decision for themselves and, more importantly, for others.
  Thirdly, alongside information to encourage people to give up, we are providing more help for smokers who say that they want to give up. It is worth bearing in mind that

  685
  all the surveys say that seven in 10 people who smoke say that they want to quit the habit. We are giving them more help to do so than they have ever had. Today, the NHS has the most comprehensive smoking cessation services anywhere in the world. Both Zyban and nicotine replacement therapy are available on prescription. There are specialist counselling services to help those who find it hardest to quit, especially in the poorest areas. Those resources are producing results.
  In the first six months of the last financial year, over 50,000 people had quit smoking with help from those services. Smoking among pregnant women is falling. We will be looking to expand those services still further in the years to come.
  The next step in that comprehensive programme of action on smoking is to end tobacco sponsorship and advertising. Some have said that the Bill is anti-smoker and anti-choice. In my view, it is a tough but I hope proportionate response to the marketing and promotion of the only legally available product that is guaranteed to kill one in two of its regular, long-term users. It will help reduce tobacco consumption.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the Secretary of State knows, I have a long-standing interest in sport. He will also know that many of those who are struggling to ensure the continued development of sport, particularly minority sports, are concerned about the loss of revenue from sponsorship. There is obviously a trade-off between the health risks of tobacco and the benefits for sport from financial support. Will the Government indicate what kind of assessment they have done of the dangers of sport losing revenue, with consequent health risks?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As he is aware, throughout discussions about this Bill and about other action, whether it be in Europe, the UK or, I hope, internationally in due course through the World Health Organisation, it has been important to get the balance right between taking forward an important public health measure—banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship—and ensuring that the effects on certain sports are not over-discriminatory. I want to come to that point later.
  The Bill will ban overt advertising on billboards, posters and in the press. It will end, with only limited exceptions, advertising in shops. Only advertising at the point of sale will be allowed. Direct marketing, too, will cease, stopping the tobacco industry bombarding people with promotional material, so undermining their attempts to give up. However, the Bill will not prevent members of the general public, journalists, writers and others from talking about tobacco products, representing them on stage or film, or commenting in the press about smoking and tobacco.
  Tobacco sponsorship of sports and other events will end under the Bill. Tobacco companies will no longer be able to exploit sports and public events to glamorise their products and to get their logos emblazoned across our TV screens. It is important that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why. According to the Cancer Research Campaign, the impact of such sports
  686
  sponsorship should not be underestimated. It says that boys are twice as likely to become regular smokers if they are motor racing fans and that
  "this is damning evidence that tobacco sponsorship encourages young boys to take up smoking".
  Tobacco companies will of course be free to make donations to sporting or indeed artistic events, provided that they do not promote tobacco. We have always said that we do not want the ban on tobacco advertising to harm sports. Our intention remains to implement the policy and the timetable on sponsorship agreed with our European partners in 1998. Subject to consultation, UK sports and events will have until July 2003 at the latest to find alternative sponsorship. Global sporting events will have until October 2006 at the latest to do the same, with two important caveats: that they do not sign new contracts with tobacco companies; and that they phase out the current sponsorship that they receive. It is my intention to publish draft regulations for consultation on sponsorship during the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Where has the Secretary of State found the voluntary agreement to be defective, and what measures has he taken, through consultation with tobacco manufacturers, to tighten it, if he thinks that desirable?
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the fault lines in the voluntary agreement on tobacco sponsorship of sporting events, those are plain for all to see. He is well aware of certain events—some have been on our television screens over recent days—at which tobacco logos are emblazoned for all to see. That clearly has an impact on tobacco consumption levels. If he is talking about the voluntary code on tobacco advertising more generally, again that measure has not been particularly effective.
  The clearest fault line is in relation to tobacco advertising in areas where children live, work, play and go to school. As I understand it, the tobacco companies say that they are happy to prohibit enormous billboards advertising their products within 100 m of a school. That is great, but the kids do not live, play, shop or enjoy their leisure opportunities within 100 m of the school. The evidence is crystal clear, I believe, that that has an impact on tobacco consumption among the children and teenagers who are the future generation of smokers. The voluntary code has not been successful and that is why it is important to enact this legislation.
  Michael Fabricant: Is not this legislation the culmination of measures introduced during the Thatcher Administration, when she chose to ban tobacco advertising on radio and television because of the clear link between advertising and not only buying particular brands, but taking up smoking in the first place? Surely what is right for Margaret Thatcher should be right for this House.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman made one good point and then, if I may say so, one less good one. It is pretty difficult to substantiate the case for the continuity between this legislation and what went before, not least because, as he must be painfully aware, when his party was in office it resisted precisely this sort of measure. However, he was right to point to the clear link between

  687
  tobacco advertising and tobacco consumption. Why on earth do right hon. and hon. Members think that tobacco companies bother to spend £100 million a year on advertising? Clearly it is not out of the goodness of their hearts.
  Richard Ottaway rose—
  Mr. Milburn: The story from the industry has always been that mass advertising has nothing to do with increasing consumption, and still less with persuading children or young teenagers to start smoking. The industry claims that it is only about maintaining brand loyalty. Of course, until relatively recently, it is precisely those companies that were denying that there was any link whatever between cigarette consumption and cancer. Indeed, some even promoted the life-enhancing qualities of tobacco consumption. Even today, so many years after the original research was published in this country, some companies still deny that passive smoking is dangerous, while others refuse to publish the additives that they put in their cigarettes. The evidence, however, suggests that tobacco advertising is not neutral in its impact; it is all about recruiting more new smokers. As the former chairman of the board of one advertising company who has had the pleasure of working for the tobacco firms so clearly put it:
  "the cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising—a function that has been shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product—somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products."
  The facts are obvious enough to most people: every year the tobacco industry in this country has to replace the 120,000 customers who are killed through the consumption of its products. The target market is young smokers—including, sad to say, children. Why? Because fully 83 per cent. of smokers start before they are 20 years old. Today's teenager is tomorrow's regular smoker, and therefore tomorrow's regular consumer. The cigarette brands smoked most by children are also those that are most heavily advertised.
  The polite fiction behind the tobacco industry's advertising campaigns has been exposed by recent research: for example, we have learned that in Canada, Imperial Tobacco's marketing plan in the late 1980s explicitly involved targeting what it called "men" aged 12 to 17, and "women" aged 12 to 34. Research has proved that the most commonly remembered brands, even among children as young as 11, are the most heavily advertised.
  Further research, published in the British Medical Journal in 1993, concluded that Embassy Regal's "Reg" campaign
  "held most appeal for teenagers, particularly 14–15 year old smokers".
  Research from Manchester university found that
  "awareness of the most advertised brands was a strong predictor of smoking … children appear to take in the messages of cigarette advertising and interpret them as generic to smoking rather than brand specific."
  We should be clear about the fact that tobacco advertising and sponsorship act as a recruiting sergeant for children and young teenagers to start the tobacco habit.
  688
  Although tobacco consumption by adults has been falling for many years, there was a steady increase among children aged 11 to 15 between 1988 and 1996—precisely when the so-called voluntary ban started. I am pleased to tell the House that that trend has started to reverse in recent years, and that there has been a drop from 13 to 10 per cent. of the age group since 1996. There can be little doubt, however, that tobacco advertising preys on teenagers who are susceptible to its corrosive and often covert portrayal of smoking as somehow glamorous and grown-up.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
  The industry's response to the concerns expressed has been at best inadequate and at worst cynical. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), the proposal not to site billboards advertising tobacco products within 100 m of schools is practically worthless. It is to safeguard children and generations yet to come that the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship is so necessary.
  Some have argued that it is unfair to ban the advertising of a legal product. As I said at the outset, I happen to believe that people have a right to choose to smoke, and it can be argued that when consumers start smoking, they are making a choice. However, because nicotine is so enormously addictive—as the Royal College of Physicians and others have testified—it is much harder for smokers to exercise an equivalent freedom of choice to give up.
  Tobacco advertising and sponsorship seek to get more people to smoke by conveying the idea that smoking is glamorous, when in fact it is dangerous, and that it enhances the quality of life, when in fact it serves to shorten people's lives.
  Given the impact that we all acknowledge smoking has on public health, I believe that we in Government have a responsibility to act. We have a duty to inform, so that if people want to smoke they do so on an informed basis, not on the basis of advertising hype. The Government also owe a duty to the wider community, to help smokers give up and to protect children from ever starting. That is what the Bill seeks to do.
  The opponents of the Bill argue that there is insufficient evidence that the ban would reduce tobacco consumption.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Before the Secretary of State moves on to his next point, I want to ask about—[Interruption.] I wonder whether the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) could desist from speaking for a moment. My interest has been clearly declared in the Order Paper, Madam Deputy Speaker, and when I can catch your eye I shall explain it fully. However, for the moment I want to ask the Secretary of State a question of a legal nature, concerning the statement on the front page of the Bill about section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Secretaries of State and Ministers often rubber-stamp Bills with the section 19(1) statement, but I should like the Secretary of State to explain his understanding of the articles of the European convention on human rights, which he must have considered, and which he says are

  689
  not affected by this legislation. Did he listen to, or read a transcript of a recent edition of the Radio 4 programme "Unreliable Evidence", in which an American supreme court judge said that the Bill would be struck down under United States law, and in which an English High Court—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could conclude his point.
  Mr. Garnier: I would be a little quicker if I were not interrupted. During that programme, an English High Court judge also said, contrary to the 19(1) statement, that it is highly arguable that the Bill does not comply with the convention. I should be grateful for the Secretary of State's views on those points.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. and learned Gentleman may or may not be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the Bill on 19 December. It made several proposals and asked us to provide substantive evidence concerning the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights. We have done so in respect of a number of issues, such as evidence, entitlement to compensation and brand sharing. I am happy to expand if the hon. and learned Gentleman would like me to do so. I know that several concerns have been raised—not least in the other place—about human rights issues, but I am satisfied that the Bill does comply with human rights legislation.
  Richard Ottaway: May I return the Secretary of State to the issue of sport sponsorship, on which I tried to intervene? On 15 April, he will have received a letter from the Fédération Internationale de l' Automobile, which runs motor sport across the globe. It states that
  "the FIA has no objection … to … a total ban on all tobacco sponsorship in sport with immediate effect."
  It points out that, so far as grand prix races in this country are concerned, such advertisements are permitted at only four track-side billboards. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but the letter is from the FIA itself. In the light of it, why is he extending the ban to 2006, and why does the Bill not cover motor racing?
  Mr. Milburn: Of course I have seen the letter, not least because it was addressed to me. Believe it or not, I do read my letters.
  I believe that those who run Formula 1 are saying that they will happily remove tobacco advertising or tobacco sponsorship from the British grand prix with immediate effect. If that is indeed their plan, nobody will be more delighted than me, and I applaud and encourage them. However, in terms of global sports, we are not talking about specific exemptions for Formula 1. Indeed, as I said earlier, the issue that we have always had in mind is the impact on global sports—which might include Formula 1 —that have relied excessively on tobacco sponsorship for many years. In those cases, it seems only reasonable and fair that we should give them an opportunity to wean themselves off the habit of tobacco sponsorship.
  As I said, we will consult on regulations. In broad terms, our intention is to follow the formula that we intended to follow before, had the Bill been able to
  690
  proceed further: a deadline of July 2003 for sports, and of October 2006 for global sports. That is an end-date, however. If we and the sports in question can move more quickly than that, we will do so. As far as the FIA letter is concerned, if that organisation wishes to make the British—or any other—grand prix free from tobacco sponsorship, that is a matter for it. I urge it to do so if it can, and I hope that I do so with the support of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway).
  As for evidence of tobacco advertising leading to increases in consumption, as long ago as 1989, the US surgeon-general concluded that
  "the collective empirical, experiential and logical evidence makes it more likely than not that advertising and promotional activities do stimulate cigarette consumption."
  Two years later, research found that a 10 per cent. increase in advertising expenditure would lead to a 0.6 per cent. increase in consumption. More recently, in a report entitled "Curbing the Epidemic", the World Bank noted that
  "a recent study of 22 high income countries based on data from 1970 to 1992 concluded that comprehensive bans on cigarette advertising and promotion can reduce smoking."
  It predicted that a European Union-wide ban on tobacco advertising would reduce tobacco consumption by about 7 per cent across the continent. Further research by American researchers Saffer and Chaloupka, who studied data from 22 countries, concluded starkly that
  "tobacco advertising increases tobacco consumption."
  The most compelling evidence however comes not from abroad, but from research undertaken in this country. It comes from the research commissioned and published by the Department of Health under—to their credit—the then Conservative Government in 1992–93. In 1992, the chief economic adviser to the Department of Health, Professor Clive Smee, examined evidence from Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand—countries in which tobacco advertising had been banned—about the impact on consumption levels. The fact that consumption fell by between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. in those countries led Smee to conclude:
  "in each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors."
  The problem was that having commissioned and published the evidence, the then Government—now the Opposition—did precisely nothing about it. They failed to ban advertising and sponsorship in this country. What is more, they blocked a ban in other European countries, and blocked it consistently between 1989 and 1997. It was not until the election of a new Labour Government that the block was removed.
  Even today, I am sad to say, the Opposition in their amendment apparently refuse to back this Bill. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, told The Times before the general election—in December 2000, I think—that
  "if it comes to a choice between public health and the tobacco industry I think public health would he a priority."
  I hoped that in the light of those remarks the Opposition would make the right choice today and put the wider health of the nation before the narrow interests of the tobacco industry. Indeed, my hopes were raised still further when I read the comments of the Conservative spokesman on health in the Scottish Parliament,

  691
  Mary Scanlon, before the general election. She told the Scottish Parliament's Health and Social Care Committee on 10 January 2001:
  "My party also supports the Bill, the fact that it is UK-wide legislation and the ban … should the Tories win the next general election, we will pursue the legislation."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, Health and Community Care Committee, 10 January 2001; c. 1347.]
  When the hon. Gentleman replies, he might care to tell the House what happened between 2000–01 and 2002, because somehow there has been a change of heart. I do not know whether he was overturned and outvoted in the shadow Cabinet or whether, once again, the interests of the tobacco industry have come before the interests of public health in our country.
  The Opposition ask for evidence in favour of a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. The weight of evidence is overwhelming and it points in one direction. Advertising and promotion of tobacco products imposes enormous costs on our health service and does enormous damage to the health of our nation. Its effects are felt most acutely in the poorest parts of our country. We estimate that, in this country alone, a reduction in smoking following an advertising ban such as that proposed in the Bill could save the NHS up to £40 million a year on treating smoking-related disease. More importantly, we estimate that 3,000 lives a year will be saved in the UK in the longer term.
  A ban on tobacco advertising is backed not only by a majority of the public but by a phalanx of medical charities and professional organisations, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the Cancer Research Campaign, Diabetes UK, the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association.
  Overwhelmingly, however, it is the evidence that commands support for the Bill. That evidence comes from the scale of the tobacco industry's advertising, not only in this country but throughout the world. It comes from countries where bans have already served to reduce smoking significantly. It comes also from medicine and science, which have shown the damage done by smoking and nicotine addiction.
  The Opposition's amendment asks for evidence. That evidence is all around them, but they choose not to see it. It screams out to them from billboards across the country. Advertising works—smoking kills. Today we can begin to break that link. The Bill will protect children, reduce smoking and so save lives. For those reasons, I believe that it deserves the support of Members on both sides of the House.
  5 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "whilst supporting the aim of reducing the number of deaths from smoking, declines to give a Second Reading to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords] because there is insufficient evidence that its provisions will lead to a quantifiable reduction in tobacco consumption; because it does not allow for a mechanism for testing and reflection upon the assumptions upon which the Bill is based; and because it does nothing to combat the increase in the
  692
  prevalence of smoking amongst teenagers and other vulnerable groups due to the growth in the importation and sale of illegal tobacco products."
  Here we are again, debating this Bill in exactly the same terms as before, in what seems like a political version of "Groundhog Day": we have seen and heard it all before.
  The debate is not about whether we think smoking is a bad thing. Certainly, those of us with first-hand experience of dealing with the consequences of smoking can testify all too readily to its evils. As one of the 15 per cent. of people who suffer from asthma, I can happily testify to the perils and torments of passive smoking that so many of us have to endure. I confirm that I have no affection for the tobacco industry and would not be upset were it to cease its trade immediately.
  It is worth starting with the points on which we are in agreement, which fall into five categories. First, there are serious risks to health associated with smoking. That is well known and understood by smokers and the public generally, and increasing awareness of the health risks is likely to persuade people not to smoke.
  Secondly, it is an objective of public health policy to reduce total tobacco consumption and the prevalence of smoking among the population.
  Thirdly, children should not smoke and should not be allowed access to tobacco products.
  Fourthly, adults should be free to make an informed choice about whether or not to smoke.
  Fifthly, although it is not against the law to manufacture, sell, buy and smoke tobacco products, it is appropriate that the advertising and promotion of tobacco products should be regulated.
  Today's debate is about means; there is not a difference between us about ends. The debate needs to occur at two different levels. Not only does the House need to consider the philosophical arguments about the balance between individual liberty and state intervention; it must examine the practical aspects of this measure.
  The questions concerning the restrictions of individual freedom are profound. Under what conditions, and with what safeguards, should a tolerant society ban things because the results of informed personal choice are disapproved of by the majority? What alternative means might be available to achieve the same ends? In other words, what is the value in our society of personal liberty and what is the appropriate level of intervention by the state, since the state has been increasing its interference in our lives for some time?
  I do not expect the Secretary of State to have read the Macmillan report into how Parliament operates, but it makes interesting reading. It refers to
  "the change of outlook of the government of this country in recent times, its growing preoccupation, irrespective of party, with the management of the life of the people".
  It also says
  "Parliament finds itself increasingly engaged in legislation which has for its conscious aim the regulation of the day-to-day affairs of the community and now intervenes in matters formerly thought to be entirely outside its scope."
  It is interesting that that report was commissioned in 1931. It is a long-standing trend in British politics that Governments have been increasingly willing to intervene in the affairs of individuals.

  693
  As the Prime Minister—I mean, the Secretary of State—
  David Taylor: Not yet anyway.
  Dr. Fox: I am sure that there will be a race before long, and the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) could throw his hat in the ring.
  As the Secretary of State pointed out, it is not against the law to manufacture or import tobacco products provided that regulatory requirements governing those products are met. It is not illegal to sell tobacco products except to children under 16, and they are sold through more than 200,000 retail outlets and sales points. It is not illegal to buy and smoke tobacco products, and 15 million adults sadly do. The Government earn handsomely through the system.
  Irrespective of which party is in government—and irrespective of what we ourselves may think about those freedoms—we have to ask ourselves whether, since the Government not only profit from those freedoms but accept them as legitimate, adults who choose to exercise them should not be able to make informed choices about the range of those legally available products. Where does regulation end and a ban start? How do we differentiate between the two? If the Government do not believe that such freedoms should exist, it would be more honest to restrict the availability and distribution of tobacco rather than merely dealing with advertising.
  Michael Fabricant: I accept my hon. Friend's argument on freedom of choice—indeed, I note the increase in the nanny state since the Labour party came into power—but does he share my concern that advertising encourages people to smoke who would not otherwise do so? Does he also acknowledge the fact that it was perhaps the most libertarian of Governments—the Administration in the 1980s—who made the then Independent Broadcasting Authority impose a ban on tobacco advertising for the health of the nation?
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend makes two important points, and I will deal in moment with the record of the Conservative Government. He raises an essential philosophical question: when should Governments intervene and restrict the freedom of individuals? There are undoubtedly cases in which state intervention is acceptable—for example, to protect the weak and vulnerable from being preyed on. That is the basis of our legal system and the protections that we afford our people. However, there is also a utilitarian argument which says that because there is a large financial cost to society and, therefore, to each individual within it of the choices made by a few, it is acceptable to limit freedoms in certain circumstances. We are asking whether the example of tobacco consumption, sale and advertising comes within that argument.
  Some people say that it is not acceptable for the state to interfere with individual choices, which is the libertarian argument. I simply say to them that, on re-reading Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" recently, I was interested to come across the following paragraph:
  "There is nothing in the basic principles of liberalism to make it a stationary creed; there are no hard-and-fast rules fixed once and for all. The fundamental principle that in the ordering of our affairs
  694
  we should make as much use as possible of the spontaneous forces of society, and resort as little as possible to coercion, is capable of an infinite variety of applications … Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire."
  Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly which individual liberty is being removed? I am not suggesting that we stop people smoking even though they impinge on my liberty by making me a passive smoker. Are we removing any liberty other than that of a tobacco manufacturer to entice individuals and entrap them into smoking?
  Dr. Fox: Were we not imposing restrictions on freedoms, the Bill would not be before us and it would not involve banning, which implies removing something that is currently legal. We have to consider whether there are alternative means. If the Government believe that there are not, we must consider whether safeguards should be built into the Bill to which we can return in light of evidence at a later date.
  Dr. Evan Harris: As someone who comes from a party that purports to know something about liberalism, I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that such legislation restricts liberty. The question is whether that is justified on the basis of harm. We have to strike a balance between the restriction of liberty and the harm that can be prevented. In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the thrust of his argument would carry greater conviction if his party were a little more liberal on things which clearly do no harm, such as the private consenting behaviour of adults in the bedroom, in relation to which his party has a prejudiced view that goes against liberty without requiring any proof of harm being done? That is an important point.
  Dr. Fox: One might think that, after all these years, we would have learnt that taking interventions from certain Members of the House does nothing to further the debate. Certainly we have no lessons to take from parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who want to legalise many drugs that would be a lot more carcinogenic and more harmful to people—
  Dr. Harris: Such as?
  Dr. Fox: Such as cannabis, which is a good deal more carcinogenic than tobacco. Of course, the Liberal Democrats are now famous for selective liberalism, having abandoned the genuine liberal tradition, which I would suggest these days rests more on the Conservative Benches.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, I certainly have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman again, in this debate or in any subsequent debate. If I were a rat and such a slow learner, I would probably have been exterminated in some experiment by now.
  One of the flaws in the Secretary of State's argument—and I was sorry to hear him make this assertion—was that following the publication of the Smee report in 1992

  695
  the then Conservative Government took no action whatsoever. That is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman because that Government did take measures. I accept that he thinks that those measures were insufficient, and I accept the legitimacy of that position, but to say that no measures were taken is quite wrong.
  In 1980, advertising expenditure on cigarette brand posters was limited to 30 per cent. of the amount spent. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there were restrictions on poster advertising in schools and other educational establishments, and such advertisements were not allowed in publications wholly or largely aimed at young people. There was a ban on tobacco advertising in cinemas and on video cassettes and computer games.
  For the Secretary of State to say that no action was taken is demeaning in a debate of this nature. In those years, this country was one of the most successful in the world in reducing smoking prevalence, and we should take pride in that. Between 1971 and 1996, tobacco consumption fell by more than 37 per cent. and prevalence fell by 40 per cent. Policies to reduce advertising were complemented by better public health education and taxation policies that made smoking progressively more expensive and reduced consumption.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I want to return to the essence of the logic behind the hon. Gentleman's reasoned amendment and the point about liberalism. I recall, many years ago, reading a 19th-century philosopher who said, "Your freedom to swing your stick ends where my nose begins." Will the hon. Gentleman expand on the point about how the individual freedom that he describes balances out against the freedom of others to be free from tobacco? He talks about the weak and the vulnerable, but what about protecting children and young people from indulging in smoking?
  Dr. Fox: I was frank about the need for a balance, and we accept the restriction of individual freedoms in other areas. The question, which I am going to deal with, is whether this particular ban falls within those parameters. We are a little cavalier in wanting to ban things without thinking sufficiently about all the detailed arguments that we should raise in the House.
  To return to the point that I was making, the Conservative Government's judicious mix of advertising restrictions, taxation policies and public health education meant that we had a very good record. The question that is very difficult to answer is which part of the mixture was most successful in reducing smoking prevalence. It is difficult to say what is the relative importance of each of the three strands of policy.
  Despite the continuation of advertising restrictions and health education under this Government, there has been a much smaller reduction in the number of adult smokers and a rise in the number of children who smoke. It is worth pointing out to the House that the figures are quite horrifying. The latest available figures show that between 1999 and 2000, the number of boys who smoked either occasionally or regularly went up from 12 per cent. to 16 per cent, while the number of girls who smoked occasionally or regularly went up from 16 per cent. to
  696
  22 per cent. The critical question is what lies behind that upward trend: advertising did not increase in that period because restrictions were still in place.
  Laura Moffatt: I entirely accept that the House needs to be careful about evidence, but how can the hon. Gentleman possibly explain the fact that in countries where a ban was instituted there were immediate drops in the number of people smoking cigarettes, ranging from 35 per cent. to 15 per cent., and where there was no other influence on the decline?
  Dr. Fox: It is genuinely difficult to look at the cultures within which the bans were imposed. In the United Kingdom, a big reduction was achieved by a mix of policies; along with the Netherlands, we were particularly successful in getting our smoking rates down through a variety of different policies. I am not arguing that restricting advertising would not have played a part; the Conservative Government thought that the code on advertising was part of the mix, but there is a difference between a voluntary code and a legal ban. The step proposed in the Bill needs to be balanced against important philosophical arguments.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend, but then I want to make progress.
  Mr. Garnier: I want to underscore my hon. Friend's point that it is difficult to make estimates of the sort that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) wants. In the other place, Lord Hunt said that the anticipated decline in the prevalence of smoking as a result of the Bill was somewhere in a range between 0 per cent. and 5 per cent; he could not be more specific. He plumped for 2.5 per cent, because that was halfway between 0 per cent. and 5 per cent, but it could have been 0 per cent., 0.3 per cent., 5 per cent. or some other figure.
  Dr. Fox: I shall come to that argument in a moment, but in all honesty, I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that for many of us this is genuinely a difficult debate. On the one hand, we believe that only when it has no alternative should the state act to restrict individual freedom. On the other hand, I personally detest the effects of smoking.
  Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, I said that I would not for the moment.
  As I was saying, if advertising restrictions have not changed, but smoking has increased, what is the cause? If we are to answer that question, we need to look at the real-terms cost of tobacco, which has been affected by the huge increase in smuggling. The National Audit Office report on tobacco smuggling made for grim reading, according to the Financial Times:
  "Customs & Excise is losing up to £7.3 billion a year to fraud on indirect taxes such as value added tax and tobacco duty … equivalent to nearly £300 for each household".
  The report gave the first formal estimate of how much Customs and Excise is losing; the true figure is likely to be higher. Surprisingly, about half the losses are

  697
  accounted for by tobacco smuggling, and it is estimated that the number of cigarettes smuggled last year rose from 14 billion to 17 billion, with more than one in five cigarettes consumed in the UK being smuggled.
  According to the Government's statistics, the proportion of smuggled cigarettes has gone up in each of the past five years, rising from 3 per cent. to 6 per cent, to 12 per cent., to 18 per cent., and finally 21 per cent., which tells an alarming story about the Government's failure to tackle the real problem—the fall in the true price of tobacco. Banning or further restricting advertising may be part of the solution, but only a small part. The Secretary of State said today that banning advertising would be at the "core" of the Government's programme on tobacco. However, if he cannot tackle smuggling and if the true price of tobacco in this country continues to fall, there will be a drive towards greater prevalence of smoking and increased consumption, so banning advertising should not be the core of the Government's policy.
  Miss Anne Begg: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that there is a higher prevalence of smoking among teenage girls because they are managing to buy cigarettes cheaply on the black market? That is nonsense.
  Dr. Fox: In pubs throughout the country one can buy smuggled tobacco at lower and lower prices. If the price decreases, demand will increase. Why does the hon. Lady think consecutive Governments have continued to try to raise the price of tobacco, if not to make it less attractive and to reduce the market? She is surely not saying that she does not believe that there is a link between the price of tobacco and the level of consumption—or is she?
  Miss Begg: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the growing prevalence of smoking among young teenage girls. I agree that that is where we find the higher incidence of tobacco smoking. Young teenage girls do not frequent pubs and they are not able to buy tobacco at pubs. There are other reasons for young girls smoking, and a major reason is that the advertising of tobacco makes it attractive to smoke. As I have said, there are other reasons, and I will go into them if I have the opportunity to do so.
  Dr. Fox: I accept the hon. Lady's sincerity, but her intervention is hopelessly, if charmingly, naive. Young teenage girls do frequent pubs. Youngsters do not get tobacco for free. They have to buy it somewhere. The lower the price, the more accessible it becomes. The cheaper the price, the more young people will be able to afford it, and the higher the prevalence rates will become. To pretend that there is no link between price and consumption is not helpful to the debate. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to believe that there is a link, when he raised the duty on tobacco.
  Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Fox: No. I shall make some progress if I may.
  I return to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). What hard evidence do we have that a ban, as opposed to a
  698
  restriction, will make a difference? The Secretary of State was right when he said that it was a Conservative Government in 1992 who commissioned and published the Smee report. The report stated:
  "The Department expects the likely eventual net effect on consumption to be in the range between 0% and a 5% decrease."
  The report did not provide an adequate or reliable basis for estimating the likely effect of a total advertising ban in the UK. The author of the report made a statement in The Times in 1993, saying that he had
  "looked at the conflicting evidence of bans in other countries and made no estimate for the UK. In seeking to justify its Bill, the Government has done no more than make an 'assumption' that a tobacco advertising ban will reduce consumption by 2.5%"—
  as my hon. and learned Friend said, that involved picking a number between the two—
  "without producing any evidence in support of that claim."
  Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has been rather selective in quoting the Smee report. When the analysis took place before consideration by the Secretary of State, Smee concluded that
  "in each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot be reasonably attributed to other factors."
  Smee also concluded that a total ban, in conjunction with an anti-smoking policy from Government, worked.
  Dr. Fox: Smee concluded that in the areas that he had considered such an approach had worked in other countries. He said that there was conflicting evidence. He added that no clear assessment could be made of what would happen in the UK. At that time, we were already working against a background of having better reductions in our smoking prevalence and consumption than other countries. In the light of the evidence in the UK and elsewhere, it is difficult to come to clear conclusions.
  There are fundamental questions to be faced. If we have no clear evidence that a ban will definitely produce a set benefit and yet we are going ahead in the face of arguments concerning the reduction of individual liberty and freedom of expression, can we not provide some safeguards that will make the balance of the argument more palatable?
  In the previous Parliament, the Conservative party tried to introduce a clause into the Bill stating that if the Bill came into effect and did not produce any benefit at all in terms of reduced prevalence or consumption—in other words, if prevalence and consumption against trend rose—the Government would have to introduce new legislation in the House if they wanted to extend the ban. That is a perfectly rational and reasonable position and should be a no-risk policy for a Government who believe that the evidence is entirely on their side.
  Why will the Government not apply such a clear scientific test to their proposals? On the face of it, that seems utterly unreasonable. It is partly because, as with everything else, the issue is not one of substance but one of presentation—intellectually two-dimensional and enmeshed in its own tissue of lies and sleaze.
  The idea that the Government wanted to bring the Bill back is nonsense. They were forced to bring it back because the private Member's Bill in the other place was successful. If the Government had wanted to bring the Bill back, they would have announced a space for it in

  699
  the Queen's Speech. They did not want to do so, and to pretend otherwise is humbug. One of the reasons why they did not want to bring the Bill back is that that risked opening up the whole Formula 1 affair at a time when the Government have never looked more as though they were up for sale to the highest bidder.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State in the light of the recent revelations about the Formula 1 affair. We all know now that events were very different from the account given by that very straightforward kind of guy the Prime Minister. It might be helpful if I tell the House what I wrote to the Secretary of State. I now know that he reads his letters; it would be nice if he replied to them as well. I wrote:
  "When the Government originally decided to exempt Formula 1 from the proposed Tobacco Advertising ban, it was suggested that the Prime Minister struck the deal at a meeting with motor racing chiefs at 10 Downing Street. This meeting supposedly took place on October 16th 1997, and the decision to exempt Formula 1 became Government policy on November 4th that year."
  My letter continued:
  "You will be aware, however, that information published today in The Times suggests that this version of events is incorrect. It now appears that the Government's decision to exempt Formula 1 was made before Bernie Ecclestone's donation to the Labour Party in January 1997. Mr. David Ward told The Times: 'In contrast to the widely held view that Ecclestone's donation was made to change policy on tobacco, in fact it was rewarding a policy decision he approved of after it had been taken by Labour.'
  This situation requires urgent clarification. When was the decision first taken to exempt Formula 1 from the Tobacco Advertising ban?"
  In the letter that he sent to the Secretary of State, Sir Max Mosley gave a very different version of events from the Government. He stated:
  "We are not seeking and have never sought any exclusive exemption for Formula One from UK or EU efforts to ban tobacco sponsorship and advertising.
  Unfortunately the obvious absurdity of an exclusive exemption for Formula One did not occur to your department when it was proposed unilaterally and without consultation with the FIA in November 1997."
  Did the Government, without any negotiations, offer an exemption for Formula 1 that was never even sought? If so, why, who did it, who knew about it, and when did it happen? That fundamentally undermines everything that the Secretary of State has been saying about the points of principle. As a result of the Government's appalling handling of the whole affair, Mr. Ecclestone has been unfairly maligned following his donation to the Labour party.
  There is another scandal that has not been mentioned today and which should be mentioned—the scandal of what we as British taxpayers contribute to the EU's policy on tobacco growing. It is scandalous that the European Union spends £600 million supporting tobacco growing—£600 million of taxpayers' money, including ours. Of the tobacco grown, under the EU's policy, a third is burned, a third goes into the European tobacco market, and appallingly and shamefully, the remainder is exported to third-world countries. That is EU cash-for-cancer money, and we are paying it.
  How can any EU country successfully fight against tobacco consumption with the hypocrisy of those massive subsidies continuing? It would be nice to know from the
  700
  Minister when he winds up tonight what the Government intend to do about that scandal. We continue to subsidise the promotion of cheap tobacco to people in developing countries. We fail to tackle smuggling effectively, so the real price of tobacco falls and consumption rises. The Government give exemptions from their own policy where none is sought, undermining their own credibility.
  There is no doubt that the Government will get their Bill—or, rather, someone else's Bill—because they have the numbers and the time to do so, and there is also no doubt that we will get many more initiatives. However, I say to the Government that just as a No. 10 briefing about fining feckless parents is supposed to make us think that they are tackling crime, the Bill is a diversion from the real job of tackling smuggling and making tobacco more expensive in real terms. Tobacco smuggling is, to borrow a phrase, swamping this country. This Government's approach simply will not do.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having had the rather strange privilege of introducing the same excellent Bill twice in two successive Parliaments. Sadly, because of the vagaries of parliamentary procedure and the Conservatives' opposition, the original Bill did not get through the House of Lords in the previous Parliament, but it is here now and we must ensure that it gets through this time. I should also like to thank him for his kind mention of the tobacco White Paper, "Smoking Kills", which was published when I was Secretary of State for Health. I congratulate him on a thoroughgoing implementation of its contents, making possible a concerted approach to reducing smoking in this country.
  The Bill is intended to end tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship—and not before time. It is 40 years since the Royal College of Physicians published its report on smoking and health, which demonstrated beyond any doubt that smoking kills, so no one can suggest that the Bill is a rush to judgment. Whenever we discuss smoking and those who wish to continue its promotion, we should continue to keep in mind one simple fact: smoking kills. We should not allow ourselves to be distracted by the specious arguments, delaying tactics and weasel words of the tobacco industry or any of its friends.
  If we think of ourselves as part of the animal world, as we must, we can reasonably regard the tobacco industry as a predatory animal, as it has to kill others in order to survive. It must continue to make and sell tobacco products to survive, knowing that half the people who follow the maker's instructions will die. That is the sort of industry that we are talking about. It promotes smoking in the sure and certain knowledge that if it does not continue to promote smoking and the making and selling of its products, it will not be the consumers who die, but the industry. So we have a stark choice: we can support either the tobacco merchants of death, as has happened on previous occasions, or the people whom they would otherwise kill.
  In the knowledge that smoking kills, our campaign must, first, try to stop the tobacco industry recruiting new smokers, and, secondly, get existing smokers to desert the ranks of the people whom the tobacco industry does to death. These are all strong words, but they are all true.

  701
  The tobacco industry seeks the reverse of what we seek. Day in, day out, its executives and employees strive to recruit more people to smoke and to keep to a minimum the number of deserters from the ranks of the smokers. People in the tobacco industry understand their position, as they would, given that they are in an industry that in this country kills 120,000 of its customers every year, and obviously needs to recruit another 120,000 customers to make up for those it has killed. They knowingly sell a product that kills, so it follows that they have to take extreme measures, and they knowingly lie. For decades, the principal characteristic of the outward manifestation of the tobacco industry has been big lies to promote big tobacco.
  Richard Ottaway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, not for the moment.
  People in the tobacco industry promoted three big lies. First, they said that tobacco did not kill; then they said that tobacco was not addictive; then they said, as they are still saying, that they did not want to recruit new smokers. All those lies have been exposed as such.
  The claim that tobacco smoking does not pose a threat to health has been exposed as a lie. Originally—I give them the benefit of the doubt—people in the tobacco industry and its promoters may actually have believed that their product was not harmful. Subsequently, however, they knew from their own research, as well as that of others, that it was harmful, yet they practised and peddled the lie. They knew that they were lying; they knew that they were trying to deceive the public and potential smokers. Finally, they had to admit that smoking is harmful to health. We have now reached the preposterous situation whereby the boss of British American Tobacco says that he tells his children,
  "I would advise you not to smoke … It is not good for you. You are better off not smoking",
  then runs an advertising campaign to try to persuade everybody else's children to smoke. That is rank hypocrisy and a disgrace.
  For years, people in the tobacco industry denied that tobacco was addictive. Again, they may have believed that at the beginning, but they subsequently knew from their own research—not someone else's—that tobacco was addictive. So what did they do? They decided to start growing tobacco that had more of the addictive characteristics, and, because that might prove to be difficult in the United States, they did it in Brazil and Zimbabwe in the hope that nobody would notice. They lied, then tried to make their product more addictive. Now, they have finally had to admit to their second big lie and accept that tobacco—or rather nicotine—is addictive.
  The third great lie, which is still being perpetuated—sadly, some Conservative Members, either knowingly or otherwise, are going along with it—is that the industry is not trying to recruit new smokers. There is no first stage in that respect—people in the industry have always known that they were lying when they said that, because they were doing the recruiting. Why do they spend £130 million a year in this country on trying to promote tobacco sales if they are not trying to recruit new smokers? They are not giving £130 million-worth of outdoor relief to advertising executives; they are trying to
  702
  recruit new people and to keep existing smokers on their list. They have deployed all sorts of different techniques over the years, but still deny that they have been doing so.
  John Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if tobacco was discovered today, it would be banned along with all the other drugs that have been banned?
  Mr. Dobson: That is probably true, but trying to prohibit it would not work and might interfere with the individual liberty about which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was so concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, we are trying not to restrict any individual but to prevent fat-cat bosses in the industry from persuading people to start or to continue smoking. That is all that we are talking about.
  We do not want to stop Tom, Dick or Harry, but Ken and his mates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is not here. I have a high opinion of him; I like him and believe that he is the sort of person whom most of us would get on with. I cannot understand why he gets involved in the tobacco industry—it is beneath him.
  The lie about not recruiting smokers includes a subsidiary lie that the industry is not targeting young people. If it is not, it is barmy. Almost everyone who smokes starts young; hardly anyone does so when old. Indeed, hardly anyone over 20 starts smoking. As night follows day, it follows that tobacco companies target their efforts on the young. There is clear evidence of that from information that had to be disclosed through court cases in the United States. It shows that the industry wants early recruits and knows that the product is addictive. It could be summed up in the slogan, "Get 'em young and you've got 'em for life." That is a disgraceful approach, but it characterises all the industry's actions.
  The industry claims that it no longer targets children, but now emphasises that smoking is an adult activity. That is simply a change of tactics intended to make smoking more attractive to young people and portray it as something that the rebellious do—something that grown-ups do. It is all part of the promotion.
  We must try not only to prevent recruitment but to get existing smokers off their habit. The Government are implementing the approaches that were set out in the White Paper to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly referred. Banning tobacco advertising is only part of a general drive. The advertising ban is good, but we need to be careful about the way in which we formulate it.
  Clear evidence shows that for more than 20 years the tobacco industry has been planning methods of coping with an advertising ban. British American Tobacco's objectives state:
  "Opportunities should be explored by all companies to find non-tobacco products and other services which can be used to communicate the brand or house name, together with their essential visual identifiers … The principle is to ensure that tobacco lines can be effectively publicised when all direct lines of communication are denied."
  That was said in 1979. We must be prepared, because the tobacco industry has been preparing for 20 years to cope with the problems that it will face as a result of a ban on advertising. It is still at it.

  703
  We must be careful that the industry does not use the point of sale—for example, a shop—as a huge advertisement by turning it into a glowing, sparkling fag packet. We must make sure that, when brand-stretching, it does not open cafés that resemble packets of cigarettes, with their logos and colour schemes, as happened in Malaysia. We must watch that.
  It has recently been revealed that the tobacco industry has paid Hollywood millions of pounds to persuade film companies to get people to smoke on TV so that the camera can focus on the cigarette logo as often as possible. We know about another shameless activity, which involves the fashion industry. I do not know whether tobacco industry money goes into it—no one would expect me to understand the ins and outs of the fashion industry—but young women, who are admired by girls and other young women, smoke cigarettes on the catwalk but not in their private life. There is something wrong there, and we need to watch all such developments. We must get ahead of the game.
  I understand from the Clerks that we cannot strengthen this Bill, and that my proposal is outside its scope. I believe, however, that, in view of the deathly nature of the product of the tobacco industry, we should require it to disclose all its market research and scientific research, in the first instance to the Department of Health and then to the public.
  The opponents of the advertising ban have advanced three arguments. The first is that if the industry does not have to spend money on promotion, it will be able to reduce its prices. Fine—if we want to maintain a constant price, all that we need to do is increase the tax. That would be good for people's health, good for every other taxpayer, and good for the public services that received the money.
  That takes us on to the second argument—that the ban might lead to more smuggling. Smuggling is portrayed as though it is not only the Exchequer, British taxpayers, the public and those who depend on publicly financed services who are being swindled. The impression being created by the tobacco industry is that, somehow or other, it is being swindled. Far from it: it is being paid for every cigarette that is smuggled. Perhaps, therefore, we should consider a tax at the production end of the tobacco industry, and catch it out that way.
  Perhaps there is an alternative. We need to get the scale of the worldwide tobacco problem clear in our minds. More people will die this year from tobacco use than from all the military action in the world. We force companies to obtain export licences and produce end-user certificates for armament exports. We should examine the possibility of requiring the deathly products of the tobacco industry to be subject to end-user certificates. We must take this seriously. Tobacco kills more people than all the battles and fighting going on in the world.
  That brings me to the third argument. The hon. Member for Woodspring has gone on about freedom of choice. An addict does not have freedom of choice. An addict's choice is biased in favour of the addiction. If that were not the case, the 70 per cent. of smokers who want to give up would have done so. It is difficult to give up smoking, and the tobacco industry has known that all along. We must remember that, when most people took up smoking,
  704
  they were not in a position to make a mature judgment, because they were not mature. They were in their "salad days", and "green in judgment". They were probably 10 or 11, or perhaps 13 or 14 years old when they made their erroneous judgment and got themselves addicted. Now, apparently, in the name of freedom of choice, we are told that more and more generations have to join them. That is not good enough, and it must be changed.
  The Bill will provide some of the changes, and it is therefore very welcome. About 3,000 lives will be saved in the United Kingdom as a result of the ban. I have been in the House since 1979, and I have seldom taken part in a debate in which, if we voted the right way, 3,000 lives would be saved. Indeed, that might be an underestimate, because the European Union and the World Health Organisation have said that a total ban on advertising would reduce smoking by more than the Department of Health's official estimate of 2.5 per cent.
  We must work with the European Union. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Woodspring about the scandal of the huge subsidy for growers of inferior tobacco. There is nothing novel about that; it happened when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister and when John Major was Prime Minister. It is still going on now. It ought to be stopped—I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely—but we need an EU-wide approach and we must support the WHO's approach to try to get an advertising ban worldwide.
  Nothing better demonstrates what I can only describe as the moral degeneracy of the people who run the tobacco industry than the fact that, as it has found it harder to sell its deadly product to people in the developed world, it has increasingly pitched its sales promotion at the third world. What sort of people are they? They look at the third world—devastated with malaria, devastated with tuberculosis and more and more devastated with HIV/AIDS. Everybody else says, "What can we do to help?", but the tobacco industry says, "We'll give you lung cancer as well."
  Those are the sort of people we are talking about. It epitomises the mindset of the tobacco industry that nothing is more important to it than selling cigarettes, so I urge everyone to vote for the Bill and for a long series of ever tougher measures against smoking.
  5.51 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: First, I alert the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to the fact that if he sneaks out, which he is about to do, he will miss the opportunity to reply to the points that I would like to put to him in debate. After all, we are in a debating Chamber. I understand that he may have more pressing engagements than doing his job here, and I see from his departure that he has.
  I suspect that the Secretary of State will also leave, but I hope that he does not, because I want to echo his tribute to Lord Clement-Jones without whose assiduity—and, indeed, that of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the House of Lords—we would not have the Bill, which is, I grant, the same as that which the Government introduced. I am glad that the Secretary of State at least paid tribute to him. The right hon. Gentleman was a little churlish—I would like to say that that is unlike him, but I cannot—in remarking that merely a few people played their part. Otherwise, I agree with everything he said,

  705
  except his dangerous complacency and self-congratulation on the Government's achievements in their tobacco strategy, which I want to go into further.
  My final tribute goes to my constituent, Sir Richard Doll, who was the first to publish the clear evidence that tobacco kills and smoking kills. His landmark study set the background not only for this policy, but for many others that Governments have introduced. I hope that future Governments do the same. The fact that he is still going strong at his ripe old age, nearing 100, testifies to what people can achieve if they do not smoke.
  It is always a pleasure to be able to support the Government on a manifesto commitment, but it is more than a little unfortunate that we are supporting one from 1997. I concur with almost everything that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said about the Bill saving 3,000 lives, but it has come too late to save some that could have been saved had it been early legislation. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
  Smoking is a public health disaster. The damage that it causes has been described by previous speakers and I shall not repeat what they said, but it is important to recognise that if the Government's only aim is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, they must recognise that their job is to help with that change, not just comment on it if it happens incidentally.
  The danger is that the Government may think that they brought about incidental changes in the prevalence of smoking. For example, a large number of people who took up smoking before the dangers were known are dying off, which will inevitably lead to a reduction in prevalence if not in the incidence of people taking up smoking. That is not sufficient, however, and it would be complacent to say, "There has been a fall." We must recognise that the product kills, that it is addictive and that the people who manufacture it seek to recruit more smokers.
  The Government must recognise that a comprehensive tobacco strategy has to do more than just ban tobacco advertising. There is a role for increased tobacco duty, but a one-club approach must not be used, because tobacco duty increases create the climate for increased smuggling. Unless commensurate action is taken to curb smoking and to impound smuggled tobacco, simply increasing duty, which may or may not produce more revenue for the Exchequer, will not solve the problem of access to tobacco.
  Indeed, if the price of tobacco sold legally and carrying health warnings were increased significantly without tobacco smuggling being curbed, one would lose all the benefits of the price increase as well as those of the point-of-sale health warnings. There are no point-of-sale health warnings in pub car parks and increased tobacco duty is no price barrier for smuggled goods.
  Again, the Government appear complacent, because the Secretary of State boasted that the number of cigarettes impounded by Customs and Excise has risen from 2 billion in 1999–2000 to 3 billion in 2000–01. As we heard from the hon. Member for Woodspring, the number of cigarettes estimated to have been smuggled increased in the same period from 14 billion to 17 billion. Despite more cigarettes being impounded, which is no surprise considering the increased flow, 2 billion more cigarettes net are being sold illegally to young people in this
  706
  country, including young teenage girls, in pub car parks and elsewhere, without price barriers and health warnings. That is a failure of Government policy.
  John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which has been through the House and is being considered by the other place, will go a long way to attack the white van people who bring those cigarettes in? What he says about the Government doing nothing is not exactly true.
  Dr. Harris: I hope that that Bill will do something, but my point is not that the Government are doing nothing, although they are not doing enough, but that they should not tell people that the situation is improving because of the increased capture of smuggled cigarettes when the figures suggest that it is getting worse. Nor should the Government see tobacco duty increases as the only answer, because there are problems with using that as the only measure.
  I am speaking against a previous policy of my party, but it is appropriate to recognise faults in previous policies when they exist. Increased tobacco duty may have either a public health effect or a revenue-raising effect. It is difficult for it to have both. Therefore, to say that hoped-for increased cigarette duty revenues should go to the health service is self-defeating, because there will be increased revenue for the health service only if people continue to buy cigarettes carrying increased duty. I used to support that policy, but it is flawed. It might be more rational to use increased cigarette duty revenues, if they exist, within Customs and Excise to block the natural consequence of increased cigarette duties. We must recognise that there is a major problem with smuggled cigarettes, especially among young people.
  The Secretary of State and the Government are always careful not to antagonise anyone who might later appear in a focus group, so they talk about the right to smoke being protected and the Government being keen to make that clear. But we are really talking about the right of 70 per cent. of smokers to be addicted to cigarettes, because those people want to give up: only 30 per cent. of smokers—a small number of the population—want to continue to smoke come what may.
  I realise that there are civil liberties arguments relating to smoking what is currently a legal product, but they must be balanced against arguments about the risk of harm. When the Government talk of their smoking-cessation policies, they must acknowledge that they are dealing with addiction, and with a habit that is probably the single most dangerous in terms of risk. I support their cessation programme as far as it goes, but, as the Secretary of State recognised, it must go further. The Government's attempt to restrict access to Zyban and nicotine replacement therapies, especially in terms of the length of treatment, spoilt what would otherwise have been a good policy.
  Notwithstanding evidence now confirmed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Government funds for cessation products in the NHS were initially restricted to health action zones. When it was extended beyond those zones, the time for which Zyban could be prescribed was, at first, much less than what experts deemed to be the optimum. That may save money for hard-pressed drug budgets in the short term, but, as I

  707
  know Ministers are told by advisers who know about smoking cessation, long-term investment in cessation treatment—partly drugs and partly counselling—is the single most cost-effective Government intervention. Penny-pinching and sloth are regrettable in this context.
  I see the Minister responsible for public health frantically scribbling a rebuttal. To rebut what I have said, she will have to claim that her policy on nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban when she took office was the same as that recommended by NICE now. It was not, although at the time the evidence was strong.
  General practitioners in my area have told me that because they do not have specific funds for smoking-cessation clinics, they must take practice nurses away from other clinics. If the Government could provide money for the grass roots without having to cut other services, we would be even more impressed by their efforts.
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made an important point about the use of cigarettes in films and on stage, and in the fashion industry. I want to hear what steps the Minister is taking in terms of persuasion—it is difficult to do this by means of legislation—to educate the fashion industry, women's magazines, the film industry in Britain at least, and television. All the work done to secure a tobacco ban through direct advertising can be undone by the visible portrayal of cigarette smoking as in some way cool in the media to which young people pay attention.
  The Government had some good things to say about the health of young women, particularly girls, and their body image, but they now seem to have gone quiet. The two issues are linked: many young women and girls smoke because they think that it will help them to lose weight. It is sad that the Government have gone quiet about the dieting fad, and I hope that they will not be deterred by the scurrilous coverage of their initiative.
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made many points that I had intended to make. That is one of the problems of the Chamber and the status of my party here: we always have to follow learned and useful contributions such as his. He made an interesting point about the question of a tax on production. He knows that that is a rational policy, but he also knows that it would cost jobs in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that is the price we must pay for a moral policy on tobacco products. We have export licence controls on arms, and we are, or should be, seeking diversification of the arms industry. The tobacco industry has had plenty of warning, and I hope and believe that a similar approach is not far away.
  The Conservative arguments were shocking. Smoking policy is a litmus test of public health policy, and the Conservatives' justification for their opposition was wholly unconvincing. That is not surprising, because I suspect that the Opposition spokesman's heart is not really in his objection to the Bill. It may be said that that is good for the hon. Member for Woodspring, but I think it is worse politically to say something one knows to be wrong than to stand firm—whether in the shadow Cabinet or elsewhere—and say that this policy is right and the policy of one's party and its leader stinks.
  Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening when—with,
  708
  I thought, enormous conviction, and certainly with my support and that of all my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made it clear that not the ends but purely the means were in dispute. We have serious doubts that the means on offer will achieve the ends that we all want. That is the point, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is trying to make mischief by suggesting otherwise.
  Dr. Harris: Not at all. My point is that the opposition expressed by the hon. Member for Woodspring to the means was wholly unconvincing, and that the Conservatives' argument against the means proposed in the Bill stinks. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—from whom I am happy to take interventions, although his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring was not happy to take them from me—will have to defend his party's policy to the parents and children of people who will die from smoking in years to come if his party has its way. There were 18 wasted years under the Conservatives; the Government can confess to only four.
  The argument about individual liberty was advanced. Clearly there are restrictions on individual liberty, but as a liberal I believe that the state has the right to restrict it if that prevents harm. The hon. Member for Woodspring refused to debate that. When it comes to the protection of individual liberty, the Conservatives pick and choose, according to their prejudice and their interest groups. He demonstrated that by his wilful refusal even to engage in debate on the example I gave him.
  Mr. Hunter: I am not picking and choosing. I ask the hon. Gentleman to include in his speech a reference to the Department of Health's own assessment of the Bill's impact, which it said could be from zero to 5 per cent. In other words, the Department acknowledges that the Bill may have no impact.
  Dr. Harris: A basic understanding of statistics—which I suspect the hon. Gentleman has—leads to the recognition that, even on the basis of that evidence, the Bill is likely to have an effect. He may think that the reduction of 2.5 per cent.—saving 3,000 lives—is not sufficient cause for this action; he may think that the saving of 1 per cent., or something over 1,200 lives, is not sufficient cause; he may think that the saving of only one life is not sufficient cause. That is where he and I disagree. I believe that when there is clear evidence of harm, it is reasonable to restrict the liberty of businesses to sell, or at least to advertise, a dangerous product.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is right for the state to interfere to prevent harm, why does his party believe that cannabis should be legalised?
  Dr. Harris: I was going to deal with that. I have no qualms about defending our policy of seeking to decriminalise cannabis as a first step towards its legalisation.
  The point made about the Smee report did not surprise me. We know that the Conservatives are prepared to ignore expert advice. When it comes to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination, for instance, they call on the Government to disregard the advice of experts. It is

  709
  easy for them to do that in opposition, but responsible politics means accepting the advice of experts even if it conflicts with earlier policy. The Conservative party seems to be unable to do that.
  My party's position on cannabis is entirely rational. What is irrational is allowing the legal sale of a product—tobacco—that kills hundreds of thousands of people every year while seeking to restrict the sale of cannabis, despite the harm done by thus driving cannabis users into the clutches of those who want to push more dangerous drugs. The irrationality lies in supporting the legal use of one and not the other. That is an important point. My party does not promote the smoking of cannabis. It certainly does not want the advertising of cannabis to be legalised. Nevertheless, the argument that cannabis is more dangerous than cigarettes is ridiculous.
  Again, the Conservative opposition to the decriminalisation of cannabis, and the conservative opposition to it in the Government, is based on politics: they believe that a substantial number of the population do not wish it to be decriminalised. They do not have a rational drugs policy. We believe that drugs policy should include tobacco and alcohol. The committee advising the Government on these things should have a wider remit. The current situation is nonsense.
  Conservative Members may not agree with us, but at least we have no qualms about saying it from the Front Bench. We do not rely on siren voices from the Back Benches such as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has called for even wider legalisation, including not just cannabis.
  I turn to the lessons to be learned from the Ecclestone affair. This is not necessarily the place to pick over that sordid business again.
  John Robertson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will.
  Dr. Harris: I will not. However, it is another example of the way the system of funding political parties, even if it is not corrupt, gives the appearance of corruption. It makes it very difficult for the Government to make policy on tobacco when such amounts of money flow backwards and forwards. It certainly makes it impossible for their tobacco policy to appear to be free from influence from donors.
  It is no good the Government saying that they publish their donors. Saying to the British people, "We will tell you when you are being conned," is not an argument to which they will respond. It is not sufficient to say, "If we are found out, or if there is some question about propriety, we will give the money back," because the damage will have been done to the image of politics. That is yet another good example of why funding of parties should be restricted to small individual donations and to state funding, which should be proportionate to popular support.
  On the European Union and its tobacco subsidies, I agree with the hon. Member for Woodspring. It is a scandal that a third of the product is burned and a third exported to developing countries. My party's approach to the EU is critical where we disagree. I believe—indeed, I have been told this by independent observers—that criticism of the EU and particularly the policy on tobacco subsidies comes better from parties that do not
  710
  automatically dismiss everything that the EU stands for. I wholeheartedly share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is an outrage. I wish that the Government could do more to change that policy—they seem to be able to get their way in Europe when blocking more progressive measures.
  The Bill is at least four—and perhaps 20 or 30—years behind schedule. It is a pleasure to support it on Second Reading. To all intents and purposes, the Bill, which was introduced by my colleague, Lord Clement-Jones, in the House of Lords, is the same as that which the Government previously attempted to introduce. It is rare that the Liberal Democrats can support our own Bill on Second Reading. In fact, it is perhaps a unique occasion. I look forward to the measure reaching the statute book as quickly as possible.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I think that it has already been said: here we are again with the legislation. I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that it has been around not for four years but for many more than that. I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject in 1993–94.
  To say that this Bill is four years behind schedule is a bit of a harsh analysis of what has happened in the past four years. The first issue that the Labour Government faced on coming to office in 1997 was whether to take off the block of many years that had been placed by the Conservative Government on a Europe-wide Bill. The Labour Government decided that that was the right thing to do in relation to public health, not just here but in the EU. I wholeheartedly agreed with that tactic. The fact that it fell at the European Court of Justice years later meant that we had the delay.
  I owe Lord Clement-Jones a great debt of gratitude, as do all who want the legislation to be introduced. He stewarded the Bill in the other place; we were told that it would be difficult for the Government to get it through there when the Bill went to the Lords before the last general election. I am pleased to support the Bill in the form that it is in today.
  On the issue of smoking cessation and the criticism of Zyban and everything else, Zyban must have been one of the quickest drugs to come to this country from America. It was immediately put on the lists for people who want to go on smoking cessation programmes. I say that as someone who has been not just actively involved in the subject for many years, but as chair of the all-party group on the pharmaceutical industry, also for many years. I know from being lobbied that the Government moved with great swiftness. There was a good response.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was right about one thing: we must ensure that people who are going to prescribe Zyban have some experience of smoking cessation. It is not just about writing a prescription. It takes a lot more than that eventually to get people off nicotine addiction. However, one or two of his comments were a bit hard.
  The Opposition amendment has survived from January last year. It says of the Bill that
  "there is insufficient evidence that its provisions will lead to a quantifiable reduction in tobacco consumption".
  I said in the debate in January last year that that was not true. We all know the findings of the Smee report, which was put together in 1992. It gave figures for the reduction

  711
  of tobacco consumption in countries that went for a ban for public health reasons. In Norway, it dropped by 9 per cent., in Finland by 6.7 per cent., in Canada by 4 per cent., and in New Zealand by 5.5 per cent. Cigarette consumption falls by an average 7 per cent. when advertising is banned. I emphasise that it should be banned for the right reasons. Italy banned it to protect its home-grown tobacco industry. It did not have the effect there that it had in those other countries, which banned it for the right reasons.
  Smee's report also said that the fall in smoking was on a scale that
  "cannot be reasonably attributed to other factors."
  He concluded:
  "The balance of evidence thus supports that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption."
  The Government said last year that we could expect a possible 2.5 per cent. reduction in consumption if advertising were banned in this country. Conservative Members seem sceptical. They say the reduction may be nil, or it may be 5 per cent. If it is nothing, what are they opposing in terms of the Bill? If it is 5 per cent., are they genuinely saying that they are right to oppose the prevention of many deaths from smoking-related diseases?
  I just cannot understand the opposition to this Bill from Conservative Members—I never have done in the many years I have been involved in the issue. Even if there were a 2.5 per cent. reduction, it would stop 3,000 premature deaths a year. That is roughly eight deaths a day—more than the total death toll on our roads at the moment. The Government have put millions into finding out exactly how to reduce casualties—for example, through putting seat belts in the back of cars. What do the conservatives have against a measure that will not ban tobacco but will give people an honest chance of getting off a drug that kills 120,000 people prematurely in this country every year? Their position is very difficult to accept.
  Opposition Members use the word "quantify". Many years ago, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) chaired the Health Committee, which published a report in 1993 on the European directive that the Conservative Government were blocking. The report concluded:
  "The Government cannot continue to procrastinate on the issue of an advertising ban on the grounds that it is awaiting a level of proof about its effectiveness—which is in the nature of things unobtainable."
  That goes to the heart of what we see in the reasoned amendment—and there was a Conservative majority on that Committee.
  In 1993, the Smee report was discussed in Government. I got all the leaked evidence showing that the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, was in favour of banning tobacco advertising. I have with me the leaked letters that were sent to the Prime Minister. I read them out ad nauseam in the debate in January last year. It is evident that many people have favoured a ban for many years, but not the Conservative party as a whole.
  The then Government's response to the Smee report came to the conclusion that
  "tobacco advertising does affect total tobacco consumption, not just brand share. Further restrictions on tobacco advertising up to and including a ban could therefore be expected to reduce smoking".
  712
  That is still being denied by Conservative Members, yet it was the only sensible conclusion that anyone could have come to after seeing the evidence.
  The report also concluded that
  "other countries have introduced bans which have had a useful effect in their particular circumstances";
  and that
  "from the evidence available, it is not possible to quantify the size of the effect of a ban in this country with any degree of certainty."
  That does not give us a licence not to implement one, though. We have certainly failed on teenage smoking.
  Richard Ottaway: A report in The Times on 22 January 1993 said that Smee had
  "looked at the conflicting evidence of bans in other countries and made no estimate for the UK."
  How does that fit with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
  Mr. Barron: The estimate that the Government have considered is an average of the reduction in consumption in countries that took the decision to ban tobacco advertising for public health reasons, rather than to protect home markets. The evidence is irrefutable.
  We have to ask why Conservative Members continue to oppose the legislation. They give great credence to voluntary codes and ask us to rely on voluntary agreements to protect teenagers and other vulnerable groups from the influence of tobacco advertising. I have long believed that the voluntary arrangements have failed to deliver the gains in public health that we have a right to expect.
  A good example of that came in the evidence taken by the Health Committee before it published its report "The Health Risks of Smoking" in 2000. In the second volume, at page 318, we can see an attempt to show that advertising supposedly designed to encourage 18 to 24-year-olds to switch brands had no effect on young people's smoking habits. Advertising agencies were giving evidence on how they pitched their advertisements at different age groups, claiming that they affected only adults, not children.
  The voluntary arrangements say that no advertising will be targeted at people below the age of 18. We have heard about billboards not being near schools, but the whole point of the voluntary codes is that advertising should be pitched only at adults.
  Referring to evidence submitted by a company called TBWA GCT Simons Palmer Ltd., Audrey Wise—hon. Members will recall how assiduous she was in questioning witnesses, just as she was assiduous in questioning Ministers in the House—asked the company chairman, Mr. Paul Bainsfair, to explain how he could be sure that an advertisement that would appeal to an 18-year-old would not have the same appeal for a 14 or 15-year-old.
  Audrey Wise asked:
  "What do you think characterises an 18-year-old male, their aspirations and things that appeal to them which would not also appeal to 14 and 15-year-old males?"

  713
  Mr. Bainsfair replied that advertisers had to stick within the bounds of the voluntary code,
  "which prevents us anyway doing anything which might be seen to be deliberately attractive to children—not that we would want to … it would be pretty unlikely that the kind of advertising we come up with would particularly appeal to a 15 year old."
  She pressed him on how a distinction is made under the voluntary code between someone under 18, or under 15, and an 18 to 24-year-old. He said:
  "there is a very detailed code to which we have to submit all our ideas to make sure we are not straying into an area which could be seen to do the very thing you are suggesting we might accidentally do."
  She pursued this line of questioning for several minutes until he finally admitted:
  "Perhaps if I say that it is common sense that there is going to be an overlap. Some 15-year-olds are going to be more sophisticated than others. It is impossible to say that something which appeals to an 18-year-old will not appeal to a 15-year-old. If that is what you are getting at, obviously you are right."
  There we have it. Mr. Bainsfair begins by stating categorically that the voluntary code prevents advertisers from doing anything to target children, goes on to say that advertising is unlikely to appeal to a 15-year-old, insists that the code prevents advertisers from targeting children, and finally admits that it is common sense that there is bound to be an overlap, thus turning his own argument on its head.
  Conservative Members have referred to the voluntary code. What say they about a man who makes a living advertising the products of tobacco companies and says that he works within the guidelines of the voluntary code? The code has failed our young people for years. That is the truth. Until Conservative Members recognise it, they will never be able to understand the tobacco industry, which was well described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) as targeting our young people.
  People start smoking between the ages of 11 and 15; 20-year-olds never start smoking—it is not an adult choice, and never has been. I started smoking at the age of 10. That was not an adult choice. People are cynically aware that it is not an adult choice, and they exploit the voluntary codes to overcome the restrictions. It is about time the Opposition got their act together and decided to tell some of the truth about why they are again using weasel words in their amendment.
  The Opposition say that this all boils down to the issues of teenagers and other vulnerable groups, and illegal imports. It is true to say that tobacco smuggling is a major problem, but it is not true to say that the Government are not doing anything about it: far from it. At least one tobacco company is still under investigation by the Department of Trade and Industry, and some of us are not convinced that when tobacco produced in this country is sent abroad and then—sometimes within seven days—arrives back in this country illegally, thereby avoiding taxes, the industry does not know about it.
  I was tempted by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said about issuing export licences, as we do for weapons made by the defence industry. Tobacco kills a lot more people than weapons do, and the manufacturers should not be allowed to get away with that.
  When my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury outlined the pre-Budget report on 27 November last year, he gave the first results from the
  714
  "tackling tobacco smuggling" strategy set up by the Government about two years ago, which was designed to stop the growth in tobacco smuggling and reverse it by 2003. The results were that Customs and Excise had achieved their key 2000–01 target of holding the share of the UK market taken by smuggled cigarettes to 21 per cent. Also in 2000–01, they seized 2.8 billion cigarettes destined for the illicit UK market—almost 1 billion more than were seized in 1999–2000. They have also cut cross-channel smuggling by 76 per cent., massively exceeding their target of a 10 per cent. reduction.
  In just six months, the new network of X-ray scanners has detected about 80 million cigarettes and 4.5 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco. Customs investigators have broken up 43 major organised crime rings involving the large-scale smuggling and supply of cigarettes. Also in 2000–01, Customs and Excise seized more than 10,200 cars, vans and lorries used by smugglers—almost double the number seized in 1999–2000.
  Let me put that in context: of the 14 million people who entered the UK through the channel ports in 2000, 99.8 per cent. passed through without a problem. That is what the Government are doing about smuggling. We know that smuggled tobacco finds its way to young people, and that it avoids taxation, but the Government are taking action; they are spending millions of pounds at ports now.
  As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I can tell the House that a lot more is done about tobacco smuggling and other serious crimes in our ports, and throughout our country, than has ever been done before—and more than was even dreamed of by the Conservative party when it was in government. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives on this subject.
  The Opposition amendment says that there should be
  "a mechanism for testing and reflection upon the assumptions upon which the Bill is based".
  The Conservatives had 18 years in office and never offered one sunset clause to us when we were in opposition, yet they want to put a clause into the Bill, which they will vote against at 10 o'clock tonight, so that if, in two or three years' time, it is not working, we can do something about it. It is extraordinary that they should make that suggestion. We could argue that case on every piece of legislation that comes before the House, but we never have done—
  Tim Loughton: What about terrorism?
  Mr. Barron: I know that we do that with the Prevention of Terrorism Act, because of the issues involved, and that is right and proper—but it is nonsense to say that any other legislation should have a sunset clause.
  Tim Loughton: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that sunset clauses have now become an issue. He says that tobacco kills more people than terrorism, so by his own logic, why will he not accept a sunset clause for this Bill in case, as we contend, the means that it uses are not right?
  Mr. Barron: If the means are not right we will be able to sort that out pretty quickly, because as the hon. Gentleman knows, a lot will be done by regulation;

  715
  the detail is not on the face of the Bill. That often happened under the Conservative Government, and it means that when people try to avoid the restrictions on promoting their products, we will be able to take swift action rather than having to come back to the Chamber and put up with amendments such as the one that the Conservatives have tabled to the Bill, which is spurious to say the least, and does not deal with the consequences of tobacco consumption.
  Tobacco products have enjoyed an unprecedented degree of freedom from the safety regulations that apply to virtually all the food and drug products available in Britain today. I have never heard Conservative Members arguing that prescription drugs should be available everywhere so that people can use their freedom of choice to go out and buy them. We have always restricted the availability of things that are bad for public health. Why do the Conservatives not go along with this sensible suggestion, which will reduce cigarette consumption, just as the taxation imposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced it?
  I do not know the answer. Perhaps the Conservatives' historical link with the tobacco industry is still there. I had a private Member's Bill talked out when the Conservative party and the tobacco companies linked up to ensure that public health measures did not make progress in the Chamber. If Opposition Members could answer my questions about how one can advertise something to an 18-year-old without affecting 15-year-olds, they might even get me thinking as they do—but as things are, they have to defend their position.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I begin by declaring the fact that although I am a non-smoker, I am a member of the all-party Lords and Commons pipe and cigar smokers club. I also have a registered interest in connection with the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. Indeed, I was once described by Mr. Simon Hoggart, in his column in The Guardian, as having the most politically incorrect entry in the Register of Members' Interests: not only had I been invited for a day's shooting, but it was the tobacco industry that invited me. I am happy to say that The Guardian—for which, incidentally, I used to work—allowed me a right of reply and paid me for my article. I declared that in the register, too.
  Before dealing with a rather legalistic point, I want to refer briefly to something that the Secretary of State and I talked about during his opening speech.
  Mr. Barron: I am a bit confused. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is a member of the all-party pipe and cigar smokers club. That group never appears on a Whip; as I understand it, it is a parliamentary group, not an all-party group. I would love to join it.
  Mr. Garnier: I am afraid that I am not a committee member of that club, or on its secretariat, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find a way of joining it if he makes himself known to those concerned.
  Before I reach the substance of my speech, I would like to raise something that I mentioned during an intervention on the Secretary of State. I am talking about the section
  716
  19 statement under the Human Rights Act 1998. I asked the Secretary of State what had allowed him to make that statement, and he referred me to evidence before the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
  In particular, I looked at the letter sent to that Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), dated 17 January, which is to be found in the appendix to the Committee's 14th report:
  "Paragraph 21 of your"—
  the Committee's—
  "Report states that there should be clear evidence to support the contention that only a comprehensive advertising ban would be sufficient to bring about the desired reduction in tobacco consumption. I believe that such evidence exists. A 1999 Report from the World Bank stated … that 'policymakers who are interested in controlling tobacco need to know whether cigarette advertising and promotion affect consumption. The answer is that they almost certainly do, although the data are not straightforward. The key conclusion is that bans on advertising and promotion prove effective, but only if they are comprehensive, covering all media and all uses of brand names and logos."'
  That gives rise to two points. First, the Under-Secretary's belief does not constitute evidence; secondly, as the quotation that she cites makes clear, only bans that cover all media and all uses of brand names and logos prove effective, if one assumes that such data can indeed be considered straightforward. As I understand it, the Bill does not do what the report suggests is required: it does not cover
  "all media and all uses of brand names and logos."
  I therefore suggest that the Secretary of State have another think about his section 19 statement.
  Setting aside the reasons offered by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench, which are outlined in the amendment, I should like briefly to encourage the House to deny the Bill a Second Reading for an albeit somewhat technical, but none the less valid reason that relates to our European law obligations. Although I appreciate that, these days, discussing legal obligations in the very place where laws are made is guaranteed to empty the Chamber, it is worth making the point—
  Mr. Dobson: It depends who is discussing them.
  Mr. Garnier: It does depend on that, and I am happy to empty the Chamber because doing so would enable me to continue without being interrupted. Nevertheless, given that a Minister from the Department of Health is present, and given that, in terms of the Bill, the Government's attitude to our obligations under European Union law has changed, I shall briefly outline my arguments.
  The purpose of the EU' s directive on technical standards and regulations, which applies to all industrially manufactured products and agricultural produce, is to prevent the creation of technical barriers to trade. Under it, member states are required to notify the Commission about proposed technical regulations, so that within a three-month standstill period before their coming into effect, other affected states, the Commission itself or interested bodies can make representations and, if necessary, ensure through the Commission that any harmful provisions are deleted or amended. That presupposes that the regulations are put to the Commission in a form that can be amended, and at a stage of their legislative development at which they can be amended.

  717
  It is not controversial that the Bill, if enacted, will provide the Secretary of State with considerable powers in terms of making secondary legislation. There is not time today to set out my arguments against the growing habit in government of creating criminal law through secondary legislation, which is drawn up and passed into law by members of the Executive without adequate scrutiny by the Legislature. However, as recently as 28 March, the Government changed their mind about the need to notify the European Commission of the regulations that will come into existence under the Bill. From the outset, the Government had argued that the Bill did not require notification, and that they had received from their lawyers what Lord Filkin—the Government spokesman in the other place—described as "strong advice" to that effect.
  When I say "from the outset", one must remember that, although the Bill was introduced in the Lords last November—by Lord Clement-Jones—as a private Member's Bill, it is virtually identical to the Government Bill that fell victim to the Dissolution of Parliament in June 2001. For the Government to have admitted that the Bill needed to be notified would clearly have created an inconvenience. The one thing about which this Government do not like to be reminded is their connection with the tobacco industry, motor sport and money. The Ecclestone affair, the first of many such scandals that have come to haunt this self-righteous Government, hurt the Prime Minister personally and began the list of scandals that have dogged the Labour party and the Government, and which—even in last weekend's newspapers—continues to sugar the pill of Opposition life and activity.
  It was therefore understandable that a three-month standstill was undesirable for the Government. Not only would it prolong the period in which the links between the Government, a Labour party donor and public policy would be in the public eye, it would also remind the public, health professionals and those who believe that a ban on tobacco advertising is essential for the promotion of public health that, far from this apparently all-powerful Government being able to make laws as they wish, they must dance to a tune and to a timetable set by an extra-territorial and unelected political power: the European Commission.
  Mr. Hunter: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend might explain one point to those of us who lack his legal expertise and experience. In Denmark and Norway, legislation along those lines was introduced and was subjected to that three-month standstill. What will happen if the Commission decides in due course that that standstill should be imposed, and we have started—and perhaps concluded—our deliberations in Committee?
  Mr. Garnier: I begin by gently reminding my hon. Friend that such legislation was introduced in Denmark and the Netherlands. Norway is not a member of the European Union, so it is not susceptible to EU directives. None the less, his general point is perfectly reasonable. I can only assume that the EU would have to strike down the legislation, or at least that the courts would refuse to enforce the secondary legislation through which regulations were made under the Bill.
  My argument that the Government should delay agreeing to the Bill's Second Reading has nothing to do with the merits of the arguments for or against advertising,
  718
  or of those for or against smoking—I happen to think that smoking is a disgusting and filthy habit—but it has everything to do with behaving in a communautaire sense, and of being acutely aware of our treaty obligations. The Government have only just become aware of those obligations. They must follow the logic of the notification date of 28 March and allow the Commission the necessary time—be it three months, which may be extended—to receive representations from other affected bodies or member states, so that it can give an opinion to the Government and invite comment. It is silly, to say the least, to embark on a legislative process with an end-date that pre-dates the end of the three-month standstill period, which could be extended in certain circumstances.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman's point derive from the depth of his legal knowledge, or has he been briefed on it by someone from the tobacco industry?
  Mr. Garnier: There are two answers to that question. First, yes, I did think of it myself, because I am interested in the way in which this Government apparently claim that they are hugely enthusiastic about the European Union and all that flows from it. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman has doubtless done, I have read the Official Report of the Lords debate, and the issue of notification was raised in the other place both on Report and at earlier stages. He will doubtless have read the letter from seven Members of the House of Lords to the European Commission, a copy of which is in the Library of both Houses, asking whether the Bill is notifiable legislation. No doubt he has discussed the matter with his colleagues on the Front Bench, and has read the Commission's reply, which confirms that the Bill is indeed notifiable. The Commission wonders why the Government have not done what they ought to do: to notify, just as the Governments and Parliaments of the Netherlands and Denmark did.
  Mr. Dobson: What about the tobacco industry?
  Mr. Garnier: I have declared my relationship with the tobacco industry. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, while shooting with tobacco industry representatives, we do not talk only about shooting; we also talk—surprise, surprise—about matters of legislation that affect the tobacco industry. There would be little point in the tobacco industry asking me to come along purely for a bit of outdoor relief, as the right hon. Gentleman put it. It has a huge interest in the Bill, and I sympathise with the concerns that it, and many others outside the tobacco industry, have about the way in which this Government bully and nanny and seek to control every inch of our daily lives. I know that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is a kind-hearted fellow and he will perhaps wish to consider the tiresome and technical issues of notification to see how they will affect the progress of the Bill. However, if he is like so many other Labour Members, who have decided that they are right and nothing that anybody else can say will change their minds or shade their opinions, that tells us more about him than it does about the tobacco industry, or even me.
  The Government do not want to admit that the three-month standstill is not the limit of the Commission's power to delay. If during that time the Commission or a

  719
  member state delivers a detailed opinion that identifies in the Bill, or any regulation under it, any provision that will or could create obstacles to the free movement of goods or services within the internal market, the standstill period could be extended by a further three months. Furthermore, under the technical standards and regulations directive, the member state whose legislation is under scrutiny—in this case, this country—is obliged to consider and respond to the detailed comments made on its legislation. However, it gets worse. The total standstill period can be extended for as long as 12 months if, within the initial three months, the Commission announces that it has found that the legislation in question concerns a matter that is covered by a proposed directive, regulation or decision of its own. There can even be circumstances in which the standstill period goes on for a total of 18 months.
  The purpose of the delay periods is to ensure legislative harmony throughout the European Union, which I would have thought was something that this euro-friendly Government would wish to see. Whether one is pro or anti the European Union, or for or against the making of criminal law outside this Parliament, it is surely sensible that if we are part of a single market governed by the European Union and its laws, the laws of individual member states should not conflict with each other, create unlawful barriers to trade or give member states unfair advantages over other member states. After all, as soon as the Chancellor's five economic tests are met, the Government want to enter the single European currency. The Prime Minister can see no constitutional reason for not doing so and does not believe that the UK's accession to the euro can have any deleterious consequences for our national sovereignty or our independence.
  If the Prime Minister is sure about that great issue, he surely must have no qualms about adhering to European law in relation to tobacco advertising and the technical standards and regulations directive. The Danes notified the Commission and were content with a standstill, as were the Government of the Netherlands. What is so special about this Government and this Bill that allows them to give it a Second Reading, and complete its remaining stages, before the expiry of the initial—and, possibly, only—three-month standstill period, which is due to happen on 1 July?
  If the Government have the courage of their European convictions and genuinely believe in the process that they began by belatedly notifying the Commission on 28 March, they should have no trouble in agreeing to the suggestion in my amendment, which of course has not been selected by the Speaker, or in undertaking that they will not complete the legislation until the Commission has completed its work. In fact, the Government should fervently grasp the opportunity with new Labour gusto and tell us that it was all their idea in the first place.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I would normally begin by making some remarks about the previous contribution, but I lost the drift of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) after his third sentence. I apologise for not being able to comment on the detail of his speech, although I note that he and his two hon. Friends who have signed the reasoned amendment that was not selected have registered interests,
  720
  presumably related to the tobacco industry. I can only assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to wreck a positive and long overdue measure.
  Mr. Garnier: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I was saying. Perhaps the problem was that my remarks were not addressed to him but to Ministers. The purpose of the reasoned amendment that my hon. Friends and I tabled was not to wreck the Bill but to bring it into compliance with this country's European obligations under the treaty of Rome.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that brief summary of what he took half an hour to say.
  It has been a privilege to listen to some of the contributions in tonight's debate. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and to praise the efforts that he has made over many years to address the issue of tobacco consumption. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who year after year has attempted to get a similar measure through the House. I have been present on many occasions when such Bills have been wrecked and talked out by tactics not dissimilar to those behind the reasoned amendment that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has tabled.
  I welcomed the Bill in the last Parliament and it was a deep disappointment to me and, I suspect, to many Ministers that the measure was not included in the Queen's Speech. I welcome the Lords' initiative, regardless of the political background. It is a sensible measure and I pay genuine tribute to the peer who has worked hard to ensure that the Bill has got so far.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that 120,000 avoidable deaths every year are directly related to tobacco consumption. We bandy those figures about without any real consideration of what they mean for all the bereaved families. I represent Wakefield, and to me the fact that double the number of people living in that city die every year nationwide puts the figure in perspective. It is a scandal and a disgrace that we should accept those deaths as inevitable. They are not, and I am grateful that the Government are doing something about them.
  David Taylor: When counting the dreadful losses that happen every year, perhaps we could reflect that 15 people an hour die prematurely from diseases linked to smoking. So far in the debate, that is about 40 deaths, several of which may have occurred while we were listening to the interminable speech from the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench spokesman. They were probably a merciful release.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes his point in an interesting way. I might add that Professor Sir Richard Peto, who advised the Health Committee in the last Parliament during its inquiry into the tobacco industry and the risks of smoking, has calculated that 1 billion people will die worldwide from smoking by the end of the present century. How can that be allowed to happen? History will judge us all on that figure.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate, but I was attending a

  721
  Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, eight out of 10 people who smoke wish that they had never taken it up and seven out of 10 would like to give up if they could. Does he believe that advertising is a major factor in people taking up smoking in the first place?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend served on the Health Committee in the last Parliament and was present for many sessions of evidence—and saw the written evidence—that clearly demonstrated the obvious connection. The Committee reached an all-party consensus that there is a clear connection between advertising and consumption. The link is obvious to all of us who have looked in detail at the issue.
  Tomorrow the Queen will visit Parliament to address Members of both Houses in Westminster Hall, as part of the golden jubilee celebrations. Unfortunately, I have alternative engagements. Interestingly, it is also 50 years since Parliament was first informed by a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health of the clear connection between smoking and ill health. One has to ask why it has taken so long for us to get round to taking this obvious and sensible step. In relation to tobacco consumption, what does the golden jubilee mean? To me, it means 50 years of denial of clear evidence of a link between smoking and ill health; 50 years of premature and avoidable deaths; and 50 years of marketing tobacco to attract new consumers to replace those who have died. To me, it means 50 years of this Parliament bowing to the squalid commercial interests of the tobacco companies.
  It is a political fact that the Conservative party has been funded by the tobacco companies over a long period. When in office, they wrecked every attempt to control tobacco advertising. I have referred to the attempts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and others to introduce such controls.
  I am interested in the Tories' reasoned amendment, and in the arguments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about freedom. I strongly suspect, as others have said, that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the reasoned amendment. I also strongly suspect that the others who have put their name to it do not agree with its content. I say that because the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who unfortunately is not in his place, signed up to the Health Committee report, which said:
  "We welcome the Government's commitment to end all forms of tobacco advertising and sponsorship".
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who is himself a smoker, for his efforts on the Committee regarding this important inquiry. I suspect that he, too, does not really believe what the reasoned amendment says.
  I was proud to see a different direction taken by the new Labour Government in 1997. For the first time in many years there was a clear and important public health agenda. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who has left the Chamber, talked about four wasted years. I was astonished that the hon. Gentleman appeared to pass over some crucial public health measures that related directly to smoking. An advertising ban was proposed in the Government's first Queen's Speech in 1997. To the great credit of my right
  722
  hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, the very important "Smoking Kills" White Paper was produced. It pointed us in a fundamentally different direction, which I actively supported as long overdue.
  We also had the Formula 1 aberration. It is interesting to note that the first report of the Health Committee in the previous Parliament was highly critical of the exemptions allowed to Formula 1. I was reminded of that watching the television news last night. I am not particularly interested in Formula 1—frankly, I would prefer to watch paint dry—although I understand that some people find it attractive. I saw Schumacher being interviewed on television, his jacket plastered in Marlboro signs. It was a fairly obvious point, which reminded me of what we had discussed at the beginning of the previous Parliament. The Formula 1 issue typifies the way in which the tobacco companies have conned politicians for the past 50 years. I suspect that there were many on the health team in government during that time who believed that we were being conned and had nothing to do with it.
  Sport and sponsorship are important areas of concern. My sport, the great game of rugby league football, has been heavily involved with the tobacco industry for many years but has successfully weaned itself off tobacco. I was reminded of that last Saturday at Murrayfield, at a game which, incidentally, was the first ever attended by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office, who is now a convert for life to our great game. It is possible for a sport to move away from its dependence on tobacco. We have some excellent sponsors in rugby league by the name of Kellogg's. The only downside of an excellent day out on Saturday was having to spend the best part of eight hours in a GNER smoking compartment on the train up to Scotland, because that was the only compartment where I could get a seat. I found it frankly impossible, but smoking compartments are getting smaller and smaller and I hope that before too long we will not have any at all.
  Richard Ottaway: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, does he share the view of Max Mosley of the FIA that there is no reason why a ban on advertising in motor sport should not be introduced without delay?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I certainly believe that there is no justification for not moving in that direction. I felt at the time that the arguments for exempting Formula 1 were questionable; other sports could have made similar arguments. Interestingly, the Health Committee had Mr. Bernie Ecclestone and Mr. Max Mosley as witnesses, and I did not find them particularly convincing. I believe that there are no arguments for not moving away from tobacco sponsorship, as rugby league and other sports have done.
  Let me refer briefly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley did, to the Health Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry that took place in the previous Parliament. It is well known that we were able to obtain documents relating to advertising and marketing that had not previously seen the light of day. There was clear evidence from that information that the voluntary code on advertising was meaningless and long overdue for replacement with something much more robust. Among other things, the voluntary code, requires companies to ensure that
  "Smoking should not be associated with social, sexual, romantic or business success … advertisements should not link smoking with people who are evidently wealthy, fashionable."

  723
  It goes on to say:
  "Advertisements should … avoid employing any approach which is more likely to attract the attention or sympathy of those under the age of 18 … no advertisement should exaggerate the pleasure of smoking or claim that it is daring or glamorous to smoke."
  We found no explicit evidence that tobacco companies knowingly and deliberately targeted children, but there was plenty of evidence, which can be seen in our report, that they went to great pains to portray smoking as cool and glamorous in a way that was certain to entice youngsters to take it up. For example, the aim of a 1998 CDP/Gallaher promotion was to
  "boost Benson and Hedges image with style-conscious 18–24s."
  A creative brief for Rothmans suggested:
  "we want to engage people's aspirations and fantasies"
  so that they think:
  "I'd like to be there, do that, own that."
  To me, that is in direct contravention of the voluntary code. The all-party Committee concluded that it was difficult to see how this material, intended to engage the fantasies of 18-year-olds, would leave 14 or 15-year-olds unmoved.
  I welcome the Bill. One of the great tragedies of our time is seeing youngsters, particularly young girls, take up smoking. I see it happening every day, and I feel profoundly sad because although I smoked at that age, I did not know the consequences of doing so.
  I welcome the proposed European Union directive, which is crucial. I also argue strongly, as others have done, that worldwide initiatives are needed as the tobacco companies move increasingly towards poor, third-world countries to find markets for their product. The Bill is a step in the right direction.
  As the Health Committee argued, we need to anticipate the tobacco industry's tactics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about being prepared. The Health Committee felt that there was a need for a tobacco regulatory authority that could anticipate the tactics of the tobacco companies in years to come.
  I hope that the Bill is successful and that we can look back and say that we in this Parliament did something that should have been done 50 years ago.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. In the interests of all hon. Members who want to catch my eye, I urge brevity.
  7.9 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), whose work on the Select Committee on Health has been instrumental in developing policy on smoking. I hope to touch on some of his points.
  I want to make a brief speech that will set out a dissonant, and possibly solitary, view among Conservative Members. I welcome the Bill and hope that it is given a Second Reading. When I spoke in the debate on the Queen's Speech nearly a year ago, I commented on the Government's priorities in finding time to ban foxhunting, but not to ban
  724
  tobacco advertising. There is simply no comparison in the consequences for society of those two activities. It was absurd for the Government to get into a muddle on that, and I am glad that a private Member's Bill is putting things right.
  I am afraid that I cannot support the Opposition amendment. Each time this debate is raised within my party, there is a serious discussion between the libertarians and those committed to public health policy. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) touched on an exchange when the Conservatives were in government between Lord Heseltine and the rest of the Administration, which amplified the existence of that debate within the Conservative party. On this issue, I come down firmly on the side of public health.
  It is worth reminding the House that important policies, such as the compulsory wearing of crash helmets and seat belts, both of which raised the same moral issues about the freedom of the individual and public health policy as a ban on smoking does, were introduced under a Conservative Government. It was a Conservative Government who consistently allowed the addition of fluoride to the water supply, so my party is not a stranger to such debates, nor does it always come down on the libertarian side as opposed to the public health side.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Wakefield said: when people look back at the development of public health policy in this country, they will be amazed at the time it has taken for us to come to terms with smoking-related diseases. This country led the world in combating water-borne diseases, in tackling poor housing, in developing a clean air policy and in developing and promoting vaccination. Smoking-related diseases, however, have not been tackled effectively by public policy since the early 1960s and the publication of the Royal College of Physicians report.
  As a former Health Minister, I am prepared to accept my share of responsibility for that, although we had a strategy for putting the measure on the statute book some 20 years ago. Having said that, it is a little difficult to accept the assertion from a party that has had a majority of more than 160 for five years that it is somehow our fault that the Bill's provisions are not already law.
  The debate needs to be put in the broader context of health policy, and in particular of the investment of huge resources in conventional medicine. Last week, I re-read the Secretary of State's speech in the Budget debate and found no mention of preventive medicine, health education or public health. The emphasis was entirely on acute medicine, primary care and social services. I very much hope that some of the huge sums that we debated last week will filter through to public health and to health education and prevention. I also hope that the new primary care trusts will be able to focus on public health, given all the other targets that they have been set.
  So far as the investment of money in conventional medicine is concerned, we are reaching the point of diminishing returns. There is widespread concern that the huge investment in acute medicine will not result in corresponding outcomes. The gains in the quality of life that we all want to see are more likely to come from people voluntarily making sensible decisions about their lifestyle.
  On the nanny state, as a Conservative I believe that people should voluntarily come to informed decisions about their lifestyle. Rather than telling people what they

  725
  should do, I prefer people to want to do it. If people are to make valid decisions about lifestyle, however, they need all the relevant information in front of them to come to a rational decision. The problem with smoking is that if we leave it to the tobacco companies, consumers—especially young consumers—get a one-sided picture. So we either have to balance the commercial budget with a public budget of comparable size, or restrict the commercial budgets and the promotion of a legal, but lethal, product. The first option would he unaffordable. The second has been the policy since television ads were banned in, I think, the 1960s, but it has never been followed through effectively.
  The argument that advertising simply promotes brand awareness is strictly for the birds. I remember an advertising executive justifying the huge sums that used to be spent on advertising toothpaste. He told me that advertising promoted not just the brand, but an awareness of oral hygiene. I think he was right. Intuitively, we know that to be the case. We have all seen television advertisements for holidays and thought that the place featured looks nice, but we often do not absorb the name of the tour operator, or we forget it pretty quickly. The image of a nice holiday remains with us, however. Advertising cigarettes creates an aura of legitimacy and acceptability, which is just what the tobacco companies want to create.
  I am not a fan of legislation if there is an alternative. I have examined the voluntary agreement and became convinced some 20 years ago that such a policy would never work because the industry would not agree voluntarily to measures that damaged it. I spent many weeks in direct and frustrating negotiations with the Tobacco Advisory Council. At one point, I suggested that the health warning should be printed not just on the cigarette pack, but on each cigarette. I was told that the ink was carcinogenic and might damage the smoker's health. The industry did not fear individual measures such as the increase in duty, the ban on smoking in public places or the health warnings, though it disliked them all heartily; what it minded was the depiction of smoking as an anti-social, uncool and dirty habit, and its advertising is aimed at establishing smoking as acceptable social behaviour.
  Some 20 years ago, the then Government had a strategy for introducing a measure such as that set out in the Bill. In 1981, there was going to be a miscellaneous health services Bill with nothing in it about tobacco advertising, but with a long title that was broad enough for an amendment to ban advertising to be in order. That would have been moved as the Bill went through Parliament and the Secretary of State for Health, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I would have voted for it on a free vote, together with a substantial number of Conservative MPs. I have no doubt that the House would have supported it and the measure would have reached the statute book. However, there was a shuffle of key personnel as the strategy was being developed and the Bill was dropped from the legislative programme, which I very much regret. This Bill gets us back on target.
  I do not claim that banning advertising will solve the problem, but together with upward pressure on prices through tax, growing restrictions on smoking in public places and better health promotion and education, it will form part of a solution that may have a bigger impact on public health than the Budget measures we discussed last week.
  7.18 pm
  David Taylor: This is the second time that we have debated such a Bill and I want to address my remarks to the positive effects it will have if it becomes law, especially on tackling the take-up of smoking among young people and on breaking the habit among pregnant women.
  The Bill's provisions are crucial for the health and well-being of future generations. If the Bill is enacted, future young adults will become smokers only through informed choice, not through the malign effect of advertising and the disingenuous linking of tobacco products with sporting prowess. Michael Schumacher's Formula 1 supremacy will not be challenged by the forced removal of the corporate tobacco logos that festoon him and his car. If an altruistic tobacco company—if such an oxymoronic concept exists—is sufficiently committed to a particular sport or event, the Bill allows donations from the corporate source as long as there is no reciprocity in the relationship that leads to the promotion of tobacco products.
  The tobacco-stained Conservative party has decided, astonishingly, that there is no evidence that a ban would discourage young people, or anyone else for that matter, from taking up smoking. Conservatives seem to be saying, "It can't be banned outright, so it's not worth doing anything about it." Indeed, they have tabled an amendment to that effect. Naturally, that begs the question: why spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year on advertising and promotion if it has no influence at all on the take-up of such an addictive product?
  The answer is that there is, of course, a causal link between advertising and smoking prevalence, which has been demonstrated, as previous speakers have made clear, by the drop in the number of smokers following advertising bans in other countries. Finland banned the advertising of tobacco products in 1978, and saw a 34 per cent. drop in consumption. The Norwegians reduced the tobacco-smoking proportion of their population from 40 per cent. in 1975, when a ban was introduced, to 33 per cent. by 1999.
  There are several other continental examples, but I suspect that the Conservatives, with their social and cultural antipathy towards Europe, will accept only home-grown examples as valid illustrations of the link between advertising and cigarette consumption. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said a moment ago, 83 per cent. of the more than 12 million smokers in the UK would not, given their time again, take up smoking because of the knowledge that we now have. According to Action on Smoking and Health, the vast majority of smokers took up smoking in their teenage years. What made them start?
  Of course, it is rarely one thing, that causes people to take up such a dangerous habit, but it is clear that tobacco advertising and promotion is a factor in obscuring the health risks inherent in tobacco consumption. Young people, quite naturally, are less concerned about mortality and more concerned with image and a projection of adult status as early as possible. Smoking is perceived as one way of achieving that, hence the fact that the vast majority of UK smokers start in their teens. This is an archetypal smoke and mirrors approach by a tobacco industry that obscures the medical facts by stressing the street image, and no matter what is said it is specifically aimed at young people.

  727
  Although the current voluntary restrictions on advertising in magazines aimed at the early and late teen market are welcome, it is obvious that those are not the only magazines read by people in that age group. Just as smoking is perceived as an adult recreation, so are the magazines that no doubt litter the table of the Conservative Whips Office, such as Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, GQ, Loaded, Viz and FHM, and there is nothing to stop young people flicking through those magazines. The tobacco industry is fully aware of the subversive and anti-authority appeal of smoking, and it exploits that in its advertising. Those who venture to working class suburbs south of the river in London will see billboard adverts by Lambert and Butler that intentionally use puerile humour to promote a product that kills 120,000 people annually.
  What I have said should not be taken to suggest that young people are not sophisticated and intelligent—far from it—but society often tells them that they are not, so many young people cannot resist buying into something that is designated as adult, and which cannot be resisted on grounds of obscenity or anything else. Of course, the habit, once established by physical or psychological addiction, will cause damage as long as the person is a committed smoker, which may be many years.
  According to the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, tobacco companies advertise for only three reasons: to reinforce brand values and sales to existing smokers to support their continued choice; to invite smokers of competitive brands to switch; and to introduce existing smokers to new brands and new developments in the market. Frankly, however, that is not even half the story. British American Tobacco, Imperial and Gallaher make the vast majority of the 300-plus brands available in the United Kingdom, and their annual aggregate marketing spend has been estimated at more than £120 million, which seems excessive merely to accommodate consumer choice and awareness of the different brands made by the same manufacturer.
  There are plenty of examples of the complacent and medically mendacious culture and history of tobacco products that existed before the ban on TV advertising was introduced in 1965, and these should act as a spur to create a political consensus, which I believe is present in the House, although we are reluctant to acknowledge it, to consign to the bin of history the helping hand that advertising gives tobacco.
  The American researchers Saffer and Chaloupka, who contributed to the 1999 World Bank report on tobacco consumption, "Curbing the Epidemic", stated after studying data from 22 countries that
  "tobacco advertising increases tobacco consumption. The empirical research also shows that comprehensive advertising bans can reduce tobacco consumption … A limited set of advertising bans will not reduce the total level of advertising expenditure but will simply result in substitution to the remaining non-banned media."
  We need to address that, but it remains to be seen whether we will do so in this Bill or in future legislation. It has implications for the development of the technologies provision of the Bill, and e-commerce in particular.
  I say in all honesty to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whose work as the first public health Minister in any western European Government all
  728
  Labour Members admire, that there is a loophole in the Bill that tobacco companies will be quick to exploit once a ban covering all media apart from the internet comes into effect, as I am sure it will. That, I predict, will lead straight to the e-mail accounts of young people in the form of unsolicited junk, or spam, mail because the Bill does not make sufficient demands on internet service providers to monitor content. That is an area to which we will have to return in the near future. We may need separate legislation governing internet content of a prohibited nature; otherwise members of another generation will be beguiled by the same images that created the appalling statistic of 120,000 premature deaths each year.
  The current system of self-regulation simply hands the power to the tobacco giants to make token changes and present them as major concessions. The fact that they do not advertise on billboards within 200 yd of a school but simultaneously dismiss the link between advertising and taking up smoking is proof enough that self-policing does not work. Voluntary agreements have been good for the industry but bad for the public. The dubious awareness campaigns indulged in by tobacco companies are cynical exercises in lip service and false concern. In the words of one legal drug baron, the expenditure on schemes to prevent young people from smoking
  "will damage us very little."
  What of the success of the cessation campaign launched on MTV last April by BAT, Philip Morris and Japan Tobacco? The campaign ran until June, and as yet there has been no move by any of the companies involved to assess and publish its effects on the take-up of smoking by young people, so let me briefly turn to that. In the UK, according to figures released by BAT, the MTV campaign ads were seen at least once by 33 per cent. of 16 to 34-year-olds living in houses that receive MTV and four or more times by 17.7 per cent. That means that two thirds of the target audience did not see the ads at all. Those figures do not account for the fact that only 40 per cent. of UK households receive MTV, so only 13 per cent. of young people in the UK, fewer than one in seven, encountered the campaign once during its life.
  Tobacco advertising is particularly prevalent in low-income and high-unemployment areas. Figures from ASH show that, in 2000, 34 per cent. of men and 29 per cent. of women in manual occupations smoked, compared with 23 per cent. of men and 22 per cent. of women in non-manual occupations. There has been a slower decline in smoking among manual groups, so it has become increasingly concentrated in those groups.
  The use of marketing strategies promoting relatively low-cost cigarettes that ease the anxiety, embarrassment or perception of inferior quality associated with smoking cheaper cigarettes creates a false solidarity with low-income consumers, whom the tobacco industry increasingly sees as its core customers. The names of the lower price cigarettes—Mayfair, Sovereign, Royals and Richmond—ooze exclusivity and affluence. The concentration and variety of tobacco adverts in working-class areas is further evidence of demographic targeting, and proof that a higher rate of tobacco consumption is a major factor in the statistically poorer health experience of people in those communities.
  Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that 6,000 people in Wales die as a result of

  729
  smoking-related illnesses? Given the relative deprivation of Wales compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, does he agree that it is deliberately targeted by advertising promotions?
  David Taylor: The appalling conclusion from all the evidence in the public domain is that urban and deprived areas in the UK, including Wales, are specifically targeted. It is not solely the third world that is seen as a market to which tobacco companies can transfer their products as smoking declines among the adult population.
  Teenage girls are more likely to take up smoking than their male counterparts. The presumption of sophistication and the perception of cigarettes as a method of keeping weight down are a factor in their starting to smoke, which suggests that our society is sending mixed messages to young women some years off adulthood. Thirty-three per cent. of pregnant women continue to smoke during pregnancy—a figure that increases dramatically to 51 per cent. among pregnant women in low-income households. The Royal College of Midwives says:
  "High rates of smoking in pregnancy are prevalent in women from households experiencing unemployment, poverty, poor housing conditions, social isolation and lone parenting."
  The high incidence of teenage pregnancies in the UK, combined with the higher incidence of smoking among teenage girls on low incomes, is a major problem that is not helped by misleading tobacco advertisements; the health warnings on cigarette packets specifically targeting pregnant women are obviously not sufficient to tackle the problem. Smoking has dramatic effects on women's reproductive health: ectopic pregnancy, where a foetus develops outside the uterus, is two and a half times more likely; primary and secondary sub-fertility increases; the risk of spontaneous abortion, particularly of normal foetuses, is increased, as is the risk of placental abruption. Foetal health is compromised, with the oxygen supply reduced, the risk of low birth rate doubled, lung function and foetal development affected through the passage of heavy metals—lead and cadmium—and an increase in foetal heart rate.
  Cigarettes are wrongly seen as a way of dealing with stress; in fact, they act as a habitual crutch and lead to the storing up of stress. Pregnancy, like life, can be incredibly stressful, as my wife has told me on five or six occasions. Some pregnant women regard cigarettes as a form of personal reward, but the stress of pregnancy is as nothing compared with the stress of a child with behavioural difficulties or the premature loss of a parent.
  In conclusion, the Bill is not about puritanical non-smokers dictating the lifestyle habits of a significant minority, but is a call for a halt to the voracious appetite of huge tobacco corporations, which last year made pre-tax profits of about £3 billion from the beguiling effects of advertising and their endless pursuit of higher profits at the expense of people's lives and health. The tobacco industry has more than sufficient residual scope to push its drugs even when the Bill is enacted. It can do so through product placement on television and films, the use of public figures and celebrities, continued advertising in tobacco retailers' premises and supermarket kiosks and the internet loophole, which is the only regrettable aspect of the Bill. With that exception, the Bill is a vital step in improving the nation's health and I commend it to the House.
  7.34 pm
  Richard Ottaway: Listening to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who said that brand names portrayed an aura of luxury, I could not help but think of the slogan of Camel cigarettes—"You can with a Camel." I had a vision of Arabs sitting around an oasis thinking, "Oh gosh, this is a life of luxury." I hope that that demonstrates the balderdash that he has been talking for the last few minutes.
  I confess that I am in danger of falling into the category of tainted Conservative—tainted by the tobacco industry—as twice in my life I have been closely involved with the city of Nottingham, for which I was proud to be a Member of Parliament from 1983 to 1987. The tobacco industry was the largest employer in the city, and played an important part in the local economy. I am also a graduate of Bristol university. Anyone who knows that university will know that it was built entirely by tobacco money. Indeed, the main building is called the Wills Memorial building. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire therefore portrayed the tobacco industry rather unfairly, as it has created jobs, prosperity and opportunity for generations of people for centuries.
  David Taylor: Developing the hon. Gentleman's argument a little, one could almost suggest that the occasional philanthropic gestures of slave traders were sufficient to justify their evil activities. His argument does not hold water at all.
  Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is right; the tobacco industry succeeded the slave trade in Bristol, but before we go into the rights and wrongs of Wilberforce and others, we should stick to the principle of debating the Bill.
  I support the reasoned amendment. I cannot support the Bill because I am simply not persuaded by Government Members that it will have the effect that they say it will. Listening to today's debate, I could not help but have a sense of deja vu, and was reminded of our foxhunting debates over the years. The argument involves morality versus freedom, and, as a member of the liberal wing of the Conservative party, I favour the case for freedom. It also involves pragmatism versus idealism. There is no easy answer to the problem, although there is in the eyes of the Government—"Ban it"—but I am uncomfortable with such intervention.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate rose—
  Richard Ottaway: I am mindful of the Deputy Speaker's request for brevity, so I shall accept one intervention.
  Dr. Stoate: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that tobacco advertising has no effect whatever on the consumption of tobacco? Does he honestly think that young people are not in any way seduced into smoking by advertising?
  Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman prejudges my speech. I intend to address both points, if he will bear

  731
  with me. I share the view that a reduction in the consumption of tobacco is desirable. Unusually, I agreed with 80 per cent. of the trenchant speech made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but he was talking about the evils of tobacco, about which few would disagree. The question is whether the Bill will achieve its intended effect. I do not believe that it will. Adults should be free to make an informed choice.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) asked whether tobacco would be banned if it were discovered today. That is a fair question, but I do not think that it would be. The Government are relaxing the rules on cannabis and, in my view, are heading for decriminalisation, which is also favoured by the Liberal Democrats, who support the Bill. It is therefore unlikely that tobacco would be banned if it were discovered today.
  John Robertson: If tobacco were discovered today and we were told that it would kill 120,000 people, would we ban it?
  Richard Ottaway: I do not know. Let us not get into an argument about cannabis and its dangers. The truth of the matter is that we have to take life as we find it.
  At the moment, the ban on tobacco sales to children under 16 is not working because high taxation is driving up smuggling. Twenty-one per cent. of all tobacco sales in this country are illicit, and many are sales to children.
  The Government claim that the Bill will result in a 2.5 per cent. reduction in consumption. To be fair to them, the estimates fluctuate between nil and 5 per cent. Earlier today, the figure of 7 per cent. was mentioned. There have been many studies into the effects of legislation of this sort, and in my judgment none is conclusive.
  The Smee report was not conclusive. The evidence was incomplete and it was a report of limited scope. There was no proper analysis of the market. It reported a study that found that advertising had no statistical significant effect. In 1993, as I said in an intervention, the author was reported as saying that the report
  "made no estimate for the UK"
  of the effect of a ban.
  The second report, to which the Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks, was that of the World Bank, entitled "Curbing the Epidemic". The report stated that the most effective way of curbing tobacco consumption was through managed price controls. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said in his excellent introductory speech, the multi-prong strategy is the most effective. The World Bank report was based on other reports by the same authors, who found that although public health advocates assert that tobacco advertising increases cigarette consumption, there is significant empirical literature that finds little or no effect of tobacco advertising on smokers. That is from the author of the report on which the Secretary of State is relying.
  The KPMG report found that in Norway, Iceland, Italy and Finland the trends were not affected by the tobacco advertising ban. Contrary to what has been said, the trend in Norway and Italy, despite bans, remains upwards.
  In the UK, in the 25 years up to 1997, consumption fell by 37 per cent. That reduction was based on a voluntary code, which worked. It was better than the compulsory
  732
  codes that were introduced by many other countries. However, since 1997, consumption has risen. That is because of the increase in prices and the growth in smuggling.
  Will the Bill make a difference? Will it reduce smoking among children and teenagers? In its report of 1990, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys set out a detailed analysis of the characteristics of what makes children smoke. The first characteristic was gender. Women and girls are more likely to smoke than boys. If they have brothers and sisters who smoke, they are more likely to smoke. If they have parents who smoke, they are more likely to smoke. If they are the children of single parents, they are more likely to smoke. Children who leave school earlier than others are more likely to smoke. Those who have less negative vibes about smoking are more likely to smoke.
  Given that evidence, I am not necessarily persuaded that advertisements cause people to take up smoking. I recognise that there are some studies that state that they do. However, the tobacco industry says that it is going for brand marketing. It is fighting for its market share. If there is no brand marketing, the UK will see a flood of cheap imports from eastern Europe. I would rather have our low-tar branded products than the camel dung that is likely to come into the UK.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman think that tobacco is the only product throughout the world that is advertised not to increase consumption?
  Richard Ottaway: As the Irishman said, "If I were trying to get to there, I would not be starting from here."
  There is huge consumption of tobacco throughout the globe. We are debating whether an advertising ban will have an effect on that consumption. Such is the momentum of the tobacco industry round the globe that I do not think that such a ban will make a difference. What is more, I maintain that there is little or no evidence to support the contention.
  In a review of all the studies that have been carried out. Colin MacDonald states that there is no evidence in any of the studies to suggest that if advertising were banned, it would make the least difference to the propensity of children to smoke. Of course, stopping children smoking is an aim; it is an objective. It is illegal for children under the age of 16 to smoke. We should be targeting an attempt to limit such children's access to tobacco sales. I would warmly support the requirement that anyone wishing to buy tobacco should be able to prove that he or she is aged 16 or older. We can marry when 16. We can have sexual relations when 16. We should be able to decide whether we are a fit person to smoke cigarettes at the age of 16.
  There is rising consumption of tobacco. There are rising sales. Taxes have risen by 5 per cent. above the retail price index over the past five years. During that period, the Government have tried to change behaviour, and a morality tax has not worked.
  To introduce the ban that is proposed is a breach of human rights. It is not illegal to manufacture or import tobacco products. It is not illegal to sell such products. It is not illegal to buy and smoke tobacco products. I choose not to smoke, and that is my right. It is a free country and we live in a free society. However, I believe that a tolerant society should respect minority interests.

  733
  We are faced with an unprecedented ban. I know that ASH will say that there are other precedents, but there are weaknesses underlying the arguments for them. We are discussing a ban on something that is a legal activity. It is a breach of commercial freedom. It is a breach also of the ability of markets to function. That is the reason why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) dwelt at length on the EU standstill. It requires a standstill so that it can consider the proposals to ensure that we have a functioning market.
  The Bill offends the principle of freedom of speech and reduces personal liberty. It does nothing to help the citizen make his own choice, and nothing to educate the citizen. The Bill is a paternalistic intervention in a personal lifestyle. It claims to protect others and it assumes that others are incapable of making their own choices. I suspect that that is the difference between the two sides of the House.
  7.47 pm
  Judy Mallaber: Last week, I went to the funeral of a dear friend of mine, Veronica. None of us knew that she had cancer. We all knew that she smoked. It was obviously an emotional day for me and everyone else who was there. For every 1,000 20-year-old smokers, six will die from motor accidents and 250 will die in middle age from smoking. Another 250 will die later in life. I will do anything and support anything that can help us cut the killer that we are debating, and that is what we must do.
  I welcome the Bill, but deplore the fact that it was not enacted before the general election. It is deplorable also that the Opposition are opposing it this evening. Sixty per cent. of people say that there should be a total ban on advertising, including half of all smokers. I did not receive any answer from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who was really struggling, while speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He could not explain what individual liberty was being removed by the Bill. I do not think that my friend Veronica would have felt that her freedom was being taken away by a ban on the right of cigarette manufacturers to persuade her earlier in her life to smoke. She would not have thought that that was a ban on her freedom.
  On Thursday, I visited Loscoe primary school in my constituency. I went because it had won an achievement award for getting good results as a consequence of its hard work. I did not realise that, as part of Derbyshire's health promoting schools scheme, it had brought in a poet to help the school to write poetry about smoking. Young Ashley Mellors put the effects of smoking as clearly and briefly as one can. His poem read:

  "Breath Taker

  Lung Destroyer

  Skin Blackener

  Money Waster

  Career Spoiler

  Smoke Maker

  Heart Shaker

  Life Taker".

  The school is producing some posters for a local company in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield
  734
  (Mr. Hoon), a neighbouring constituency. The posters will be made in the factory to try to persuade its workers not to smoke.
  A six-year-old girl spoke to me and said, "I'm trying to get my daddy to give up. My mummy's also trying to get him to give up, and he won't." A similar sentiment was expressed by someone slightly older, in the Amber Valley secondary schools year 7 project, who has been desperately trying to throw away his daddy's cigarettes to try to stop him smoking. He said, "I'm very angry. My grandad died last week from smoking."
  This is very emotive, but it raises an interesting question. We all agree that we should try to get people to give up smoking. Younger children are antagonistic to smoking, so what happens in the next few years, or even just a year later, that can make those same children take up smoking? I have relatives and friends who were vehemently anti-smoking early on, but took it up later. The question is how that happens.
  I was pleased with the support of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for the Bill, but disappointed that he thought that the money going to the health service was not going towards public health. One of the big improvements in my area has come from the Amber Valley primary care trust, which has put a great deal of effort into smoking cessation. On Thursday night I went to a smoking cessation clinic in Amber Valley. The group was in the third week of the programme. Members of the group had given up for a week and were recounting all their strategies for making sure that they kept on giving up. I was pleased that most of them agreed to have their photo taken at the end. I thought that it must mean that they were really committed if they were prepared to put themselves on the line in a photo.
  One couple there had started smoking at the ages of 12 and 13. She was pregnant. They started when they were a year or two older than the second boy whom I mentioned, and just a few years older than that six-year-old girl. How did that happen? We would save a huge amount of money for the health service if we stopped pregnant women smoking. How much better if we did not have to put in the effort to get them to give up later by stopping them earlier.
  What happens to those younger children? That is the dilemma. We know that there has been a big increase in the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds who smoke. For girls it is even more marked. In 1988, one in five 15-year-olds smoked. Now the figure is one in three. The Amber Valley smoking cessation clinics have had an impressive success rate: from what we know, about 65 per cent. of participants continue to have given up smoking. However, we will not stop youngsters experimenting with tobacco. How will we stop that developing into a habit? How do we prevent them from going through the agony of giving up smoking?
  I got a clue when I looked into the secondary school project in my area, which I mentioned earlier. In a theatrical-type exercise, the children are encouraged to think about what makes them smoke. As in "Big Brother", they can go into a video booth and have a private video conversation after the group session and say what they think. A boy in year 7 spoke about why he was getting involved in smoking. Children clearly know intellectually that it is not cool to smoke, but they still feel that it is.

  735
  In the truth booth he said that he had not smoked and that he thought that it was dangerous and stupid. Then he paused for some time and said, "But I do think I'll smoke when I'm older and I don't know why." He seemed to have gone into his own thought world and he continued, "Yes. It's been bugging me, that."
  That boy is in a state of vulnerability and confusion which make him susceptible to advertising campaigns. That is when advertising can add to the problem and perhaps make him take up smoking. He thinks that he will, but he does not know why. In the secondary school project, the children set out a range of factors that might lead them to want to take up smoking. Many of those related to peer pressure, family pressure, the image of smoking as cool and attractive, and the desire to lose weight. Many of those factors can be influenced by advertising. I am not saying that that is the only influence, but it is a potentially important one.
  I am not suggesting that putting all our effort into controlling advertising will work, but an industry would not spend all that money on advertising if it did not have an effect. The brands that are advertised the most are those that are smoked the most, especially by children. It could be argued that that proves what the tobacco companies claim—that their advertising is designed simply to make people switch brands, not to entice new groups into smoking. However, one has only to read the string of quotations from tobacco companies to know that that is nonsense, and that for decades they have exerted deliberate pressure on young people to take up smoking. The quotes are endless. For example, one states:
  "Evidence is now available to indicate that the 14-to-18-year-old group is an increasing segment of the smoking population. RJR must soon establish a successful new brand in this market if our position in the industry is to be maintained over the long term."
  That was written in 1976, and there have been quotes ever since from all the companies that show that they deliberately targeted young people. That is where their market is, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers.
  Bob Spink: Surely it is disingenuous for anyone to argue that advertising does not entice young people into smoking. Of course it does. That is simple common sense. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be irresponsible for parents to encourage their child to smoke? Does it not follow that all parents should welcome any measure that the House can take to help them stop their children smoking?
  Judy Mallaber: I entirely agree. As we know, one of the major factors in whether people smoke is whether their parents smoke. I was lucky. For some reason, the people with whom I went round in my teens did not smoke very much. My mother did not smoke; my father did. He smoked a pipe most of the time and gave it up when he had his first stroke. Because I did not have the family pressure or the peer pressure, I probably was not as vulnerable to the advertising images that feed into those factors.
  I agree that if the parents did not smoke, the children would be less likely to do so. If the parents discourage smoking, that may help, but there are other pressures on
  736
  children that present smoking as fashionable and as something that they ought to try. The pressures on young people are maintained, despite what their parents say.
  I do not want to overstay my time, but there is plenty of evidence of very young children's awareness of brands and of the tobacco companies' advertising. The Camel cartoon character is better known by four to six-year-olds in America than Mickey Mouse. It seems extraordinary, but that is what the evidence shows. We know that young children are susceptible, and that advertising can make a difference.
  There are various studies of the effect of advertising but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the overwhelming majority of surveys show that there is a substantial relationship with advertising. Seventy per cent. of smokers want to give it up. Surely we should help them not to get into that awful addiction in the first place and do everything that we can to stop it. We all have friends and relatives who have suffered from that terrible disease.
  I have many constituents who are former miners, who have been struggling to get compensation for lung diseases. We get them their compensation, then it is dramatically reduced because of the liability arising from the fact that they have been smokers most of their lives. For members of that generation, it was normal to smoke. It would have been surprising if they had not smoked. For goodness' sake, let us do anything that we can which will help at all, even if not in a massive way, to stop the next generation of young people experiencing the same problems as people of our generation and previous generations. Let us support the Bill and try to stop that happening.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I should like to begin by declaring an interest similar to the one mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), as I am a member of the Lords and Commons pipe and cigar smokers club, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have also accepted hospitality from the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Unlike my hon. and learned Friend, however, I was not invited to write an article for The Guardian on that subject.
  I agreed with a considerable amount of what the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said about why young people take up smoking. She had some very intelligent ideas about that, but she concluded by saying that young people could be influenced by advertising. That gets to the nub of what the Opposition are talking about. We do not believe—at least, I do not believe—that it is right to take away an important liberty on the basis of evidence as inconclusive as that which she gave about how people can be influenced.
  I say to the House that it is very easy to nod a Bill through Parliament to ban an activity that is considered antisocial by many hon. Members. Indeed, that has often happened under the current Government, who like to interfere in people's lifestyles. However, once a freedom or liberty is taken away, it is extremely hard to get it back. That is why it is essential that the House examine in detail any move to restrict personal liberty and freedom. That is

  737
  what we should be doing, and we should not be blinded by the prejudice and dislike that so many Labour Members have shown in this debate.
  Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me—I have not yet had an answer to this question—which individual liberty is removed by the Bill, as opposed to the liberty of the tobacco manufacturers to influence the individual? Which individual liberty does the Bill take away?
  Mr. Atkinson: The answer is simple and is summed up by freedom of speech. If the hon. Lady wants a better example, she might look at article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".
  That is what the Bill proposes to limit.
  Pete Wishart: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman out. Is he referring to the individual liberty of tobacco manufacturers?
  Mr. Atkinson: Tobacco manufacturers have precisely the same right to individual liberty as anyone else, including the hon. Gentleman and me. The Bill does indeed interfere with a legitimate business activity: the advertising and promotion of a lawfully available product. In that sense, it is an extremely serious measure. However, it also interferes with my right to receive information that tobacco companies might want to send me and with my right to privacy in my correspondence. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) spoke about legislation on motorcycle helmets and safety belts. Certainly, I can see that that legislation was necessary and ultimately sensible, but it interfered with personal liberty far less than this Bill seeks to do.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question as I asked the Conservative spokesman. Although I disagree with him on this issue, I agree with him and other Conservatives about people's right to go about their business with regard to foxhunting, for example. Can he explain his position on restricting the liberties of consenting adults on what they do in the bedroom, where no harm is caused? He could advance his arguments with far greater conviction if he at least recognised their inconsistency, or preferably spoke more consistently.
  Mr. Atkinson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for foxhunting. I hope that he will join me in the Lobby when the time comes. As a matter of interest, I say to him that what people do in their bedrooms is of no concern to me. If I am considered to be on the libertarian wing of my party, I am pleased about that; indeed, it explains why I object to the Bill.
  There is a mystery about the Bill, as it was not announced in the Queen's Speech. A Bill of considerable significance in terms of the freedom of individuals has come to the House as a private Member's Bill promoted by a Liberal peer in the House of Lords. If the Government had wanted such a measure, they should have
  738
  stated their aims and objectives in the Queen's Speech and introduced their own Bill, so we could have followed all the procedures in this House. When we had dealt with it, it could then have passed through the public Bill process in the House of Lords, and not been dealt with as a private Member's Bill on a Friday.
  It would have been much more honest for the' Government to have taken that approach. Of course, they had no intention of introducing such a Bill, but were suddenly put under pressure—perhaps in order to fulfil one of the manifesto promises that they made in 1997 but would rather have forgotten—as they realise that such a Bill could upset 15 million smokers in this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked why people advertised. The answer is that tobacco consumption in this country is declining. It increased recently, for reasons that I shall mention later, but it has fallen considerably overall since 1971. The companies therefore need to advertise in order to maintain a share of a diminishing market. That is what drives them, not a desire to increase the market.
  Bob Spink: Surely the market is not declining among young people. It should be our aim to stop young people taking up smoking, which is what advertising encourages them to do.
  Mr. Atkinson: I agree that the recent problem is the increase in the number of young people who smoke. The increase in other parts of society, such as among manual workers and those on lower incomes, has also been referred to. Much of that increase, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and others, relates to the smuggling of tobacco.
  The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said how well the Government had done in controlling and reducing the amount of cigarettes smuggled into this country, but that is patent nonsense. Of course the number of confiscated cigarettes has increased, but that is because the country is being swamped—I hope hon. Members will forgive me for using that word—by an ever increasing amount of illegal tobacco. It is not being brought into the country by white van man at Dover, but is transported in containers through major ports. If people want to know whether the Government have been successful in their prosecution of smugglers, they should consider the price of cigarettes on the streets, which is about £2, whereas previously it was slightly more, at £2.50, which suggests that suppliers of bootleg cigarettes are plentiful. That probably explains to some extent why young people are smoking. They have to pay, not more than £4 a pack, but £2 or £2.50, which only encourages them to smoke.
  The House will clearly nod the Bill through, but by doing so, it will do a considerable disservice to the freedom of individuals—not only tobacco companies, but all of us. If we continue with the measure, we will be failing as a Parliament to stand up for individual freedoms and rights. That is why I shall support the reasoned amendment.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Bill. I spoke on Second Reading of the Bill that was introduced in January 2001, and nothing that I

  739
  have heard or seen since has persuaded me that the comments that I made in that debate were anything but correct.
  Many contributions have been made. I found incredible the logic that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) used in trying to adopt some sort of philosophical rationale for opposing the Bill. It is odd that he seems to find it acceptable to introduce legislation designed to prevent tobacconists and retailers from selling tobacco products to children under 16, but also to support tobacco manufacturers' advertising that is designed to seduce such children into buying cigarettes and tobacco products illegally. We must be aware that the evidence that has been given by a number of speakers on the basis of documents produced by the tobacco manufacturers themselves makes it clear beyond all doubt that the manufacturers promote their advertising in a way that is designed to get young children who are under 16 to buy tobacco products.
  Many statistics have been cited. Some 330 people a day are killed by cigarettes. That in itself does not convey the wider damage done by cigarette smoking—the reduced quality of life that people suffer as a result. One has only to hear the hacking coughs on the trains in the morning. Those people are trapped in a nicotine hell, and they want to get out. In addition, there is the suffering of people who do not smoke cigarettes, and have never wanted to, but are trapped in enclosed spaces with those who do. That has done great damage, and continues to do so. Asthma has increased, and the whole range of health statistics clearly demonstrates that respiratory illnesses are increasing as a result of active and passive tobacco smoking.
  There has been much dispute about the number of deaths that the Bill will prevent, but even under the fairly low estimate given by the Government—I think that they deliberately pitched it low, at 2.5 per cent.—3,000 more deaths a year will be prevented. Bodies such as the World Health Organisation have produced estimates of 7 per cent., which would more than double that number. It has been estimated that in my local authority of Sandwell, 672 people a year die as a result of smoking, so 2.5 per cent. would represent only 17 people. However, if I were to stand here and oppose a measure that would prevent the deaths of 17 people in my local borough, I would rightly be heavily criticised. I cannot understand the logic of Conservative Members who are doing just that, given that people in their constituencies will live longer as a consequence of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments closely. He will be aware of a report published in 1996 which surveyed four countries that had introduced an advertising ban, two of which subsequently experienced an increase in smoking. How does he account for that?
  Mr. Bailey: The Smee report, which detailed death rates after advertising bans had been introduced in Norway, Finland, France and New Zealand, clearly demonstrates that the Bill will be very effective as part and parcel of a package of measures. I welcome it as part of the Government's anti-smoking drive and have every confidence that it will be effective. I could mention one
  740
  or two other measures that should have been included in the Bill, but I shall try to take a disciplined approach to the debate.
  A local smoking cessation policy in my area has weaned about 1,000 people off smoking for a year. My local health authority estimates that the cost of so doing was £700 per person. By contrast, the cost of clinical intervention to deal with people who are trying to give up smoking or suffering the consequences averages £17,000 per person. So the taxpayer pays either £700 to wean someone off smoking in the first place or an average of £17,000 when they have reached such a state that clinical intervention is required. Such policies not only enhance the lives of individuals but save money for the taxpayer.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said clearly and decisively, in contradiction of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, that advertising pays and that tobacco companies would not spend money on advertising if it were not effective. My personal experience of rearing a stepson, and seeing his and his friends' attitudes to smoking, suggests that advertising is a very effective way of weaning people who were opposed to smoking when younger on to smoking once they are older, and who find that the social pressures on them to do so are so overwhelming that they are compelled to conform to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) gave an eloquent and informative discourse on those pressures. My son and his friends were completely opposed to smoking when they played in football and rugby teams as young lads. Then, when they got a bit older, they became part of wider social circle and gradually succumbed to the seductive lure of the odd cigarette. Some of them are now addicted—they have entered that tobacco-lined death row that cigarette manufacturers offer everybody.
  Young people succumb because it seems to be cool behaviour. It is an easy way to appear to be an adult among their peers that requires no great sophisticated skills—all they need do is succumb to the proffered cigarette. If they become addicted, they will reckon that they probably have 30 years before having to face the consequences. Eighteen-year-olds tend to feel indestructible, and the threat of cancer in 30 years' time seems a far distant penalty for something that enables them to be cool and acceptable.
  I approve the measures in the Bill to end sports sponsorship. I have always thought it ironic that sportsmen—icons who are looked upon by many teenagers as the epitome of fit athletes—can find themselves willingly or unwillingly having to promote a product that is intrinsically unhealthy and damaging compared with the sports in which they participate. Hon. Members have talked about freedom. The Bill will enhance athletes' freedom to avoid becoming involved in that situation. The measures are especially welcome in relation to Formula 1 racing. There is no doubt that young lads see motor racing as a glamorous and cool sport, and its association with cigarettes and tobacco is highly effective in promoting the acceptance of smoking among that group.
  I welcome the Bill above all for doing something that I did not at first appreciate, but have gradually become more aware of. It is another step towards making smoking non-normal and non-acceptable. Sometimes I go into public buildings and see people disregarding "no

  741
  smoking" signs with total impunity. If one protests or asks the management to do something about it, one is almost made out to he in the wrong, yet all one is doing is upholding the regulations of that place, which make it acceptable to everyone else. Tobacco advertising billboards convey the impression that smoking is a normal part of life. It is, for 28 per cent. of the public, but most people do not want it to be. Even some of those who make up that percentage do not want to smoke. By banning adverts, we remove an element of the social geography that conveys that smoking is normal.
  The Bill alone will not be hugely successful. [Laughter.] It will make an impact on the 17 people in my borough who will live as a result of it. For them, it will be profoundly successful. Conservative Members laugh, but the measure will prove important for families who will not have to watch their loved ones die a painful, unpleasant death from smoking. It ill behoves hon. Members to make mocking and cynical comments.
  The statistical difference that the measure will make is marginal but significant. It is part and parcel of a process that will make smoking less acceptable and thereby gradually transform people's social habits. We hope that it will change people's quality of life and health and also benefit the Exchequer. I therefore support its Second Reading.
  8.21 pm
  Pete Wishart: We in the SNP and Plaid Cymru warmly welcome Second Reading. We agree with the Government's contention that if the Bill is adopted, it will significantly reduce smoking-related disease, illness and death. We have long argued for a rigorous tobacco advertising ban that covers everything including billboards, the internet, brand-stretching and sports sponsorship. However, for it to be successful, it must work in tandem with a general anti-smoking policy. Although we are relatively satisfied with the progress that the Government have made since "Smoking Kills", we remain worried about the levelling off of the number of people who stop smoking and the increase in smoking among young women and girls, which several other hon. Members have mentioned.
  Like other hon. Members, we have examined the experience of other countries, especially those where partial bans or voluntary agreements exist. We remain disappointed by the rate of the fall in tobacco consumption there because we found that tobacco companies simply switch from banned media to non-banned media. We prefer the examples that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members gave of Finland, Norway, Canada and France where there is a total, all-encompassing ban, which has led to a fall in consumption of between 15 per cent. and 34 per cent. We therefore encourage the Government to continue to be rigorous and to introduce an all-encompassing ban.
  The Bill must be perceived as a process, not a one-off event. There is no doubt that tobacco advertisers will try to challenge the measure and push it to its limits. They are in an industry that loses a significant amount of consumers every day through a smoking-related illness, or a combination of them, and they therefore do all that they can to find new recruits. We must remain vigilant and if necessary re-examine the measure.
  742
  I pay tribute to Lord Clement-Jones for persevering with his Bill in the other place. We should also be generous and congratulate Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament on promoting a similar Bill.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Before the hon. Gentleman goes off on the normal SNP trip, does he accept that the House of Commons is the place to legislate for United Kingdom bans, and that we must focus on Europe to gain the strength of the European Union behind any measure to change people's view of smoking? It is a waste of the Scottish Parliament's time to deal with a subject that is not devolved.
  Pete Wishart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, with which I agree. Of course, a UK-wide, and indeed, a Europe-wide ban would be more effective. Nicola Sturgeon promoted her private Member's Bill when the Government appeared to be prevaricating on the issue, and there was no mention of it in the Queen's Speech. Perhaps that was impatience on our part and the Government always intended to introduce the Bill. However, I contend that we would not be debating Second Reading if it were not for the efforts of people such as Lord Clement-Jones and Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. Although we have withdrawn that Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it remains on the table in case the Government prevaricate again, or Conservative Members have their way, which is unlikely.
  Having such a Bill considered in the Scottish Parliament has given us a clear picture of the state of smoking in Scotland, which has an especially atrocious record on incidence and smoking-related disease and illness. We were shown the role that advertising plays in that.
  In Scotland, more than 1 million people smoke—almost a third of the adult population. A Scottish health survey showed that 13,000 people a year die through smoking. In Glasgow, 37.5 per cent. of people smoke. That proportion rises to approximately 50 per cent. in areas of poverty and social deprivation. In Scotland, our tobacco problems may be more acute because of the high levels of poverty and social deprivation, especially in west-central Scotland. In disadvantaged communities, smoking can be a majority, and hence a sociable activity.
  It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that, despite the Chancellor's best efforts to try to tax cigarettes and put them beyond the easy reach of our poorer communities, tobacco remains a protected and necessary purchase even in times of financial hardship. That is a major dilemma for the tobacco industry. On the one hand, its product is expensive. If it were reintroduced, it would probably be classified as a luxury item. On the other hand, the core market—the people to whom it needs to sell cigarettes—is made up of the poor and the socially deprived.
  The industry has come up with many ingenious ways in which to deal with that problem. It uses all manner of cheap gimmicks to try to ensure that there is no embarrassment about buying cheaper products. In the written media, premium brands are inevitably advertised in broadsheets and style magazines, while cheaper cigarettes are always advertised in the tabloids.
  Tobacco advertisers specifically target the most socially deprived.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Is not the hon. Gentleman advancing the argument that the tobacco manufacturers are advertising to win or maintain brand share? My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) advanced precisely the same argument earlier, but the hon. Gentleman appeared to disagree with it.
  Pete Wishart: As I said to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), if he was right, the tobacco industry must be the only one that would try to advertise without trying to increase consumption. That is unfeasible.
  John Robertson: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. People keep dying and they have to be replaced only to mark time. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is therefore right in his way, but so is the hon. Gentleman. People are dying and the tobacco advertisers have to get the young to take their place.
  Pete Wishart: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The tobacco industry needs a massive recruitment programme to make up for the natural wastage that occurs through smoking-related diseases.
  The tobacco industry targets the socially deprived and the poor. The excellent "Keep Smiling; No One's Going to Die" survey examined documents from five of the agencies that have advertising accounts with tobacco companies. It found an appalling cynicism and many attempts to flout the rules. It also discovered that the industry had no great concern for the health and well-being of its consumers or potential consumers. It was worried only about minimising health concerns. Regulation was there to be challenged. It found that the poor could be reached by all manner of gimmicks and cheap promotions and making sure that people were comfortable with cheaper brands. That fits with the general aims of tobacco advertisers.
  The aims of tobacco advertising are threefold: first, the recruitment of young smokers; secondly, rallying the troops to encourage adult smokers to ignore the health risks of tobacco and continue to smoke; thirdly, encouraging people who have already quit smoking to lapse. Perhaps the last point is the most cynical because people who stop smoking at any point can gain significant health benefits.
  However, hon. Members on both sides of the argument are worried about young people. I believe that they are more vulnerable to the pernicious advertising of the tobacco industry. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who remains in her place.
  It is easy to persuade a 10-year-old not to smoke. Young children can be pious about smoking. My 10-year-old son will recoil at the thought of someone lighting up and quote chapter and verse about why it is not good for you. It is quite easy to convince someone in their early 20s not to smoke. Life experience dictates that it does not make much sense to take up something that will clearly curtail one's life and might lead to any number of diseases. It is a lot more difficult to convince teenagers not to smoke. That is the target group that concerns me most. I worked voluntarily with a national
  744
  agency that tried to promote healthy lifestyles among young people. We always found that "healthy" had to vie with "cool", and that there was inevitably tension among young people between what adult society said was good for them and youthful experimentation.
  Almost all new smokers begin before their 18th birthday. The literature shows that young people's smoking behaviour is linked with their awareness, and that they pay significantly more attention to tobacco advertising. The tobacco industry knows that. It also knows that if it does not get its new recruits before they reach their early 20s, it will not get them at all. Young people are also confused by the mixed messages from adult society, which can appear hypocritical. They are told not to smoke, and that smoking may eventually kill them, yet there are adverts everywhere, as though tobacco were some benign domestic product.
  Several hon. Members have talked about their own experiences, and their relationship with the dreaded weed. I shall briefly mention mine. I started smoking as a teenager. I played in rock bands for 20-odd years and smoking was what people did. I wanted to emulate my heroes, as did all my peers. Sometimes role models do not behave like model citizens. Sometimes they do not do what we want them to do, and a celebrity with a fag in his or her hand is worth more than a thousand billboard adverts to the tobacco industry.
  Dr. Evan Harris: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are fighting a continuous battle for the hearts and minds of young people? The fact that this country spends £13 million on health promotion in relation to tobacco while the industry spends £130 million helping to flog it shows the tenfold discrepancy between the efforts that we are making in public health and the efforts that the industry is making to sell its product.
  Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A similar analogy has been drawn using another example, which is that it is like putting a baby in to fight Mike Tyson. We just do not stand a chance when we try to put the message across. We are always going to be at a disadvantage, when we consider the amounts of money that the tobacco industry has available.
  If there is one aspect of the Bill with which I am disappointed, it relates to celebrities and promotion. I would like the Bill to have more to do with product placement, especially in films and dramas. The regulations could also be tightened up for television, where celebrities and personalities can appear willy-nilly in normal television programmes smoking cigarettes or freely and frankly discussing their tobacco use. Overall, however, I support the Government on this measure. This is a very good Bill and it will go some way to reducing the amount of smoking-related diseases and deaths.
  8.32 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: By this time of night, it is quite difficult to say anything that other speakers have not already said. I pay tribute to the many Labour Members who have explained, more eloquently than I could, why it is important that this Bill should be on the statute book. I, too, reckon that it is an important Bill. I have detected some confusion, however, from the official Opposition—I call them that so that Liberal

  745
  Democrat and SNP colleagues do not think that I am including them—as to whether the Bill is important. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that it was important, but that we were just going to nod it through tonight. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a great deal of passion about the importance of the Bill on this side of the House. I was astonished to hear that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) thought that the Bill was a diversion, and more than one Conservative speaker has linked it to the hunting Bill, suggesting that both were somehow unimportant and a waste of the House's time. I find that incredible.
  I can understand that some Conservative Members who are well-known smokers would not have received the kind of lobbying and information that I did. The Bill was not originally in the Queen's Speech. Almost every cancer charity and organisation working in the field of public health has written to us in the most graphic terms, giving the most detailed arguments as to why this is a very important piece of legislation. They reckon that it will save 3,000 lives each year in Britain—300 in Scotland—and that an additional 830 people a year in Scotland will not be admitted to hospital if the measure becomes law.
  As I said, I can believe that some Conservative Back-Benchers who are well-known smokers would not have been sent that information. I cannot, however, believe that the Opposition spokesman on health, the hon. Member for Woodspring, was not deluged with the same information that I and other Labour Members were sent. For him to have ignored it is irresponsible and a real disappointment. I had always thought better of him, and I have to agree with some of my hon. Friends who suggested that he was struggling to make his points. In fact, I do not think that he necessarily believed many of the points that he made.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to rest on the premise that, because banning advertising would not stop everybody smoking, it was not a valuable thing to do. Of course, if tobacco advertising were banned tomorrow, everyone would not stop smoking. I would love it if they did, but that is not going to happen. There is no doubt, however, that if we ban tobacco advertising, we shall take away the oxygen of publicity—and respectability—from the tobacco manufacturers.
  We are sending out a clear message to young people that society does not think that tobacco can be advertised in the way that other household products are. It is a dangerous product; it kills people, and the advertising of it should be banned. I have to say that I would probably ban smoking as well, but that proposal is not before the House tonight. Perhaps my attitude to that is rather more Stalinist than that of some other hon. Members.
  This measure has to be part of the wider endeavour by the Government and—I accept—the Opposition to ensure that people cut their tobacco consumption. During his speech, I intervened on the hon. Member for Woodspring to ask him a question about tobacco smuggling. He seemed to suggest that the prevalence of smoking in young girls had gone up because of an increase in tobacco smuggling, which made tobacco more cheaply available. Perhaps people are encouraged to smoke more when tobacco is cheaper. I was very specific in my question to the hon. Gentleman, asking whether he was referring only to younger teenage girls of 13, 14 or 15 years old. If that
  746
  group is taking up smoking at a far greater rate than any other group, it cannot be only because the incidence of smuggling has gone up.
  Before I was elected to this place, I was a secondary school teacher. One of my great concerns at the time—this was long before the Labour Government came into power—was that that specific group of young teenage girls was being sucked into taking up smoking for the first time. As a lot of Members have said, once people start smoking it is difficult to give up. In fact, the best way to stop is not to start in the first place. As the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) and, very poignantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, advertising does its wicked best when youngsters are most vulnerable, encouraging young girls in particular to take up smoking.
  Why do young girls start? There are a number of myths going round as to what smoking can do. Young girls believe that they will lose weight—perhaps their appetite will be suppressed, so they will eat less—but that is based on a fallacy. The other big fallacy among the young girls I taught was their belief that smoking reduces stress. They did not always believe me when I explained that they were feeling stress because they smoked; they had withdrawal symptoms because the substance is very addictive. Had they not started smoking, they would not have been under that stress at all.
  Young girls are often vulnerable when they go into their first set of exams; my niece is taking her standard grade exams next week. At that stage, 15-year-old girls take up smoking—an image is created by smoking, advertising and product placement involving models, and they are susceptible to taking on and believing those messages.
  Of course, young girls also think that smoking is cool. I pay tribute to the Health Education Board for Scotland advertisements, which have been effective in encouraging young teenage girls not to take up smoking. A song plays over the group of young girls who are trying to chase the boys—it says, "Why do you keep running from me, boy?"—but the girls cannot keep up because smoking has left them with no breath. Those advertisements have turned on its head the image of the cool, sexy smoker who attracts the boys. In fact, smoking often drives them away.
  A number of Members have said that the tobacco industry spends 10 times more on promotion than the Government spend on preventing tobacco use. Conservative Members say that they want an informed choice, but how can that choice be informed when 10 times more is spent on promoting tobacco through advertising than is spent by either the Government agencies or the other agencies working on smoking cessation?
  I pay tribute to the Bill's prohibition of free distribution, which has not been mentioned. I was horrified to discover that a tobacco company gave away cigarettes during a recent freshers' week at a local university. That was outrageous, and I am glad that such promotion is to be outlawed.
  I hope that Nicola Sturgeon introduced her Bill to the Scottish Parliament for the best of reasons, but I suspect that political expediency may have been involved, as nothing would be dafter than banning tobacco advertising in Scotland without banning it in England and Wales. How on earth could we prevent glossy magazines

  747
  carrying tobacco advertising from being sold in Scottish newsagents? That Bill was nonsensical, but I am glad that the Scottish National party is supporting the Government tonight, and quite right too.
  A ban on tobacco advertising is not the whole story, but it is an important step that will help those who want to give up this evil habit. I encourage all Members to support the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several Members hope to catch my eye. If contributions are brief, more may succeed.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Adrian Flook: I apologise for not being present during all the opening speeches. I was requested to be elsewhere. I also draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  John Robertson: Which is?
  Mr. Flook: As Labour Members want to know, I worked for a company that has since been taken over by an advertising company.
  Mr. Connarty: Does it still pay you?
  Mr. Flook: It might well do; that is in the register. More interestingly, I was a heavy smoker—up to 30 fags a day for 13 years—but I quit because of the damage that I know smoking does to the liver as opposed to just the lungs. My uncle, prior to his death, was a heavy smoker and a non-occasional drinker; people cannot be both. Being the son of a wine merchant, I thought it wise to do my bit to repay my father's generosity, so I decided to give up smoking a few years ago. I do not have the zealotry of the convert, however, even though the subject is extremely emotive. I was impressed by the strong emotions displayed by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
  I looked at all the information before the debate, and a number of figures have been bandied around. In particular, I received a briefing note from ASH, which means Action on Smoking and Health. At first glance, it makes strong arguments for the Bill, especially with reference to low-cost and effective health measures. Closer reading, however, reveals a number of hoary old chestnuts. Apparently, banning advertising would stop children being encouraged to smoke; it would persuade smokers to quit; where advertising bans have been introduced, they have led to a fall in consumption. The Government have said that, in their view, a ban would reduce consumption by 2.5 per cent., and that the voluntary restrictions have failed.
  I am sorry to say that I am not sure we can trust the well-intentioned but poorly presented information provided by organisations such as ASH. ASH says that advertising encourages children to smoke, but a tough voluntary agreement has existed for some years, and it was peer pressure rather than the much flashier ads of the 1970s that forced me to take up smoking. I was allowed
  748
  to smoke in the sixth form, for instance. I smoked Gauloises. I had a Saturday job, I could afford to buy cigarettes, and I got fed up with handing them out to others. Interestingly, they did not want to smoke Gauloises, and consequently I was the one who did not have to hand out the cigarettes.
  We took up smoking to cock a snook at authority. Getting rid of advertising will not make the slightest difference in that regard. The smuggling of cheap cigarettes is more likely to make kids continue to smoke.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman may have been a heavy smoker, smoking 30 a day. I used to smoke 80 a day. If there is a risk that advertising will create just one smoker, would it not be useful to ban it in order to save that one life?
  Mr. Flook: As I have said, ASH thinks that advertising encourages children to smoke. The cigarette advertising companies have said that they will not advertise to those children—[Interruption.] Let me put it another way. A voluntary agreement has been reached by Ministers. Why have they repeatedly refused to listen to the advertising companies and the tobacco manufacturers when they have approached them since 1997 asking them to toughen up their own voluntary restrictions?
  Mr. Bailey: I worked in the advertising industry. Can the hon. Gentleman explain how an advertisement can be produced that appeals to those over 18 and not to those under 18?
  Mr. Flook: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on the age of 18. As was said earlier, at the age of 16 it is possible to marry—to choose the person with whom you will live for the rest of your life. Should it not be possible for people to decide voluntarily at that age whether to smoke?
  Labour Members often quote statistics, but one fact we have not heard is that it is possible to smoke until the age of 30, then give up and suffer no long-term health consequences. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not agree with that; I do not agree with the facts and figures that they have bandied about.
  ASH says that where advertising has been banned, consumption has fallen. In Italy, it has continued to rise during the 20 years following a ban. In Norway, it has increased in line with the pre-ban trend. The situation in Canada is interesting. Between 1989 and 1995, when the supreme court kicked the ban out, consumption remained steady, just as it had been before. In this country, where there has been a voluntary agreement, consumption has declined faster than it has in any other country I know of.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman's argument allow for the possibility that the pattern of consumption, whether it rises or falls, is a complex issue affected by many factors, and that the presence or absence of an advertising ban may reduce the rate of increase in consumption where it might otherwise have been greater, or increase the rate of reduction where it might otherwise have been less? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that

  749
  several factors may be involved? According to evidence from reviews, an advertising ban would be at least a contributing factor.
  Mr. Flook: Considering the time left to me and the fact that my hon. Friends and others wish to speak, perhaps we could continue that discussion elsewhere, probably over a cigar.
  The adoption of Lord Clement-Jones's Bill reinforces the view of where the Government and, I am afraid, some of my hon. Friends are coming from. Individuals are never grown up enough in the eyes of some to be able to look after themselves. I find it unfortunate that the Bill will lead to increased censorship, enhance red tape and restrict freedom to make one's own decisions. It will not reduce smuggling, lessen smoking by children or lower total consumption.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to participate in the debate. Like many Conservative Members, I wish to register my own interest: when I was younger than 16, I was a smoker. To this day, I have never admitted it to my family. [Interruption.] I expect that they are not listening and watching this evening. My mother and father would not be very happy.
  I have no idea why I took up smoking. I think it had more to do with the music that I listened to and the image I wished to identify with. I caught the tail end of the punk era. I was keen on ska music. As part of that overall image, smoking was de rigueur. I then became a new romantic. Smoking did not go with pastel pinks or pastel yellows. I took up smoking as a teenager and ended smoking while still a teenager. It was to do with my warped sense of fashion at that time.
  We have rightly heard that smoking kills 120,000 people a year in this country. Everyone has tried to break the figure down, but to give it some relevance, during this debate, 80 people have died from smoking or a smoking-related illness in this country. To an extent, that puts the figure into perspective.
  There has been a debate across the House about the role of advertising. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that the primary role of advertising tobacco products is to maintain existing smokers as smokers. Advertising does no harm in terms of maintaining them as smokers, but I do not think that the primary role of advertising is to keep smokers smoking or to increase their level of smoking. I believe that the primary role of advertising is to grow a new generation of smokers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and others have said why: the tobacco industry kills 120,000 people a year. The role of any market is to find new customers. It kills 120,000 customers; it has to create some more. Advertising performs that role simply to feed the conveyor belt of addiction.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) made a number of points based on voodoo health. In response to his point about tough self-regulatory measures, like everyone, I hope, in the debate, I took time to read the self-regulatory measures that have been signed up to. I quote from those:
  "Advertisements should never suggest that smoking is safe, healthy, natural, necessary for relaxation or concentration, or popular."
  750
  Almost every advert that I have seen conjures up images of at least three of those. I have never seen an advert that has said, "Smoking this cigarette is dangerous, deadly, unnatural and antisocial." Not once have I seen an advert for a cigarette or tobacco product that describes what the product is or what it does to the person. Instead, advertising tries to tap into the vain, desperate desire for fashion, trends and coolness.
  I am delighted that the Bill will ban cigarette coupons. People may say that smoking is a human frailty and human weakness, but I grew up in an environment where grown adults collected cigarette coupons in the same way that children collect football stickers. It was an encouragement to smoke more and collect more, at the end of which not only would the person's health be poorer but they had six cheap whisky glasses in return for product loyalty.
  In response to the points made by the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), I am absolutely amazed by the cavalier attitude of the majority—but not all—of Conservative Members, who broadly divide into two categories. Some pursue reckless opposition for opposition's sake. Their bold rallying call is that they oppose the Bill because it might not work. They say that we should not do anything because it might not work, while proposing no alternative whatever. The others are more dangerous, ideological and libertarian. They think that the Bill is a fundamental curtailment of a basic adult freedom of choice that should not be limited in any circumstances. Taking that to its logical conclusion—and I do not support this—the Government should legalise all the drugs that are currently illegal. I am not aware that that is official Conservative party policy.
  This ideological bunch of Conservatives talk about individual liberty. What individual liberty is being sacrificed by someone not having to read cigarette advertisements every time they open a fashion magazine or a newspaper? What basic human right is curtailed by that? It is not a basic human right to be forced to read cigarette adverts, and even if it was, I would happily sacrifice it to save the life of just one of the 80 smokers who will die during this debate.
  The Tories are not representing the views of the people: the majority favour a ban. They are not even representing the views of smokers, 80 per cent. of whom would love to give up because they are hooked and they realise the damage that it is doing to them and their families. I do not want to be uncharitable, but most Conservative Members are not even representing their own constituents. Sadly, all too many are merely representing the vested interests of the tobacco industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) talked about the internet. We must be extremely careful about that. The audience for tobacco advertising on the internet is clearly a lower age group and the advertisers would like to penetrate that market. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am delighted that clause 7 undertakes to keep pace with technological changes. I hope that the companies concerned, the web designers and the internet service providers will note that. Clause 3 speaks about anyone in the chain, from commissioning to selling, being guilty of an offence. Clearly, internet companies would be included.

  751
  We all accept that an advertising ban on its own will not solve the problem. Personally, I would favour compulsory licensing for any establishment that sells tobacco products. The licence would be revoked if there was proof of any sale of cigarettes to under-16s. Perhaps the Bill could be a little firmer in its provisions concerning the set-up of shops and the display of cigarettes so close to confectionery, where young people will be looking. I would like cigarettes to be further from the cash till, although there may be security issues, because their siting there encourages impulse buying.
  I would like to see the supposed celebrities of this country break their silence on cigarettes and tobacco. For too long it has been perceived to be cool and acceptable to smoke and take other drugs. Until celebrities, be they actors or other entertainers such as singers or musicians—those whom the younger people in this nation respect—say loudly and clearly that it is not fashionable, desirable or cool to get involved in that deadly habit, we will face an uphill struggle.
  I hope that it will be part of the overall package surrounding the Bill, and other health improvement measures, that the Government will be able to enter into a dialogue with all stakeholders and other interested parties to ensure that celebrities break what, for the vast majority of them, has been a shameful silence on this matter.
  9 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: As membership of the Lords and Commons pipe and cigar smokers club is a declarable non-pecuniary interest, I emphasise the fact that I am an enthusiastic member. In view of the lack of time, I must inevitably be selective, so what I say may be a little disjointed.
  My first point is addressed to the Minister, and it relates to the amendment that appears on the Order Paper in the name of three Conservative Members, including me. I ask her for clarification. During its proceedings in the other place, the Government insisted that the Bill was not notifiable under the technical standards and regulations directive of 1998. The Conservative Opposition emphasised the fact that they had a different opinion, but that was disregarded. However, on 28 March, a month or so ago, the Government acknowledged that the Bill was notifiable and duly made a notification.
  My understanding of article 8 of the directive is that there must be a standstill period of three months from the date of notification. I tried to understand what would happen—indeed, I asked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but even he was not quite able to answer with authority. According to the schedule, the Bill must complete its course through Committee within weeks—certainly well within three months. However, article 8 states that the measure to be adopted must remain amendable for the three-month period. How do the Government reconcile article 8 with their programme for the Bill?
  My next point is a general one, and I make it in answer to the argument put sincerely and eloquently by the many Labour Members who expressed incredulity that there could still be some of us on the Conservative Benches who opposed the Bill as a matter of principle. I put myself
  752
  in that category, and I wish to explain to hon. Members that I do so because their arguments fail to convince. If they will bear with me for a few moments, I shall point to some of the "paragraph headings", as it were—things that I would say more about if I had a little more time to explain my position.
  With some reluctance, I shall first make a somewhat personal point: I do not need any lessons about the horrors of cancer. This year my wife has had two operations for cancer, and she is currently embarking on her second course of chemotherapy. I would not wish that experience on anyone. My wife's cancer is unrelated to smoking, but we all know that smoking causes cancer, and if I were really convinced that banning advertising would irrefutably and demonstrably result in a decrease in smoking, I would not hold the position that I do.
  In my view, this Bill, although well intentioned, is misguided and unnecessary. I have done my reading, and I do not believe that there is any conclusive, irrefutable evidence linking a ban on tobacco advertising with a decrease in tobacco consumption.
  The Bill is also unnecessary because the previous Government found a formula for decreasing smoking that worked. Goodness knows how many studies have considered whether tobacco advertising affects consumption, and whether the tobacco market has been affected by the introduction of an advertising ban. Indeed, there have been studies reviewing those studies. Is not the essential point that all those studies are inconclusive? None has reached a conclusion that has not been contradicted by another; nor am I aware of any study that has attempted to predict, rather than to analyse after the event, the consequences of an advertising ban.
  The considerable emphasis placed on the Smee report during the debate exemplifies the problem that we face. We approach such reports selectively. Labour Members have selected those statements from Smee that suggest that an advertising ban would be effective, but that is not the whole story. I am sure that, like me, they have read the report, so they will know that a central feature of Smee is that it is a somewhat superficial review of other studies. As Smee himself acknowledges in the report, its use of evidence is selective. Interestingly, it is precisely because some people imposed on the report an interpretation that suited their preconceived conclusions that Smee went public post-publication. He felt obliged to say that people were overlooking the fact that conflicting evidence exists, and that the report makes no estimate of the impact on the United Kingdom of an advertising ban.
  We should look more closely at the experiences of other countries. According to my reading, the truth of those experiences is that they provide no evidence that a ban on tobacco advertising reduces consumption. In some countries, the introduction of a ban has been followed by a reduction in consumption, but in others it has been followed by an increase. In fact, a closer inspection reveals that, although a ban has in some cases accentuated an existing trend, in others it has had a different impact. The instances of Italy and Norway come to mind. In both cases, consumption increased after the introduction of a ban.
  Labour Members choose the Smee report as their text of almost divine authority, but a KPMG report of 1996 paints a very different picture. The point is that the various reports offer no conclusive evidence; for every

  753
  conclusion reached, a different one can be found in a different report. However, what I find most unacceptable and unpersuasive about the argument of Labour Members is the way in which they skate over the reality of what happened in this country between 1971 and 1996. As they know, the first agreement was reached in 1971. For the next 25 years, we had one of the best records in the world for reduction of tobacco consumption.
  Labour Members fail to convince in their condemnation of the voluntary agreement, which demonstrably worked. Over that period, total consumption in this country fell by 37 per cent. and the prevalence of smoking by 40 per cent.
  Since 1996, a new factor has entered the equation—the extraordinary increase in smuggled tobacco products. I know that the Government are, somewhat belatedly, trying to come to terms with that problem. Measures are being taken and credit must be given for that, but the increase in smoking, especially among young people, is significantly due not to advertising but to the fact that those smuggled products have been entering the country.
  The Government have not made the case for the Bill. We have had a voluntary code of tobacco advertising and, while that was in place, tobacco consumption decreased dramatically. The Government dictate the terms of that voluntary agreement, as the Minister will know. She will also know that her predecessors and other Ministers have declined to discuss with the tobacco industry whether the voluntary agreement should be tightened. I remain firmly convinced that the way forward is not through legislation, but through pursuing the proven, successful course—a mixture of policies of education and voluntary agreement—that led to a decrease in tobacco consumption in this country. I support very strongly the reasoned amendment, because the Government have not made their case.
  9.12 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I shall be very brief, because I know that some of my hon. Friends are keen to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) is right to say that we can use statistics in any way we wish, and we all garner the arguments that support our point of view. The reality is that the evidence firmly shows that a ban would have the positive effect of reducing smoking habits. However, I shall put that to one side, because one piece of evidence proves that preventing the advertising and promotion of smoking will reduce it: the tobacco industry actively opposes the Bill. The industry knows what effect it will have and understands that it will affect trade. Even if we leave aside all the statistics, we should keep that thought in mind.
  I shall not use statistics; instead, I shall use one of the most powerful arguments in favour of the Bill. It is not just about reducing an irritation or interfering with the rights of others—as Opposition Members seem to suggest. Smoking is an addiction that kills 120,000 people a year. We are not talking about stopping the advertisement of Kellogg's Cornflakes because we do not want people to over-eat them. No, we are talking about something that is a disaster for our community in many ways.
  I was a nurse in the NHS for 25 years and I had to care for people suffering from the effects of smoking. I was sad to hear from the hon. Member for Basingstoke about his wife, and I hope that she is making a good recovery, but out of the 120,000 who die every year only 46,500
  754
  suffer from cancer. There are many more nasty ways to die from smoking-related diseases, most of which—sad to say—I have witnessed. It is for those people that I wish to make this argument.
  Mr. Russell Brown: As a nurse, my hon. Friend will have witnessed much. I share her concern, and am sorry for the tragedy that has blighted the life of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and that of his good lady.
  My mother passed away six weeks ago today. She started smoking as a teenager, and continued for 56 years. It was not cancer that took her, but the tragedy of emphysema—her lungs were shot through. I support the Bill because if we can save one individual or one family from going through that tragedy, we should do so.
  Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In the middle of all the intellectual debate about civil liberties, it is easy to forget why we are here today. It is for my hon. Friend's mother that we are here debating this important Bill. I have sat with people who are gasping their last and need oxygen when, unbelievably, they say, "Please take me to the day room so that I can have a cigarette." What informed choice is there for them? Where are their civil liberties when they know that they are addicted to something that is killing them? We need to be realistic about the real effects that smoking has on people.
  I have sat with people whose circulation has died in their legs and who have had to have awful amputations. I make no apology for mentioning these matters, because we can forget that that is the result of smoking. That is where it leads many people. That is why the House is right in attempting to reduce the number of people who will take up smoking.
  This is a difficult issue. The Government are assisting people to stop smoking in other ways, including the use of drugs and cessation classes. We have heard many examples this evening, and they are superb. However, we must not mix the message for young people. We tell them in school that smoking is dreadful, yet they walk out of school and see fabulous advertisements for smoking. I admit that I do not understand half of them—I am obviously far too old. We must not allow that to happen; the House must do everything that it can to reduce that effect.
  Similarly, despite the message about having safe sex to avoid the risk of HIV, some people still do not have safe sex. We must not let people think that smoking is glamorous either.
  I have seen the effects of smoking and the way in which people die, and it is not good. I firmly believe that the arguments of those who oppose the Bill tonight will be discredited. In 20 years' time, Members will be asking how anybody could try to prevent a ban on advertising. The Bill will be an important part of a programme to stop people from dying of smoking-related diseases.
  9.18 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). She, like me, has spent a great part of her professional life treating the end stages of tobacco usage.

  755
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that Sir Richard Doll's longevity was due to being a lifelong non-smoker. The House of Commons Library tells us otherwise. Sir Richard was, in fact, a 20-a-day man until his research pointed him in the right direction and he gave it up. He said earlier this month that it is never too late to give up. He said:
  "At 30 the risk is almost totally eliminated and at 50 to 60 you can live a more enjoyable life as well as a longer one. My message is, stop smoking, enjoy life more and enjoy more of it."
  Amen to that.
  I spent the best part of two decades treating customers of the tobacco industry. Like the majority of my medical colleagues, I have invested heavily of my time and of taxpayers' money in advising people to stop smoking. Many right hon. and hon. Members were palpably delighted by recent spending commitments in the Budget, but our enthusiasm should be tempered by the limited evidence for a link between the number of doctors and nurses and life expectancy, as much as it pains me to say so. In contrast, a direct link between mortality and tobacco consumption is undisputed.
  Logically, we might reasonably expect an Administration who are serious about improving the health of the nation to focus on the latter. Yet the Government's record on addressing tobacco consumption has not been particularly edifying. Bernie Ecclestonie's donation to the Labour party was linked to its compliant handling of tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1, and the Bill failed in the last Parliament because the Government did not give it sufficient priority. The initiative this time has come from the other place.
  European Union directives on tobacco have been drafted and annulled, and we have seen the EU attempt to extend its remit to public health via a circuitous route on the ground of regulating commerce. The whole thing has been tawdry and cynical. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right to underline the scandal of EU tobacco subsidies, and withdrawing those would have a far greater impact on tobacco consumption worldwide than the Bill.
  Opposition to the Bill would sit uneasily with previous highly effective public health measures, such as the compulsory wearing of seat belts, many of which restrict freedom more immediately and directly. No one could be more opposed to the Gout's stealthy introduction of the nanny state than me, and there is little doubt that this measure will assist in that remorseless process. However, the British Medical Association and the Cancer Research Campaign tell us that the voluntary code has not worked but merely spawned a cunning new arsenal of sophisticated marketing techniques. If someone has supported a voluntary code and finds subsequently that advantage has been taken of one's good nature, that person is entitled to consider more assertive action.
  One in two long-term smokers will die prematurely as a result of smoking and half of them will die in middle age. In terms of public health, smoking is truly the captain of the men of death. The sheer scale of the devastation caused by smoking means that I am prepared to lower the threshold of proof that I would ordinarily expect in assessing the likely impact of an intervention, whether medical or legislative.
  756
  This sector is full of interest groups with amusing and imaginative acronyms. Both ASH and FOREST have used human rights legislation to support their position, which just goes to show how fertile the arena of human rights is for lawyers. FOREST, in its March edition of the imaginatively styled "Burning Issues", considers that the European convention on human rights justifies tobacco advertisements because it protects the freedom
  "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority."
  The defence of advertisements on the ground that they provide information is, frankly, a little thin. Very few would see tobacco adverts as an important vehicle in the exchange of ideas. Furthermore, the literal interpretation offered by FOREST would logically lead us to permit the unrestricted advertisement of a whole raft of potentially harmful products, from pharmaceuticals to firearms.
  Meanwhile, ASH takes a more considered approach, arguing that the fact that tobacco is legal does not confer unlimited freedom on its purveyors. It cites the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:
  "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of health".
  Given the extent of the damage done by tobacco, we are entitled to ask that the burden of proof be allowed to rest with the industry. It must show that bans are not effective and that their adverts are aimed purely at building brand loyalty. The contrary argument that there is no evidence that banning adverts will be effective is frankly counter-intuitive and gives evidence-based decision making a bad name.
  The brand loyalty argument would be more convincing if each manufacturer produced a single brand. I imagine that many people still think that that is the case. The truth was brought home to me in the early 1980s during a medical school tour of the Wills tobacco factory, then in Bristol. Several brands were produced side by side, and the only difference between them was the proportion of leaf sucked up from one hopper or another which went to make this brand or that. What was really important was the label and marketing subsequently attached to each brand. Given the relatively small number of firms peddling the myriad brands that exist, it seems unlikely that they would play one brand off against another.
  Of course, what distinguishes one brand from another is the spin put on them during marketing. One packet suggests that the consumer can be a Marlboro cowboy, and another makes him into Lawrence of Arabia. The industry casts its net wide, and in so doing it increases the size of the market, not just the way in which it is apportioned. All the while, the folk who are drawn in are the young, the impressionable and the impoverished—the very groups on whom the lion's share of our public health effort should surely be focused.
  The Smee report of 1992, among others, provided compelling evidence that tobacco advertising increases smoking overall. This is not the place to enter into a detailed appraisal of the criticisms, notably by the Henley Marketing Group and the Institute of Economic Affairs, which were subsequently levelled at Smee. Suffice it to say that many of them were semantic. Any study of this sort will have its detractors, and it would be extraordinary, given the highly charged nature of the field, if the Smee report were not controversial.

  757
  The Opposition, while supporting the aim of reducing deaths from tobacco, have proposed a reasoned amendment, and their position is fair and honourable. Indeed, we must admit that a ban on advertising might actually increase the level of tobacco consumption as consumers are deprived of the attendant health warnings. This was suggested by Stewart in his investigation of OECD countries, but sadly his study failed to attain statistical significance.
  Nevertheless, given the element of doubt, a sunset clause may be a prudent compromise. Indeed, with other hon. Members I recently argued for such a thing in Committee and in the House in respect of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill. We did so because we felt that although action was needed, the evidence base was insufficiently robust to legislate, without qualification given the swingeing restriction of individual liberty that the Bill would introduce. In this case the restriction on individual liberty does not apply in the same way and the evidence base is much more compelling.
  A sunset clause that anticipates proof or otherwise of the effectiveness of intended legislation at some future date supposes such a dramatic effect that it could be teased out from the veritable soup of variables that impact on tobacco consumption. The Government have estimated a 2.5 per cent. reduction and the saving of 3,000 lives a year, and the World Bank more than doubles those figures. If that were to happen, no doubt we could say with a high degree of confidence that the measure we are debating today was the cause of the improvement and we would all be delighted. But it could be that a smaller, if important, number of lives are saved, and that would make a sunset clause appraisal much more difficult.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill forms the core of his strategy for addressing smoking. I hope that that is not the case because I feel that it will not have a big impact on tobacco consumption in this country, but I hope that it will help a little. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for giving me some top cover, and I am happy to follow his lead tonight.
  9.28 pm
  Tim Loughton: This has been a very good debate, often heated but very informative. It has been characterised by an enormous number of confessions from ex-smokers, nearly all on the Back Benches.
  Perhaps none was more shocking than the virgin confession from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who had not admitted to his parents that he had smoked at an early age. It was nearly as shocking as his confession that he was also a new romantic in his youth. He established a link between smoking and alcoholism by saying that the tokens that he kept from the cigarette packets that he bought went towards cheap whisky glasses. We had confessions too from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), whom we always suspected of having been a teenage smoker. In his case, he said, he was cocking a snook at authority.
  The debate has been characterised by a sense of deja vu because the Bill has been round the block several times, both in this House and in another place, where it was fully debated. The only difference now is that, after the general election, the Government appeared to lack the courage of their convictions and had to be forced into this measure by Lord Clement-Jones.
  758
  I remind the right hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who accused the Opposition of wrecking the measure, that the general election was called a year early. With a majority of more than 170, it was entirely in the Government's power to get the Bill passed if they had been fully committed to it. I may differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the emphasis of the argument, but he put it succinctly when he said that it is a strange set of priorities to include in the Queen's Speech the Hunting Bill, but not something that Government Members keep telling us is an important measure. It is rich for the Secretary of State to begin his speech by claiming that the Government are now delivering on their election promise—five years late, I must add.
  The measure was thoroughly debated in the House of Lords. Debate covered whether the minutiae of sniffing should be included in clause 1 and the relative safety of passive snuff sniffing. Members also queried whether they would be able to wear a tee-shirt with the logo, "I love to kiss men who smoke cigarettes" without falling foul of a prosecution for promoting smoking.
  Like their lordships' debate, ours has been characterised by detailed contributions on the perils of smoking and its implications for our health. We heard moving contributions from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who spoke about her experiences as a nurse, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), who discussed statistics relevant to his own constituency. However, he let the cat out of the bag when he ended by saying that the measure would not be hugely successful in attacking smoking.
  As a confirmed non-smoker who has battled constantly but unsuccessfully with a father who has been addicted to the foul weed for the past 50 years or so, I share many of the concerns that have been expressed and agree that smoking is a foul pursuit, both for the person engaged in the activity and people in the vicinity forced to share the smoker's air space. Both sides of the House are agreed on that, but the Bill has nothing to do with banning smoking altogether or outlawing tobacco. Some say that if the Government, let alone the Liberal Democrats, are to be consistent, they should go the whole hog and ban tobacco products altogether, but that is an extremely regressive anti-libertarian step that I and, I am sure, most of my hon. Friends would not support.
  In the Bill, we are dealing with whether it is helpful or legitimate to ban the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, and the extent and definition of such a ban. The most important aspects of the debate are whether the Bill will effectively lead to a reduction in tobacco consumption, especially among minors; whether a ban could have the reverse effect of giving rise to increased consumption because manufacturers would turn to other marketing measures such as price sensitivity to compensate for the absence of advertising; and whether the Bill will make no difference at all, in which case we may ask why we are spending valuable parliamentary time on it when other legislation is being squeezed out.
  I therefore approach the Bill with a genuinely open mind, albeit with an in-built libertarian scepticism towards yet more legislation which threatens to swamp our citizens with yet more regiments of state-registered nannies peering into our cigarette packets, our newsagents, our magazines

  759
  and our post, and censoring our advertising hoardings. Such a measure has been introduced by a Government keen to tell people what not to do, rather than liberate people from yet more regulations—a point well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). If we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bill will lead to a net reduction in the number of smokers, especially teenagers, and a reduction in overall consumption, it will merit our support. However, no such incontrovertible evidence has been produced.
  Evidence such as the Smee report in 1992 or "Curbing the Epidemic" in 1998 is inconclusive, gives rise to many questions and can be matched by other reports with contrary conclusions. It should not be forgotten that in the four countries that have banned tobacco advertising outright in the past 30 years—Finland, Sweden, Norway and Holland—the per capita consumption of cigarettes is higher in all cases than in the United Kingdom, which can boast a 37 per cent. fall in tobacco consumption and a 40 per cent. fall in smoking prevalence. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) gave the example of Finland, but consumption there since tobacco advertising was banned in 1978 has fallen to 59.1 per cent compared with the UK, where it is down to 57.2 per cent. In Norway, it has gone the other way since the ban in 1975. It has increased from 91.7 per capita to 114.5. The record in the UK is hardly bettered anywhere in the world. That is the result of voluntary agreements and regulation between Government and the tobacco industry, rather than of blanket banning of advertising and promotion.
  Of course, we all want consumption further to decrease. That is why the Opposition support a reasoned amendment that challenges the absence of clear and sound evidence on which to base the Bill, which concentrates exclusively on using the untested club of an outright ban while other more pressing measures to reduce tobacco smuggling are completely ignored.
  Last year, the Government cut the resources that they spend on campaigning against smoking. The advertising budget was cut from £8.97 million to £7.79 million, at a time when the Government's total advertising bill increased enormously, and on causes rather less beneficial to the public interest.
  In the unlikely event that the House is unswayed by the forceful arguments of those on the Opposition Front Bench and my right hon. and hon. Friends, we shall seek in Committee to add a sunset clause to the Bill if the measures so trumpeted by Labour Members turn out to be more of an article of faith than a tangible improvement in outcomes. Unlike the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, I hope to see more sunset clauses in legislation, especially when we deal with the untried and the unscientifically proven.
  Many questions are outstanding. We shall table detailed amendments in Committee so that we can scrutinise the supposed evidence on which the Government base their claims. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall make some progress.
  760
  The Government refused to address the EU notification issue. They may well find themselves in a mess.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham raised the important issue of brand awareness, which was not touched upon by Labour Members.
  Mr. Barron: As I said in my speech, nine years ago the then Deputy Prime Minister, the then right hon. Member for Henley, Mr. Heseltine, favoured a total ban on tobacco advertising. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Heseltine was as wrong as he thinks Labour Members are today?
  Tim Loughton: One member of a Government does not constitute a complete refutation of the points that we have been making. Labour Members know that they will not have 100 per cent. support of some of their measures. The right hon. Gentleman should know that, given the experience of the Government over the past five years, during which more than one Member has actively voted against many of their measures.
  The greatest fear is that if advertising is banned, the recourse of tobacco manufacturing companies will be to compete on price, starting with savings of £130 million from their advertising budgets. Tobacco companies will not pack up and go home if we enact the Bill. It is clear from the Government's research that pricing has a significant correlation with consumption.
  It is right to tax as a deterrent, and it is a legitimate way of raising revenue. It is well documented that that continued through the 1990s until the tolerance threshold was reached. That coincided with the abolition of duty free and the opening up of the single market to alcohol and tobacco products. Despite all the warnings, however, the Government have been largely complacent about that. The explosion in smuggling since 1997 has led to an increase in total consumption of cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco of more than 5 per cent. It is estimated that 22 per cent. of all cigarettes and 70 per cent. of hand-rolled tobacco are smuggled.
  Increasingly, these products end up being flogged from car boots outside school playgrounds to those whom we are most trying to deter from smoking, from completely unregulated car boot sales or from pubs, contrary to the statements made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who thinks that they are not frequented by teenage girls.
  After all the progress that was made up to 1997, we have seen a reversal of more than 5 per cent. in combating smoking. However, the Government predict that the Bill will result in a 2.5 per cent. reduction in smoking. There is no evidence for that. We know that it is an arbitrary figure. The Smee report anticipated—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—a net fall in consumption of between zero and 5 per cent. The Bill is just as likely to have zero impact as it to cause a 5 per cent. fall. That was admitted in the regulatory impact assessment in the explanatory notes to the Bill.
  Price cutting is a major concern, but there are also implications for the ability to convey health information about less harmful brands of cigarettes. All tobacco products are harmful, but for the confirmed and irrecoverable smoker, like my father, lower tar cigarettes are better than higher tar. In the future other innovations

  761
  will no doubt come about which will lessen, though not eradicate, the effects of smoking, but there will be no way that those can be marketed without breaking the law.
  I am all for making the warnings of the hazards of smoking bigger, bolder and more grotesque. Let us have hoardings, paid for by the tobacco companies, with the words "Smoking makes you die a slow and lingering death" occupying three quarters of the entire poster, and the obscure lacerated purple silk design that is the advertisement relegated to a corner. Let us swamp cigarette packets with skull and crossbones and photographs of cancerous lungs. After all, the £130 million that the industry spends compares with the sum of less than £8 million spent by the Government on smoking cessation.
  The Government have made no attempt since 1997 to engage in dialogue with the industry about tightening further the terms of the voluntary agreement, be it on the terms of reference of advertisements and their location, the nicotine content or additional measures to clamp down on under-age sales. I would have sympathy with any such measure. Instead, we have a blanket proposal to ban advertising and promotion which leaves many questions unanswered and more pressing issues unaddressed.
  I was impressed with the mention by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) of the role of product placement and the fact that celebrities with fags in their hand are worth a thousand billboards.
  Many questions have not been resolved. What have the Government achieved since the international summit on smoking in July 1997? What action is being taken to end the absurd situation whereby the EU tobacco scheme spends £600 million on subsidising tobacco production, more than three quarters of which is produced in Italy and Greece, with the latter presumably protected by the Greek legal system threatening a three-year jail sentence for anyone in an anorak and brandishing a camera caught within 100 yds of a tobacco field?
  Exactly what proportion of smuggled cigarettes is intercepted by Customs, and how many real criminals have been prosecuted? What progress has been achieved by the tobacco taskforce in helping sports find alternative sources of revenue, and why has it not met since October 1999?
  Those are all important considerations that are not addressed by the Bill. What we need are effective measures that will not just talk the talk about reducing tobacco prevalence among young people, but walk the walk and encourage a comprehensive mix of measures to tackle the problem at its roots. The Bill is a limited attempt at that. The Government have failed to produce a convincing evidence-based approach. Nothing would delight me more than proper comprehensive measures that would really reduce cigarette take-up and make the job of tobacco companies more difficult, but the Bill is not one.
  Yet again, the Government have opted for a soft target and come up with another gimmick which, like the latest onslaught on parents of young hooligans, may look good for the headlines for a few days ahead of elections, but does little to address the underlying problem. We in the Opposition are not so easily taken in and I urge hon. Members to vote for the reasoned amendment.
  9.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): We have had a largely thoughtful debate on an important issue. In the end it is
  762
  about saving lives, and we should not forget that. Many of those who spoke today have worked hard for many years on smoking-related issues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who gave a powerful account of the strategy of the tobacco industry for many years. I pay tribute to his work on the White Paper "Smoking Kills" and on launching the Government's strategy on smoking.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) set out the impact of tobacco advertising on children and argued that it is inconceivable that advertising aimed at 18-year-olds would not affect 14-year-olds as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spoke about 50 years of evidence. I pay tribute to the work of his Committee in expanding and adding to that body of evidence, particularly on the intentions of the industry with regard to advertising.
  I welcome the speech by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I wish that he had been successful in his attempts to ban tobacco advertising 20 years ago. It might have saved all of us an awful lot of time, as well as saving lives in the meantime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) spoke about smoking and pregnancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) spoke about the attitudes of children and young people in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) referred to the impact of smoking on asthma. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said that we should take away the oxygen of publicity from smoking. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) referred to deaths in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) spoke of the importance of protecting the freedom of children and young people.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) gave an apparently philosophical speech on the nature of liberty, but with respect, it was really a smokescreen and he avoided many of the important issues relating to why his party is choosing to ignore the strong views of the medical profession. I shall return in a moment to many of the points that he made.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. May I put it to her that she is living in a slightly surreal world? The real problem with tobacco smoking is smuggling. Three years ago, one in seven cigarettes were smuggled. Today, the figure is nearer one in five, yet the Government go on pushing up duty year in, year out, as they have done in the Budget. That will merely encourage more and more smuggling.
  Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman cared about smuggling, he might have been present to discuss it during the debate. Frankly, the smuggling issue is a red herring. This is not an either/or question. Of course, we should have both action on smuggling and action to prevent tobacco advertising.
  The hon. Members for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) protested about freedom. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) claimed that the voluntary code was tough—I wish. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) gave a long list of red herrings, including an example involving a photographer in Greece.

  763
  The hon. Member for Oxford. West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) supported the Bill, which is good, but I have to say that his remarks about smoking were probably the most whingey that I have heard for ages in response to a policy with which somebody agrees, even a Liberal Democrat. Faced with a Government who are for the first time in history providing smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban on the NHS, way ahead of most other countries, in what has been a massive change over the past five years, what is his response? It is to complain that we introduced the policy in health action zones. Yes, and we were right to do so, because those are the areas where people are on the lowest incomes and smoking prevalence is highest. We have now extended that smoking cessation approach across the country, but it was right to introduce it in health action zones first.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I must tell the Minister that I do not feel chastened by her remarks, because they still reflect some complacency on an issue that she understands is very important. Although the Government have done well, they could have done more by making the therapies available throughout the country to all smokers, not just in a few selected areas.
  Yvette Cooper: Yes, which is why nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban are available on prescription for people across the NHS—and it is right that they should be.
  Many Opposition Members seemed to suggest that smoking prevalence had increased in the past few years, whether because of smuggling or something else. That is simply not true. Smoking prevalence fell among adults from 1948 to 1994, and then stopped falling. It then increased until 1996 and has fallen again since then, to 27 per cent. Among under-16s, it increased from 1988 to 1996, from 8 to 13 per cent., and last year it was down to 10 per cent. again. Among 16 to 19-year-olds, it increased from 27 to 31 per cent. between 1992 and 1998—the very period in which the Conservatives were trumpeting their voluntary restrictions on advertising—while the latest figures for 2000 show it dropping again, to 29 per cent. Even among 15-year-old girls—many hon. Members spoke about young girls—it rose from 1988 to 1996, but has fallen since then, from 33 per cent. in 1996 to 25 per cent. last year.
  It is right to say that smoking rates are still too high, but 70 per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up. We think that those rates should come down, but that is why we disagree with the Opposition's view that voluntary agreements are sufficient. We need this ad ban and we need further support for people who want to give up smoking.
  Dr. Fox: As the Minister says, over a long period we achieved great reductions in tobacco consumption and smoking prevalence rates—37 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively. Of the three strands of policy—health education, price mechanism and restriction of advertising—which contributed in what proportion to that reduction?
  Yvette Cooper: All three are likely to have played a role, which is why all three are important parts of the
  764
  strategy. As the hon. Gentleman said, it can be difficult to separate out the impact of the different factors. That is exactly why a sunset clause is a load of rubbish and would not work. It is impossible precisely to determine the impact of individual factors on smoking rates, yet the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce a sunset clause that would reject an advertising ban if smoking rates went up, despite the fact that that could be due to one of many different factors. An advertising ban could be all that will keep rates down, but he wants to get rid of it because of the other factors involved.
  Dr. Fox: The Minister's argument is very much in line with the points that we made. However, the Secretary of State said earlier that the advertising ban was not only the most important factor in reducing prevalence, but that it will be the "core" of anti-smoking policy. There can be only one core.
  Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend made it clear that this is one part of an important strategy. The Government have done more than any Government in this country's history to provide support for smokers who want to give up, which plays a vital part in bringing smoking rates down.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) tried to persuade us that he had significant legal and technical objections to the Bill—first, that it was not comprehensive enough to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. If he can identify a loophole that we have missed, I assure him that we will strive hard to close it in Committee, to ensure that the Bill is as comprehensive as he would like.
  His second concern, voiced by other hon. Members, was that the Bill is notifiable. Our view remains that it is not notifiable. We have notified it without prejudice, but that is no reason not to continue to legislate. Other countries have done that, and so shall we.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the common agricultural policy regime. We strongly disapprove of tobacco subsidies—a view that is shared on both sides of the House—and we shall continue to argue against them and to oppose them whenever we have the opportunity.
  Some hon. Members referred to sponsorship. The Bill sets out the policy as agreed with our European partners some years ago. We shall consult on the details in the course of the Bill's passage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly explained the position. The ban will be comprehensive: it will include billboards, coupons, sponsorship, free gifts, brand-sharing and the internet. That is as it should be.
  Much of the debate has been about freedom and individual rights. I strongly believe that people have a right to smoke. The hon. Member for Woodspring talked about freedom and informed choice. People have a right to smoke, but they also have a right to choose whether to smoke. Nothing in the Bill removes people's right to smoke. We must recognise that there is no comparable legal product in terms of harm caused and addictiveness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said, the addiction factor makes debates about freedom of choice rather more complicated. People have a right to smoke, but they also have a right to the chance to give up.
  Smoking is addictive. Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up, and giving up can be hard. People therefore have a right not to be pressurised by

  765
  manipulative, seductive advertising into starting smoking at an impressionable age. They have a right not to be bombarded with advertisements and free gifts when they are trying to give up.
  I support people's right to smoke, but I do not support the tobacco industry's right to spend £100 million of the profits it gains from addiction to promote its product and try to hook new smokers. That is what opposition to the Bill is about. It is about maintaining tobacco advertising—not to protect individuals' freedom, but to protect the right of a big corporate body to use its considerable financial muscle to promote a product that kills. The Bill will not prevent journalists from commenting on smoking and tobacco products, nor writers and artists from writing about them, but it will stop them being paid by the tobacco industry to do so.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring set out the traditional, right-wing libertarian view that any action by Government is a restriction on freedom. In the real world, many people, especially children, depend on the Government to protect their rights and freedoms. In the real world, power matters: the power of the tobacco industry to use its profits to promote its product on billboard, leaflets and giveaways. That power is considerable. Set against that is the power of an impressionable 13-year-old girl, whose health and life may depend on the ban. I do not believe that we should protect tobacco advertising and the interests of the tobacco industry. That may be the Conservative view of freedom; it is not mine.
  Dr. Fox: If the ban is such an absolute principle, why did the Government offer an exemption to Formula 1?
  Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's position has been to ensure that sport has an appropriate time to make transitions and find other forms of sponsorship. We want not to hurt sport, but to ensure that we have a comprehensive ban on sponsorship and advertising.
  Conservative Members have consistently opposed a ban. They did that when they were in government and when they were in Europe. They are trying to block it now. Let us be clear: the ban would have been in place this time last year if the Conservatives had not blocked it. It would have been in place if the tobacco industry had not blocked it in the European Court. We know why the industry is against the Bill; it has profits at stake.
  Why is the Conservative party so determined to block the Bill? Why are Conservative Members so keen to protect the tobacco industry's interests? Evidence has often been mentioned in the debate. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend set out much of the evidence for the links between tobacco advertising and smoking.
  Mr. Connarty: Before the Minister moves too far from discussion of time, will she give a commitment on when the Bill will become law? Will she assure us that it will not be delayed by the discussions of the directive that are taking place in Europe? That directive would have been introduced in 2001 if, as the Minister said, the previous Government had not blocked it.
  Yvette Cooper: I assure my hon. Friend that we had decided to introduce the Bill in this Parliament and not to wait for the European decisions.
  766
  It is curious that Conservative Members want to claim that the decline in smoking since 1971 is somehow due to the wonderful voluntary ban and the restrictions on advertising, while also claiming that introducing a complete ban would be ineffective. That position is inconsistent.
  It is clear that tobacco advertising is targeted at young people. Brands are explicit about targeting 18 to 24-year-olds with aspirational, sexy products. British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco and Philip Morris said last September that they would keep their adverts in publications with more than 75 per cent. of adult readers and their sponsorship for events with more than 75 per cent. adults in attendance. What about the other 25 per cent.? Are they supposed to shut their eyes, turn the page and avert their gaze from the sponsoring logos? The tobacco industry claims that it is all right to expose children to tobacco advertising as long as many more adults are exposed to it at the same time.
  Conservative Members argued for a sunset clause. That is purely a wrecking tactic by which no one should be convinced. It means that if smoking rates were affected by a wide range of factors, they would want to get rid of the ban and make matters worse. It is like banning BCG vaccinations because of a worldwide resurgence in tuberculosis.
  We should remember what out discussions are all about. Smoking kills 120,000 people every year. The tobacco industry makes profits from products that kill. Its advertising and promotion reach not only young people but children. If the tobacco industry believed that the ban would make no impact on smoking prevalence, why is it fighting it so hard? After all, it would save £100 million from marketing budgets. Tobacco companies oppose an advertising ban because they fear that it would cut their sales and profits.
  Why are the Tories so keen to back the tobacco industry? Why are they so keen to oppose a measure that health professionals support? Smoking is the biggest cause not only of preventable death but of health inequalities. Those on low incomes are far more likely to smoke. They have most to lose from continuing tobacco advertising in this country. By contrast, those who have most to gain are those who share in the profits of the tobacco industry.
  There are winners and losers from a tobacco advertising ban. Let us be clear about the side on which Conservative Members have decided to stay tonight. The Opposition have set out their priorities; we have set out ours. The choice is between the interests of the tobacco industry and public health and the health of the next generation.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 349.

  Division No. 220]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Bacon, Richard

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Barker, Gregory

  Burnside, David

  Baron, John

  Butterfill, John

  767

  Cameron, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Conway, Derek

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cran, James

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fox Dr Liam

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Francois, Mark

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Gray James

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grayling, Chris

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Greenway, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swire, Hugo

  Syms, Robert

  Hendry, Charles

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hoban, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Walter, Robert

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Leigh, Edward

  Wiggin, Bill

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilshire, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lidington, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barrett, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Battle, John

  Allan, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Allen, Graham

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Benn, Hilary

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  Austin, John

  Betts, Clive

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blackman, Liz

  Baird, Vera

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Borrow, David

  768

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Bryant, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cairns, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chidgey, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Havard, Dai

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heath, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Holmes, Paul

  Cox, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  David, Wayne

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

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

  Jamieson, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Joyce, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doughty, Sue

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Efford, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lammy, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Laws, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  769

  Levitt, Tom

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Lloyd, Tony

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Luke, Iain

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lyons, John

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rendel, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  MacDougall, John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  McFall, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ross, Ernie

  McKechin, Ann

  Roy, Frank

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Salmond, Alex

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salter, Martin

  McWalter, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mallaber, Judy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mann, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marris, Rob

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simon Siôn

  Marshal-Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacgui (Redditch)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Southworth, Helen

  Moore, Michael

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Morgan, Julie

  Spink, Bob

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stringer, Graham

  Norris, Dan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Oaten, Mark

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor Mathew (Truro)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Linda

  Todd, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pike, Peter

  Touhig, Don

  Pond, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Price, Adam

  Tynan, Bill

  770

  Vaz, Keith

  Winnick, David

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wishart, Pete

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woodward, Shaun

  Watson, Tom

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Webb, Steve

  Wray, James

  Weir, Michael

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp.

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

TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]:

TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Committal
  (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Programming of proceedings
  (2) All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any other messages from the Lords) may be programmed.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  (3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14th May 2002.
  (4) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  (5) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
  (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
  (7) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 140.

  Division No. 221]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allan, Richard

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  771

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atkins, Charlotte

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

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Baird, Vera

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Banks, Tony

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barnes, Harry

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barrett, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Battle, John

  Doran, Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Doughty, Sue

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Hilary

  Edwards, Huw

  Bennett, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  Berry, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Best, Harold

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blackman, Liz

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Borrow, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flynn, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Galloway, George

  Bryant, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cairns, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chidgey, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Havard, Dai

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Heath, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Holmes, Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Hope, Phil

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Illsley, Eric

  David, Wayne

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Davidson, Ian

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  772

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Joyce, Eric

  O'Hara, Edward

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Olner, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Owen, Albert

  Khabra, Piara S

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kidney, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Perham, Linda

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Picking, Anne

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lammy, David

  Pike, Peter

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pond, Chris

  Laws, David

  Pope, Greg

  Laxton, Bob

  Pound, Stephen

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lepper, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Levitt, Tom

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purchase, Ken

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Purnell, James

  Linton, Martin

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lucas, Ian

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Luke, Iain

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lyons, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie

  MacDougall, John

  Roy, Frank

  McFall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  MacShane, Denis

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mann, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marris, Rob

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simon, Siôn

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

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

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Miliband, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Squire, Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moore, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Julie

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  773

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Weir, Michael

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  White, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tipping Paddy

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Todd Mark

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winnick, David

  Tounig, Don

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wishart, Pete

  Woodward, Shaun

  Truswell, Paul

  Woolas, phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wray, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tynan, Bill

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Tom

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Watts, David

  Mr. Fraser Kemp.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bacon, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baldry, Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Barker, Gregory

  Hermon, Lady

  Baron, John

  Hoban, Mark

  Bellingham, Henry

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Brady, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burnside, David

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cameron, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran James

  Luff, Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dodds, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Francois, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James

  Prisk, Mark

  Grayling, Chris

  Randall, John

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  774

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trend, Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Selous, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Simmonds, Mark

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Smyth, Rev Martn (Belfast S)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wiggin, Bill

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Bob

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Swire, Hugo

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Julian Brazier and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Desmond Swayne.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
  That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Representation Order Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  FOOD HYGIENE
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10427/00, four draft Council Regulations and a draft Council Directive relating to food hygiene, and No. 15475/01, Commission Communication withdrawing one of the draft Council Regulations relating to food hygiene, and supports the Government's aim of securing effective, proportionate legislation throughout the food chain to protect public health in relation to food.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.
Ordered,

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  PENSIONS
  That the Occupational Pensions Schemes (Minimum Funding Requirements and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 380), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 648), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
PETITION

  New Hereford Hospital
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: Having presented more than 20,000 signatures to Downing street last week, it is a great pleasure to present this petition to the House now:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the concerned residents of Herefordshire.
  Sheweth
  That the New Hereford Hospital is 120 beds short of the number required for it to operate at maximum efficiency.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable house will urge the Government to bring forward the 2007 hospital review to this year so that the desperate situation can be remedied.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Social Service (Surrey)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  10.28 pm
  Sue Doughty: I have requested this debate because many of my constituents face problems in getting the care that they need in Surrey. First, however, I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work undertaken on behalf of the people of Surrey by those who work in adult social services, their colleagues in the national health service and those in the care sector.
  We are indeed fortunate that, despite the enormously high cost of living in the area, those people work so effectively with the scarce resources that we have, not only to provide the services that they are required to perform, but to ensure that the money is spent as wisely as possible. Their work has already been assessed by the social services inspectorate as making significant progress against Government targets. However, from time to time their best efforts are not enough, and people are badly let down because the needs in Surrey are greater than the resources we have.
  It is important that before I go into specific issues, I make the Minister aware of some of the good things that we have been doing in Surrey social services. We have not been allowing a problem to develop in the hope that the Government will bail us out. Far from it: in social services We have secured the country's first and largest private finance initiative contract, with the transfer of 17 former county council homes for older people to Anchor Trust, and seven other homes to Care UK to be developed as specialist centres dealing with mental frailty in older people. Joint developments with district and borough councils have supported developments for older people, and a learning disability partnership board. In my constituency, Guildford borough council provides day centres for older people to relieve Surrey of that load. Guildford has also implemented ground-breaking intermediate care schemes—"step up" and "step down"—to provide temporary sheltered accommodation while changes are made to people's homes, so that they can return after hospitalisation. Time forbids me to mention the many other initiatives on which great progress has been made.
  The Minister will recall that I briefly raised this issue in an earlier debate. Although I was pleased with the "cash for change" funding that the county received to reduce the number of delayed discharges, I was concerned that we were not yet out of the wood. The large increase in Surrey county council's taxes had Liberal Democrat support, because we are all concerned about the major funding problems that Surrey faces. The people of Surrey have experienced a staggering 11.4 per cent. increase, 5.4 per cent. of which is for social services alone.
  We have no difficulty with the provision of national funding for areas where need is greatest, but our social services funding has fallen below the acceptable level. Care costs are inevitably high in an area where property is expensive. Our unit cost of delivery is high, and we need nursing homes to stay in business. Housing costs are also a major issue, as they contribute to employment costs as well as job vacancies. The Government have allocated money for key worker housing, but demand is massive

  777
  and, understandably, we keep losing staff. Agencies and homes are unable to bring in people from abroad, because the qualification levels needed for many posts are below that for which work permits would be allocated. High land and property costs also contribute to the problem. To build care home capacity, we need business planning. Building new care homes is almost impossible at the moment however, as land owned by the health service is being sold off at commercial rates, out of reach of the care sector. Sadly, in Surrey it is a case of selling off the family silver.
  Staff vacancy rates also give us cause for concern. For care managers, the rate is 15 per cent.; for occupational therapists, it is 16.5 per cent.; and for learning disability residential services care staff, it is 34 per cent. The average vacancy rate for residential care staff for older people is 31 per cent., but in some homes it is 51 per cent. In Surrey, domiciliary care assistants work long and hard to do as much for their clients as possible, often finishing off in their own time, rather than leaving someone in distress. However, the average age of those who do such work is rising, despite training efforts at local colleges.
  The Minister will be aware that Surrey hospitals have some of the worst problems with delayed discharges in the country, leading, of course, to unacceptable waits in accident and emergency departments, and cancelled operations. The "cash for change" funding has helped with rebuilding capacity, and in the next year Surrey aims to support an additional 120 people who might otherwise have experienced delays in being discharged from hospital. There is much yet to be done, however. Fee levels must be raised if we are to purchase places for those who need nursing home care. Meeting Government targets to reduce delayed discharges is presenting us with a real challenge.
  I hope that the Minister can tell me how patients currently funded through "cash for change" will be funded when the scheme ends.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. The Government seem to be focusing on areas traditionally regarded as being in greater need than Surrey. However, does she agree that, if people in areas such as Surrey are unable to access good quality public services, the consensus that underpins provision of those services is in danger of breaking down?
  Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I agree. We have grave concerns about the future of some of those services.
  We welcome the additional funding for Surrey that was announced after the Budget, but we are unclear about how much it will really be. The basis of the calculation is 6 per cent., but of which level of funding? Surrey's funding has fallen over the years and to enable wise planning with care providers and the health service, we need to know how much that money will be in real terms. The care business is in crisis in Surrey. We are in competition with London boroughs to get nursing home accommodation, and they have far more money at their disposal. The competition for places with self-funding people is also a constant problem for those who cannot fund themselves.
  We share the Government's concern that no one should receive care that falls below acceptable levels, and providers are working hard to meet the new standards.
  778
  However, inevitably, prices will need to rise to cover costs and Surrey will need to increase the rates it pays. It is a fact that fees are between 20 per cent. and 100 per cent. more than Surrey can realistically afford to pay, and any increase in fees that the council agrees to pay leads to a reduction in the number of people whom it can support.
  Finding places that are accessible for family visits and suitable for the individual is a tortuous process. Improvements have been made through the work done by the Surrey ambulance service, which has developed a website listing homes, vacancies and prices. It helps families through some of the process, but Surrey can only pay fees of £450 a week for residents admitted from 1 April this year and £380 a week for existing residents. On 16 April, the most recent date for which I have figures, there were only four beds in nursing homes at less than £450 a week, but the Royal Surrey county hospital alone has 56 delayed discharges, many of whom are waiting for those beds. We cannot reduce those numbers in this financial climate. We are getting one of the lowest SSA settlements in the country, but facing some of the highest costs.
  In the meantime, our acute hospitals are regularly featured at the wrong end of lists of those with delayed discharges and delayed operations. We need to gain a greater understanding of what hospitals will charge social services for having people in beds. At the moment, there is the ludicrous possibility of the Royal Surrey county hospital seeking to recover its costs at £200 a night, when Surrey social services does not have resources to place people in the more expensive nursing homes that nevertheless cost less than the hospital beds. The money runs out, and if it is paid to hospitals it cannot be used for nursing homes. If, through no fault of the hospital, patients cannot be discharged from hospital, will the council be required to pay fines from money that it does not have?
  Provision to fund places for those with learning disabilities is also a major issue. Several long-stay hospitals in Surrey have closed, resulting in many people—far more than the national average—living in residential care in the county.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Lady mentioned facilities that have closed. Does she agree that throughout the county, private sector care homes are closing because the people who have run them successfully for many years have chosen, when faced with huge new additional bureaucracy from this Government, to close down completely rather than try to wrestle with it? Does she agree that the Government's policies have directly led to a substantial reduction in the number of care home beds, which is only making the delayed discharges problem—the bed-blocking—worse?
  Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I agree that that additional bureaucracy and work is driving people out of business. Indeed, only today, I spoke to the manager of Surrey Care Homes, the umbrella organisation, and he made that point to me. The owners do want to do a good job and to stay in business, but they are finding that the climate is against them.
  We have many problems with the places for people with learning disabilities. For example, demand for those places does not follow social need in the same way as

  779
  other problems. We have a very large number of people who need places with high costs, but we have a smaller amount of money to pay for them. We have problems with older parents caring for sons and daughters who should have other accommodation, but it does not exist. I can tell the Minister that Mencap has asked me to raise those concerns.
  Many people were on preserved rights which have now ceased, and Surrey has taken over the management of their funding. The Government revenue grant for Surrey is £14.429 million. That covers 1,200 people, of whom 700 are known to the council, and they are already having their fees topped up as Government funding is inadequate to cover the purpose stated, which included shortfall in fees and care assessment costs. A further 500 people are not currently known to social services.
  The transfer fund is estimated to be £100 million short. Care providers are already demanding an increase as the rates are not high enough to cover costs. That fee pressure is likely to be a further £1.5 million, but Surrey social services has calculated that if the preserved rights rates were allowed to escalate to the current market level of fees, that figure of £1.5 million would rise to £4.6 million. Not all the information is available because the Department for Work and Pensions has not provided details of the rates paid to individuals, so social services are still hacking through the details.
  We want to know how Surrey should deal with this problem. We want our people living in their own home for as long as possible, happy and healthy. To achieve that, and to avoid the problems that send people to hospital in the first place, more resources should be allocated to prevention. We need the total integration of health and social care, rather than costs shunting between providers, to nobody's benefit.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that she has recognised that Surrey is doing as much as it can out of its own resources but is prevented from reaching the minimum standards that are decent, let alone meeting its aspiration to be a top-performing local authority. I await her response.
  10.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on raising the very important matter of social services provision in Surrey. Like the Government, she is clearly keen to see high-quality health and social care provided for her constituents.
  The hon. Lady made much of her concern about social services funding in Surrey. The Government have already made a considerable investment in social services which has been growing substantially in real terms. Resources for personal social services have increased by 20.4 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03—an average real-terms increase of 3.1 per cent. per year. That compares with an average real-terms growth of less than 0.5 per cent. per year between 1992–93 and 1996–97 under the previous Conservative Government.
  Surrey has benefited from that investment. Last year, it received an increase of 6.4 per cent, in its total personal social services resources, compared with a national average increase of 4.7 per cent. This year, Surrey's
  780
  personal social services standard spending assessment will increase by a further 4.6 per cent., its carers grant by a further 21 per cent. and its children's grant by a further 12.8 per cent. Increases of that size demonstrate the Government's commitment to social care, throughout the country and in Surrey.
  The hon. Lady suggested that when it comes to the standard spending assessment formula, Surrey is hard done by. I am sure that she is aware that the Government are reviewing the SSA formula. The Department of Health has already presented to representatives of local government some of the research that we have commissioned for this process. During the summer, consultation will take place on a range of options for possible changes to the formula, and I am sure that Surrey will want to make its views known. However, I note that Surrey's personal social services standard spending assessment per capita in 2000–01 was the same as that for comparator local authorities. So although I recognise the need for detailed consideration of the formula, we need to be clear about the basis on which that is being carried out.
  The hon. Lady raised particular concerns about older people's services.
  Mr. Hammond: For all the Minister says about the SSA and personal social services spending, does she believe that the funding available to Surrey county council is adequate to provide satisfactory levels of personal social services to the elderly in particular?
  Jacqui Smith: The Chancellor made the decisions that he did in the Budget last week because the Government believe that all local authorities, including Surrey, should get extra investment if they need it. Conservative Members voted against that Budget and it is a bit rich for them to turn up to an Adjournment debate to argue a case for which they were not willing to vote last week.
  The hon. Lady raised particular concerns about older people's services, and delayed discharges in particular. She is right that delayed discharges are bad not only for system but, most importantly, for older people themselves. That is why, last October, the Government announced a further £300 million of new funding for social care over two years. That is closely linked to the work of a strategic commissioning group to give greater direction to the commissioning of care for adults. Incidentally, that covers good practice in commissioning residential care for people with learning disabilities as well as focusing on the commissioning of care for older people.
  The group published the agreement on building capacity and partnership in care on 9 October, and we expect local social services and health authorities to adopt it. It will lead to real improvements in the planning and commissioning of services and ensure continuing good-quality care for those currently using such services.
  The funding was targeted on the 55 councils that have the most severe problems with providing a sufficient range of services in the community to allow people to leave hospital. That recognises some of the concerns that the hon. Lady outlined with respect to Surrey, which is one of the authorities that was targeted for extra support. The money was also to be used to stabilise the care home market, and there is evidence nationally of its being used to increase fees and to buy more places.
  Sue Doughty: I hope the Minister understands that Surrey has, with great reluctance, increased prices.

  781
  That was in response to the lack of beds and because care homes close when prices fall below a particular level. In addition, I hope the hon. Lady understands that the social services department has done much to work with care homes to ensure that there is ongoing provision. It has done that when the funding has allowed it, but the funding is finite.
  Jacqui Smith: Obviously, but the Government have increased funding and will increase it in future. We also need to ensure that the long-term commissioning activity at a local level between the private independent sector and the commissioners allows us both to maintain and to improve capacity.
  Of the £100 million available last year, Surrey county council's share was £2.4 million. This year, its allocation is £5.2 million. Those are significant sums, and the council's proposals aim to reduce the number of delayed transfers of care and to sustain the independent sector market. I understand that last year the council utilised its extra funds to provide more long-term residential and nursing home care packages. That allowed 163 people to be discharged from hospital whose discharge would otherwise have been delayed.
  The increased investment resulted in decreases in delayed discharge of 15 per cent. in the East Surrey health authority and 18 per cent. in the West Surrey health authority between 2 September last year and the end of the financial year. So the increased investment and the way in which it is being used by local authorities throughout the country and in Surrey has helped to deliver lower levels of delayed discharge.
  The hon. Lady also raised the issue of allowing people to remain independent in their own homes. I understand that the rate of households receiving intensive home care packages in Surrey is relatively low, although I am pleased that it increased by 8 per cent. between September 2000 and September 2001. That is an important trend throughout the country, because the people concerned and their families tell us that they want the choice of being independent in their own home. The fact that by September 2001 the number of people receiving intensive domiciliary care had increased by 6 per cent. compared with the previous year is an important sign of how the system is changing to provide the necessary capacity, particularly for older people.
  There is also increased capacity in intermediate care. Those important services are key to the prevention of some avoidable hospital admissions and allow a faster discharge for those who are admitted. Further strategic planning is required to ensure that development is carried out effectively, but we have already seen progress in intermediate care in the south-east, including Surrey. In the region as a whole, an additional £21.5 million has been invested in intermediate care since 1999–2000. In Surrey, that means that there are plans for 1,500 extra people to receive intermediate care compared with the figure for 1999–2000. Investment is making a difference in the provision of services for older people.
  The hon. Lady raised concerns about preserved rights. The changes that the Government have introduced from this month bring those residents within the existing community care arrangements. They will benefit from local council involvement in their care assessment, management and contract negotiations. The transfer
  782
  removes anxiety from those who were struggling to pay their fees under the old system, and it promotes independence, giving some people in residential care the opportunity to move to more suitable accommodation, such as sheltered housing.
  In 2002–03, councils are receiving £614 million in a special grant to meet the costs of their new responsibilities for that group of residents. As the hon. Lady said, Surrey county council will receive £14.429 million this year to fulfil its responsibilities. Out of the £614 million total, £86 million is to meet the shortfall and assessment costs. That is generous. Councils were already meeting many of the shortfall costs from their existing resources. Consultants Laing and Buisson and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested in a report that the cost to councils of assuming responsibility for the shortfalls would be less than the money that they were being given for that purpose.
  The hon. Lady also raised the important issue of support for people with learning disabilities. I am sure that she is aware that the White Paper "Valuing People" set down for the first time the sorts of services that people with learning disabilities should receive and, importantly, how they should be involved in decision making. People with learning disabilities will clearly benefit from extra health and social care investment, but they will also benefit from much better use of the £3 billion that is already spent on learning disability services throughout the country.
  The Government have recognised the need for development money to help to make the changes necessary to fulfil the aspirations set down in "Valuing People". That is why, this year, the learning disability development fund will be £20 million of capital and £22 million of revenue. Surrey has been allocated over £350,000 this year from revenue allocation alone to support priorities for service change. The hon. Lady made an important point about how we ensure that health and social care work together for the benefit of those who need the services, so I point out that that money needs to be spent as part of a pooled budget, emphasising the importance of partnership in ensuring good-quality services.
  In his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to put NHS finances on a sustained footing for the next five years and begin to reverse the decades of underfunding. For personal social services, the plans deliver annual average growth in real terms—the hon. Lady asked me whether this was a real-terms figure—of 6 per cent. from 2003–04 to 2005–06. That demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to social care. Details of the way in which the money will be allocated will be made available later this year, but the settlement puts health and social care on a much firmer footing. The people of Surrey will undoubtedly benefit, as will people throughout the country, from increased investment in social services. They will also benefit from other Government actions, including a recruitment campaign.
  Sue Doughty: I have listened with great interest to the Minister's figures. While I naturally welcome the increases, does she believe that they are adequate to cover the shortfall and the problems that I described? An

  783
  increase of far more than 6 per cent. is required to deal with delayed discharges, the rise in their number and the problems that we in Surrey face.
  Jacqui Smith: I have a relatively short time left, but it is no surprise that a Liberal Democrat Member should argue that a doubling of the annual real-terms increase in social services spending is still not enough.
  The new cash includes resources to cover the cost of hospital beds that are blocked needlessly as a result of delayed discharges. Councils will need to use the extra resources to expand care at home and ensure that all older
  784
  people are able to leave hospital once their treatment is completed and it is safe for them to do so. We will introduce stronger incentives to ensure that people do not have to wait so long to be discharged. Older people and other service users have the right to expect that local services work together as a coherent whole, as the hon. Lady outlined. We are moving in the right direction to a seamless service which, with the extra resources made available by the Government, ensures that people get the right care at the right time and in the right place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Harrier GR7
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the air defence capabilities of the Harrier GR7 are. [50953]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Harrier GR7 is optimised for offensive support operations, but possesses an air defence capability through its Sidewinder air to air missiles.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Indian Government concerning the sale of Royal Navy Sea Harriers; and if he will make a statement. [50964]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency has not entered into any talks with the Indian Government with regard to the sale of Sea Harriers. However, as part of its marketing strategy for the sale of these aircraft, the DSA will follow up all expressions of interest subject, of course, to normal export controls.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the air defence capabilities of the Harrier GR7 are. [52448]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Harrier GR7 is optimised for offensive support operations, but possesses an air defence capability through its Sidewinder Air to Air missiles.

  Fleet Air Arm
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft are in service with the Fleet Air Arm. [50955]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total current number of aircraft in service with the Fleet Air Arm is 295. This figure includes those aircraft operated by Fleet Air Arm personnel serving in Naval Air Squadrons within both Joint Force Harrier and the Joint Helicopter Command.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the threat to the United Kingdom from attack by weapons of mass destruction. [50956]

  Mr. Hoon
  As of today we assess that there is currently no direct threat of attack by weapons of mass destruction to the United Kingdom. We do, however, continue to monitor developments very closely, particularly as they might affect British forces deployed in other parts of the world.
  524W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the type of weapons of mass destruction that are most likely to be used by countries he has defined as of concern to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [52285]

  Mr. Hoon
  We monitor continuously the capabilities of countries which possess, or are seeking to acquire, weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver or use them. Currently we assess that none of the countries we are monitoring has the specific intention to use them against the United Kingdom. Should a direct threat materialise, its exact nature will depend on the capabilities of the country concerned and the political and military context in which it arises.

  Our assessment of the weapons of mass destruction programmes of a number of countries was included in our "Supplementary Memorandum to the House of Commons Defence Committee: The Ballistic Missile Threat" of 18 March 2002.

  Ordnance
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the production of ordnance in the UK. [50957]

  Dr. Moonie
  Royal Ordnance Defence, the UK's major producer of munitions to the armed forces, has been operating against a background of sharp decline in the world-wide demand for defence equipment over the last 15 years. Like any other commercial company competing in world markets, it has had to take the hard decisions necessary to optimise its manufacturing capacity to remain viable and competitive in this sector. The Ministry of Defence is aware that the company is currently conducting a manufacturing review, focusing particularly on its sites at Birtley, Bridgwater and Chorley.

  While the final result of this review is not yet known, I am able to inform the House that Royal Ordnance Defence has recently announced that it intends to pursue a consolidation option at the Birtley site. Although, regrettably, there will be some job losses over a period of years, the company expects that this option will secure the future of the site as part of its core business.

  They have also informed MOD that they intend to invest heavily in a number of sites across the United Kingdom. Royal Ordnance Defence are retaining expertise in the crucial areas of propellant charge design at Bishopton, ordnance engineering design at Leicester, and small arms ammunition design and manufacture at Radway Green near Crewe, as well as investing substantially in its filling, assembly and packaging plant at Glascoed. There is no doubt that the company does possess and plans to retain world-class research and development personnel and production facilities in the United Kingdom.

  Armed Forces (Retention)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to improve retention in the armed forces; and what progress has been made in the last 12 months to address the shortfall in numbers for each of the services. [50958]
  525W
  Mr. Ingram
  The achievement of manning balance is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. In particular we have introduced a number of initiatives aimed at improving retention. Although there are variations between the Services, the overall manning position is stabilising.

  Our aim is to achieve higher levels of retention through policies that genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the net inflow/outflow of trained service personnel was in 2001. [50966]

  Mr. Ingram
  The net inflow outflow of trained service personnel in 2001 is as follows:

  Number

  Service

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  Inflow

  2,844

  11,535

  3,005

  17,384

  Outflow

  4,026

  11,660

  4,018

  19,704

  Net Flow

  -1,182

  -125

  -1,013

  2,320

  Afghanistan
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK peacekeeping force in Kabul. [50959]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has led, and has made a substantial contribution to, the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul since its inception. Our troops have been widely praised for their work in helping the Interim Administration to maintain security and stability in Kabul as the Afghans begin the rebuilding of their shattered country.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the duties of British soldiers in Afghanistan are. [50962]

  Mr. Hoon
  British troops in Afghanistan have been carrying out both security assistance and combat tasks.

  The United Kingdom has led, and has made a substantial contribution to, the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul since its inception. Our troops have been widely praised for their work in helping the Interim Administration to maintain security and stability in Kabul as the Afghans begin the rebuilding of their shattered country.

  A battlegroup formed around 45 Commando Royal Marines has been deployed to Bagram to contribute to the international coalition's continuing operations to defeat the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO colleagues on the operations in Afghanistan. [50971]

  Mr. Hoon
  I continue to have regular discussions with my NATO colleagues about operations in Afghanistan. All members of the coalition are committed to the fight against international terrorism, and to supporting the Afghan Interim Administration as the Afghans begin the rebuilding of their country.
  526W
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air transport sorties in support of British forces' operations in the Afghanistan theatre have been flown in chartered Antonov heavy lift aircraft. [50973]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 18 April, there have been 95 direct and 23 indirect Antonov sorties in support of British forces' operations in the Afghanistan theatre.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British service personnel deployed in Afghanistan. [50974]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Brennan), at column 649.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being employed in Afghanistan to minimise the risk to British troops of friendly fire incidents. [52472]

  Mr. Hoon
  The planning for operations in Afghanistan included detailed work to establish a number of clear, reliable measures to minimise the risks of friendly fire incidents. All coalition forces operate in accordance with strict Rules of Engagement and British forces operate in their own area of responsibility with equipment to ensure that they have accurate positioning information. Additionally, individuals and vehicles are clearly marked using indicators that are visible by day and at night through night vision aids.

  There is also a close working relationship between coalition forces, with liaison officers placed at all levels in headquarters and in lower formations. Procedures to co-ordinate fire and air support have been established at the Coalition Combined Air Operations Centre and at Divisional and Brigade Headquarters and several lines of communications are also in place (including satellite-based equipment) to allow close co-ordination between headquarters, troops on the ground and aircraft to ensure deconfliction.

  Regular Army
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the trained strength of the regular Army was in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [50961]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is difficult to make direct comparison between Army strength figures for 1997 and 2001 as we now provide figures for Army strength incorporating UK Trained Personnel, the Full Time Reserve Service and Gurkhas for the last two years. Prior to this strength figures based on this definition were not available. I have therefore restricted my answer to UK Trained Army Personnel only. This stood at 97,812 as at 31 December 1997 and 96,373 as at 31 December 2001.

  Rules of Engagement
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on developing methods of distinguishing between enemy combatants and civilians in each year from 1997–98 to the latest year for which figures are available. [50963]

  Dr. Moonie
  Minimising non-combatant casualties is of course among our highest priorities whenever we are involved in military operations but it is not a discrete
  527W
  capability. It is the product of a wide range of different activities and approaches, and equipment based solutions. For example, it ranges from the assessment of strategic level intelligence for strike missions all the way through to training for sentry duty. There is therefore no simple figure available.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the Territorial Army is. [50960]

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the Territorial Army is. [509665]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 April 2002, the strength of the Territorial Army stood at 39,663 personnel, including those mobilised in support of operations.

  Iraq
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for military action in Iraq. [50968]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), at columns 664–65.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) current numbers of serving personnel of Defence Medical Services are. [50969]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 January 2002, there were 6,509 personnel in the regular Defence Medical Services against an operational and retained task requirement of 8,387. These figures exclude student nurses and other new entry trainees.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish an update of the strategic defence review relating to terrorism. [50970]

  Mr. Hoon
  I expect to be in a position to publish some conclusions from the work on a "New Chapter" to the Strategic Defence Review in the late spring or early summer.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the Defence Aviation Repair Agency work force. [50975]

  Mr. Ingram
  No forward manpower targets have been set to reduce the work force in the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA). However, DARA has reduced its work force year on year as a direct result of rationalisation initiatives and the introduction of new working practices. There has been no requirement for any compulsory redundancies as a result of any of these initiatives. In line with the assumptions made when it was established as a trading fund, the Agency will continue to pursue 528W
  efficiencies and improvements across its business and these may result in changes to the size and shape of the organisation in the future.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the suspension of courts-martial on the workings of military discipline. [50976]

  Mr. Ingram
  Army and Royal Air Force courts-martial scheduled to begin in the period immediately after 26 February were postponed in the light of the judgment on that day of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom. This was to enable those services to address the concern expressed in the judgment, about the potential for external influence over certain members of court martial panels. The Army and Royal Air Force have now followed the Royal Navy in including in Queen's Regulations a prohibition on reporting on court martial members for the performance of these duties. All three services have also included in Queen's Regulations a reminder that it is an offence to attempt to influence a member of a court martial.

  Army and Royal Air Force courts-martial resumed on 3 and 23 April respectively. The backlog of 54 Army and nine Royal Air Force trials that had been postponed should be cleared by the end of June. We regret the inconvenience to the accused and their representatives, and to witnesses, but the postponements have had only a marginal effect on the operation of the discipline system as a whole. Moreover it has been valuable to have clarified the position regarding the very proper independence of court martial members.

  MOD Guard Service
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the MOD Guard Service. [50977]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to its in-house guard force, which has provided first class unarmed protection to the Defence Estate for almost 10 years. The organisation of the MGS has recently been reviewed, and it has been decided, subject to consultation with the trade unions, to move to a centralised structure, under the direction of the Chief Constable, MOD Police, so as to provide a more efficient and effective unarmed guarding service.

  Air Defence
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the air defence of the United Kingdom. [50978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The task of air defence of the United Kingdom falls to the RAF, particularly RAF Strike Command. The UK continues to meet its commitment to NATO to preserve the integrity of our airspace using a combination of air surveillance radar and quick reaction aircraft. Those assets could also be used in a national capacity.

  Service Reductions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will be made in each year to 2012 by the decisions(a) to bring forward the withdrawal of (i) 5 squadron, (ii) the RN Sea Harriers and (iii) HMS Fearless and (b) to reduce (1) the state of readiness of HMS Sheffield and (2) the number of Nimrod aircraft on order. [49673]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to him on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 262W, 18 April 2002, Official Report, column 1078W, and 15 April 2002, Official Report, columns 712–13W. In the case of Sea Harrier decision, further to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 16 April 2002, Official Report, columns 823–34W, the estimated savings (net of the costs of the related upgrading of the Harrier GR7 to GR9) over the period 2002–03 to 2005–06 (the latest year for which we have accurate figures) are some £109 million. The net savings accruing from the current plan to hold HMS Sheffield at extended readiness between 2002 and 2004 are estimated to be some £28 million over the period 2002–03 to 2004–05. All savings are compared to previous plans.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Eurofighter will be operational in the strike role. [49756]

  Mr. Hoon
  Eurofighter will be a multi-role aircraft, conditioned primarily for air defence. It will, however, have an initial air-to-surface capability as soon as it becomes available for operational deployment, in the second half of the decade. We plan to enhance this capability during incremental upgrades.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the services of his Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50315]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Better Quality Services (BQS) programme was launched in 1998 and adopted by the Cabinet Office in the Modernising Government White Paper of 1999 as a means of delivering continuous improvements in the quality and effectiveness of Government activities and services. It requires all Government Departments to review every activity and service over a five year period starting in October 1999. The scheme covers all activities in Departments, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies, and is similar in remit to the Best Value programme in local government.

  The Ministry of Defence is committed to the regular and rigorous review of its business activities. BQS is one of a range of approaches we have taken to achieve this. Progress against our BQS programme has been published in our departmental performance reports. As at the end of March 2001, over 70 per cent. of the plan had been completed. The activities then outstanding were largely small-scale management reviews, possible public-private partnerships, retendering of service contracts and reviews of individual agencies. Our next departmental performance report, in the autumn, will give further information on our business improvement programme.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost is of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. [51536]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Joint Strike Fighter has been identified as having the best potential to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. The United Kingdom's procurement costs are currently estimated to be up to £10 billion, depending on the number of aircraft required and the variant selected. Subsequent costs will be determined by the through life support strategy that we decide to adopt.

  Defence Employment (North-East)
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the numbers employed in the defence and defence-related industries in the north-east. [R] [51784]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest available figures (1998–99) for the number of United Kingdom jobs estimated to be directly dependent on Ministry of Defence equipment expenditure is 81,000. Of these, approximately 3,000 were employed on MOD equipment contracts in the north-east. The Defence Analytical Services Agency does not provide estimates for regional employment derived from MOD non-equipment expenditure or exports.

  We are currently reviewing our methodology on the estimation of employment figures dependent on UK defence expenditure and exports. On this issue, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 766W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Maryhill (Ann McKechin).

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last Stock Condition Survey was conducted of(a) single living accommodation and (b) service family accommodation; what conclusions were drawn as to the work required to meet the target of upgrading his Department's housing by 2003; if he will put the latest copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [52103]

  Dr. Moonie
  As part of the Ministry of Defence's commitment to improving single living accommodation a rolling condition revalidation programme commenced in April 2001 and the current status is:

  Status

  Navy

  Complete

  Army

  Ongoing, substantially complete

  RAF

  Complete

  DLO

  Complete

  Central TLB

  Complete

  So far as service family accommodation in mainland UK is concerned, a stock condition survey was commissioned by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) in mid-1997 and completed in early 1998. The task was complex, involving 650 data entries per property and full survey of 90 per cent. of the total stock of some 64,000 properties. Against an agreed standard for condition very few properties met the highest standard. DHE had already

  531W
  embarked on a programme to refurbish all of the properties then forecast as required for the long term but, on the basis of the information contained in the survey and the amount of work required, the target date was revised from 2003 to November 2005. The survey report is now outdated, in that some 12,000 properties have since been disposed of, and significant new build and upgrade projects carried out. It would therefore be inappropriate to place a copy in the Library of the House. However, the latest information is as follows:

  Number of properties

  Standard 1

  20,699

  Standard 2

  26,007

  Standard 3

  4,877

  Standard 4

  349

  Total

  51,932

  C3 Capabilities
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements have been made to the armed forces' C3 capabilities since July 1998; and if he will make a statement. [51491]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The introduction into service of a range of programmes has led to significant improvements to the armed forces' Command, Control and Communications (C3) capability since July 1998. Examples include the upgrade and expansion of our Joint Force Maritime and Air Operational Command Systems, and upgrades to the Skynet 4 satellite system. We have also introduced specific additional communications capabilities to improve interoperability with allies to ensure maximum operational flexibility for our deployed forces in the particular demands of the Afghanistan environment. Furthermore, the Personal Role Radio was released into service in January 2002, two months earlier than scheduled, and is currently deployed with troops in Afghanistan.

  These enhancements are backed by a significant programme of investment in our future capability that, over the next few years, includes the introduction of Bowman, Skynet 5, and Falcon.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Numbers of staff

  £

  Numbers of staff

  £

  Numbers of staff

  £

  MOD police officers

  2

  76,097

  2

  87,304

  11

  283,529

  RN regulators

  0

  0

  1

  18,530

  1

  35,000

  Royal Military Police

  0

  0

  2

  33,597

  2

  44,744

  Royal Air Force Police

  0

  0

  3

  63,880

  41

  53,978

  Total

  2

  76,097

  8

  193,311

  5

  187,251

  1 With effect from January 2002 the number of MDP officers on secondment to Wiltshire constabulary reduced from two to one.

  2 Figures include support costs up to November 2001 only.

  3 Costs approximated as officer only undertook part-time duties in respect of Operation Antler.

  4 With effect from November 2001 the number of RAF officers on secondment to Wiltshire constabulary reduced from two to one.

  In addition, staff in MOD Headquarters and at Porton Down have co-operated fully with the police in pursuit of their inquiries.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many DSTL staff at Porton Down have assisted Wiltshire Constabulary with Operation Antler; what

  ISTAR
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements have been made to the armed forces' ISTAR capabilities since July 1998; and if he will make a statement. [51490]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The armed forces have made significant improvements to their ISTAR capabilities since 1998, introducing into service a variety of assets to improve surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities. Examples include the introduction into service of the PHOENIX unmanned aerial vehicle in 1999, improvements to our EW capability for land and maritime forces, and improved imaging capabilities for the RAF. In addition, recent operations have led to the introduction of specific ISTAR capabilities in support of our deployed forces, including mobile weapon locating radars, improvements in our intelligence distribution networks and an increase in the provision of tactical level surveillance devices.

  ISTAR remains a priority area for future investment. Among our programmes due into service over the next few years are: ASTOR, delivering significant improvements to our airborne surveillance capabilities; and the WATCHKEEPER unmanned aerial vehicle project that will greatly enhance our battlefield surveillance capabilities. As well as primarily ISTAR assets, the planned introduction of platforms with integral ISTAR systems, such as the Attack Helicopter, will further enhance our capabilities in this area.

  Operation Antler
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) MOD police officers, (b) Royal Navy regulators, (c) Royal Military Police, (d) Royal Air Force Police and (e) other MOD personnel are working with Wiltshire constabulary on Operation Antler; what has been the cost in each year in each case; and if he will make a statement. [52411]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The following table shows the numbers and costs (salary, travel and subsistence and other support costs) of MOD staff working with the Wiltshire constabulary on Operation Antler, since its commencement in August 1999:

  (a) accommodation and (b) other facilities have been made available in each year since the operation began; and what the cost was to the Defence budget. [52406]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: During the last two and a half years, 22 members of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) staff have

  533W
  assisted the Wiltshire police with the Operation Antler inquiry. Members of the inquiry team have been provided with areas in which to work and review documentation. Additional support facilities have also been provided to copy documents and review films.

  The cost of Dstl support to Operation Antler has not been gathered separately. However, the total cost of Dstl effort in addressing issues arising from the Porton Down Volunteer Scheme, including those relating to Operation Antler, for the financial year 2001–02 was approximately £485,000.

  Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made with procurement of tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling. [51494]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft is planned to replace our VC10 and TriStar air to air refuelling/air transport aircraft around the end of the decade. An Invitation To Negotiate for this potential PFI contract was issued to industry in December 2000. Bids were received from two consortia in July 2001 and we are currently in discussions with both bidders.

  Fluorescent Particle Trials
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what long term conclusions, with specific reference to those relating to health effects, his Department reached on the Fluorescent particle trials over south-west Britain between 1955 and 1963; what tests relating to germ warfare have taken place since 1972; and if he will make a statement. [52252]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: In 1999 the Ministry of Defence commissioned Professor Peter Lachmann, and a team of distinguished scientists, to undertake an independent review of the Fluorescent particle trials which occurred between 1955 and 1963. The MOD accepts the conclusion of this review which was that
  "Exposure to cadmium from dissemination of zinc cadmium sulphide during the "Cold War" should not have resulted in adverse health effects in the UK population".
  The findings of the review are summarised in an open literature paper entitled: The risk to the UK population of zinc cadmium sulphide dispersion by the Ministry of Defence during the "Cold War" (Occup. Environ. Med. 2002. 59, 13–17). Additionally, the complete review can be found at www.mod.uk/publications/zinc-cadmium.

  A review which summarises the defence trials conducted by the Porton Down establishments, entitled "BW and BW Defence Field Trials Conducted by the UK: 1940–79" can be found in the Library of the House. Subsequent to the trials detailed in this report other defence trials involving simulant organisms have been undertaken on restricted access MOD sites. These trials have assessed the threat posed by specific dissemination methods, evaluated the performance of biological detection systems, considered aspects of decontamination and provided training for operators of the in-service biodetection systems.

  Malaria
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of malaria there have been among UK forces in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Sierra Leone. [52901]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: As of 24 April, there have been 159 confirmed cases and six suspected cases of malaria among UK forces who have served on recent and on-going operations in Sierra Leone. No cases of malaria have been reported among UK service personnel deployed to Afghanistan.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships are(a) being refitted and (b) preparing to be refitted; and when the refit work is due to (i) commence and (ii) finish. [52892]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: There are four Royal Navy surface warships currently in refit. These are:

  HMS Invincible—aircraft carrier

  HMS Liverpool—type 42 destroyer

  HMS Gloucester—type 42 destroyer

  HMS Monmouth—type 23 frigate.

  HMS Manchester—type 42 destroyer and HMS Iron Duke—type 23 frigate are undertaking post refit activities and trials prior to returning to the fleet.

  In addition to the refits listed above HMS Marlborough—type 23 frigate is currently undergoing a docking period that will complete later this summer.

  There are no Royal Navy surface warships currently undertaking preparations for a refit.

  The exact dates on which refits will complete will depend on progress and emergent work. However, HMS Liverpool is expected to complete her refit shortly and the other refits will complete by mid 2003.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the first cutting of metal for(a) HMS Daring, (b) HMS Dauntless and (c) HMS Diamond; and when these ships will be launched; [52896]

  (2) when the design work for the Type 45 destroyers will be completed. [52897]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Design and fabrication details are matters for the Type 45 prime contractor, BAE Systems Electronics. However, under current plans, design work will essentially be complete in autumn 2003 and the expected first cutting of metal and launch dates for the first three ships are as follows:

  Vessel

  Cut steel

  Launch

  HMS Daring

  Spring 2003

  Spring 2005

  HMS Dauntless

  Autumn 2004

  Spring 2007

  HMS Diamond

  Spring 2005

  Summer 2007

  Naval Manpower
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Navy has sufficient manpower to crew all operational surface ships; and if he will make a statement. [52893]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Royal Navy has sufficient manpower to support the deployment of surface ships as required to meet its current commitments, including the full manning of all operational ships in times of heightened tension.

  F680 Application
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are considered when determining an F680 application. [51735]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Form F680 Process allows industry to seek preliminary Government approval for the release of classified military information, or advice on the prospects for eventual approval of an export licence application, at the marketing stage. In the case of the latter, the Government consider applications against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. It is, however, routinely made clear that preliminary advice to companies under this procedure does not constitute an export licence nor guarantee that any future export licence application would result in the issue of a licence.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 335W, who decided to give preliminary clearance to supply an air traffic control system to Tanzania under the F680 procedure. [51746]

  Dr. Moonie
  This was a Government decision following consideration of the application by the relevant Government Departments.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the departmental communication with Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems confirming the preliminary clearance; and what conditions were applied to the preliminary clearance. [51747]

  Dr. Moonie
  Access to detailed information on F680 clearances is restricted for commercial reasons. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 13 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) Ministers and (b) other persons are consulted following an F680 application prior to a decision being reached; and if he will place a copy of the document setting out the rules of the F680 procedure in the Library. [51748]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 336W, to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Ministers are not routinely involved in the assessment of F680 applications. A copy of guidance to industry on the F680 procedure is being placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number of subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television held by his Department for services in any departmental building from which Ministers work, stating for each subscription its (i) cost and (ii) purpose. [48367]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on Friday 26 April.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Kuwait on proposed military action against Iraq. [53330]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him in the House on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 331.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is in respect of the assassination of heads of state; and what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on this policy. [52607]

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy is to act in accordance with UK and international law. We have had no recent discussions with the US Administration on this issue.

  Party Funding
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce plans for state funding for the work of political parties other than campaigning. [51279]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have introduced rules on openness and transparency for political funding. There are a wide variety of different views on state funding and I welcome the debate, but at the moment there is no consensus.

  The Electoral Commission have already indicated their intention to consider the arguments for a cap on political donations and state funding, and the Select Committee for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have announced that they propose to look at this area.

WALES

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what his estimate is of the cost in a full year of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to his Department; [51976]

  (2) what his estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to his Department. [52070]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at column 544W.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [53491]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

TREASURY

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to review the powers to increase the level of awards that can be made. [48051]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: No payments were made in 2001–02. I have no plans to review the powers to increase levels of awards.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures Customs and Excise are taking to prevent illegal imports of meat; and if he will make a statement. [48176]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: BSE related restrictions on the export of beef from the United Kingdom are enforced through portal surveillance measures operated by DEFRA and the devolved Administrations. Customs' role is limited to providing support were necessary to the lead agencies and providing them with any relevant information coming to Customs attention. Export of meat from some endangered species is subject to the European Regulation implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Customs action on any such exports is on an intelligence-led basis.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in 2001 customs officers in Newhaven carried out joint operations with environmental health officers with a view to detecting illegal meat imports. [45876]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: DEFRA and local or port health authorities are responsible for organising joint operations to target illicit meat. Customs officers participate in such operations at the request of the organising authority. No requests for participation were received at Newhaven in 2001.

  Overseas Development Assistance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of GNP has been spent on official overseas development assistance, excluding the UK's contribution to the heavily indebted poor countries scheme in each of the last five years. [51921]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: The oda/GNI ratios excluding HIPC for the last five years are:
  538W

  Percentage

  excluding HIPC

  oda/GNI ratio including HIPC

  1997

  0.26

  0.26

  1998

  0.27

  0.27

  1999

  0.23

  0.24

  2000

  0.31

  0.32

  20011

  0.30

  0.32

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many digital radios are owned by his Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52855]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Treasury's asset register does not include any digital radios.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reasons are for his projection in Budget 2002, page 217, table C7, of a 50 per cent. increase in revenue from the climate change levy in 2002–03, compared with 2001–02. [52950]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The apparent growth in climate change levy receipts between 2001–02 and 2002–03 is largely due to start-up effects reducing the cash received in 2001–02.

  Climate change levy was introduced on 1 April 2001 and became liable on energy transactions from that date. Start-up effects could have been present up to September and receipts for 2001–02 were £0.6 billion.

  Financial year 2002–03 will be the first full year of CCL receipts which are forecast to be £0.9 billion.

  Farmers
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of farmers in receipt of public subsidies are estimated to be millionaires. [51280]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were about 356,000 farmers in the United Kingdom in 1999, the latest year for which figures are available. It is not known how many of the 180,000 millionaires in that year were farmers.

  Westfield Shopping Centre Company
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates since 1 May 1997 when(a) Ministers and (b) officials have met representatives of Westfield. [52165]

  Ruth Kelly
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 689W, stating that as with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are

  539W
  conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists".

  Terrorist Suspects
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additions to the list of terrorist suspects have been made by G7 Finance Ministers at the Washington summit; and if he will make a statement. [53081]

  Ruth Kelly
  On 20 April 2002, G7 Finance Ministers announced an assets freeze list containing the names of nine individuals and one organisation suspected of being involved in terrorism. These names have since been added to the list of organisations and individuals subject to UN sanctions against the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their associates.

  Milk
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on tax treatment of milk quota. [52954]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Milk quota is treated for tax like other similar assets.

  NHS Spending (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his Budget report, if he will place in the Library the calculations regarding the allocation of additional spending to Scotland as a consequence of the planned increases in NHS spending in England; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the Barnett formula in these calculations. [52690]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government made substantial increased allocations to Scotland in the Budget above existing plans as a result of the increased spending announced for the NHS in England. The annual additions to Scotland's budget in 2003–04 to 2007–08 are £224 million; £858 million; £1,576 million; £2,341 million and £3,201 million. The allocation of additional spending to Scotland as a result of the planned increases in NHS spending in England was determined by applying the Barnett formula, using the latest available ONS population figures. The funding arrangements for the devolved Administrations were set out in the Statement of Funding Policy published by the Treasury in July 2000.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total yield of inheritance tax was in 2001–02; and what he estimates it will be in 2002–03. [52616]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The figures are contained in Table C7 on page 217 of the 2002 Financial Statement and Budget report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  International Monetary and Financial Committee
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the IMF in Washington DC. [52623]
  540W
  Ruth Kelly
  The International Monetary and Financial Committee met in Washington DC on 20 April 2002. The Committee had a broad agenda, covering the global economy, the IMF's policy agenda and progress in combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Based on the Committee's discussions, management will determine the forward work programme and priorities for the International Monetary Fund over the next six months.

  In their discussion of the global economy the Committee welcomed the international community's decisive policy actions, especially following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, to maintain financial stability, restore the momentum of world economic growth, and reinvigorate the fight against poverty. The Committee also urged the Argentine authorities to co-operate with the IMF to reach agreement on a sustainable economic programme.

  Going forward the Committee will continue to work together for sustained, broad based growth, creating opportunities for productive employment, reducing vulnerabilities, opening up economies for trade, providing resources for durable poverty reduction, and sustaining global action to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

  The Committee also made recommendations for strengthening the IMF's surveillance, including in financial sectors, and crisis prevention and for enhancing the existing framework for crisis resolution, including consideration of innovative proposals to improve the process of sovereign debt restructuring.

  The Committee fully endorsed the Monterrey consensus and encouraged the IMF to work closely with the World bank, regional development banks, the United Nations and bilateral donors in monitoring progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The Committee welcomed the outcomes of the recent reviews of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process and were encouraged by progress in implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative. However, they noted that debt sustainability remains an issue for a number of HIPC countries and called on the IMF and the World bank to review the situation.

  Copies of the IMFC's final communiqué are available in the Library of the House and on the IMF website at www.imf.org.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of companies that will benefit from his proposed exemption from corporation tax of the gains from the sale of substantial shareholdings. [52378]

  Dawn Primarolo
  About 5,000 companies are expected to benefit from the exemption.

  VAT Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds in each of the next three years of the provision in the Budget for firms with turnovers of up to £150,000 to make flat-rate VAT payments. [52374]
  541W
  Mr. Boateng
  The costs of this measure will be set out in the normal way in the Government's next Financial Statement and Budget report once full and final details of the proposed change have been announced.

  Duties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is intended to introduce duty incentives for sulphur-free fuels; what duty incentive he plans; and on what bases EU agreement is required before any duty incentive can be implemented. [52397]

  Mr. Boateng
  As we announced in the Budget, the Government will introduce incentives for sulphur-free fuels in 2003. The precise incentives will be for the Chancellor to decide, taking into account economic, social and environmental factors.

  Giving a duty incentive for sulphur-free fuels is likely to require a derogation from the EC mineral oils structures directive.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a new rate of duty for biodiesel at 20 pence below the ultra-low sulphur diesel rate will be available; what the total cost to the Treasury will be at(a) the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years; what recent assessment has been conducted by his Department of future use of biodiesel; and what assumptions he has made about the (i) current and (ii) projected future availability of biodiesel in the UK. [52399]

  Mr. Boateng
  Budget 2002 confirmed that the new rate for biodiesel will take effect from Royal Assent of the Finance Bill. The revenue cost of the new rate was published in Table A2.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget report. As a result of the measure, biodiesel is assumed to take up a steadily increasing share of the diesel market, representing around two-thirds of 1 per cent. of the market by volume by 2006–07.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be at(a) the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the (i) freeze in duty on (A) liquefied petroleum gas, (B) compressed natural gas and (ii) enhanced capital allowances for investments in CNG fuelling infrastructure, as announced in the Budget. [52396]

  Mr. Boateng
  (i) The revenue cost of the freeze in duty on gas for road fuel is negligible.

  (ii) The cost for investments in CNG refuelling infrastructure is also negligible.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total cost to the Treasury will be at(a) the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the reduction in VED for motorcycles announced in Budget 2002; [52393]

  (2) what the total cost to the Treasury will be at (a) the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the (i) application of lower rates of air passenger duty to all EU applicant countries and Switzerland and (ii) the freeze in the duty from 1 November 2002; and if he will make a statement. [52381]
  542W
  Mr. Boateng
  The costs of the reforms to motorcycle vehicle excise duty, application of lower rates of air passenger duty (APD) to European Union applicant countries and Switzerland from 1 November 2002, and the freeze in APD are set out in table A.1 (page 155) of the FSBR.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be at(a) the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the freeze in vehicle excise duty rates for lorries announced in Budget 2002; and if he will make a statement. [52388]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of freezing vehicle excise duty for lorries in Budget 2002 is forecast to be approximately £5 million a year for each of the three financial years 2002–03 to 2004–05.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department plans to take to reform the fuel duty rebate for buses; and if he will make a statement. [52380]

  Mr. Boateng
  To ensure the most effective use of funds in improving bus services and delivering the Government's transport, environment and social objectives, the Chancellor announced in the Budget that a review of the support mechanisms for buses will he carried out as part of the forthcoming spending review and the current review of the 10-year plan. In particular, the review will consider fuel duty rebate for buses to assess whether it provides effective support for buses in a way that is consistent with Government objectives.

  Bad Debt Relief
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue effect in each of the next three years of his proposed rule for bad debt relief to give businesses an automatic entitlement to recover the VAT after six months. [52371]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main impact of the changes to VAT bad debt relief announced in the Budget is to reduce compliance costs for affected businesses. The impact on VAT revenues is negligible.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the gross cost to the Treasury in a full year of the increased employers' national insurance contributions envisaged in his Budget statement; [51936]

  (2) what his estimate is of the gross cost in a full year of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to (a) his Department, (b) agencies thereof and (c) organisations sponsored by his Department. [51937]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. next year.

  Performance Targets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the aggregate proportion of PSA targets across all Departments which were(a) met, (b) on

  543W
  target to be met, (c) not met and (d) not on target to be met for financial years (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [50618]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Departments publish progress against their PSA targets in their spring annual reports and, from this year, in autumn performance reports. The Treasury will provide an overall analysis of the Government's performance in future reports, as it did in its 2000 departmental report.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are(a) job sharing, (b) terming working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42415]

  Ruth Kelly
  Further to my answer of 13 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1110–11W, there are 16 job sharers in HM Treasury (1.4 per cent. of total staff), one term worker (0.1 per cent. of total staff) and 55 other staff engaged in other forms of flexible working (4.8 per cent. of total staff) (all figures rounded to nearest 0.1 per cent.).

  Community Development Venture Capital Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer over what period the community development venture capital fund will provide the £40 million referred to in his Budget speech. [52369]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government expect the Community Development Venture Fund to be launched and begin operating shortly. The first investments are likely to be made in 2002–03, and the fund is likely to be invested within three to six years, allowing a reserve for follow-on investments as portfolio companies grow. The investment profile and timing will depend on the opportunities that the fund identifies, the time taken to bring companies to the point of investment readiness, and on market conditions.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Treasury's latest forecast is of UK economic growth for the forthcoming year. [53077]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's latest economic forecast is set out in Chapter B of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, which was published on 17 April. UK GDP is forecast to increase by between 2 and 2.5 per cent. in 2002.

  Stamp Duty
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of stamp duty on commercial property on(a) property unit trusts and (b) the attractiveness of collective investment schemes investing in property for institutional pension fund investors. [52977]

  Ruth Kelly
  UK stamp duty rates on property compare favourably with other EU countries. We regularly review the impact of stamp duty on all aspects of the commercial property market.

  Sulphur-free Fuel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment has been undertaken by his Department of the(a) current and (b) projected future availability of sulphur-free fuel in (i) the UK and (ii) Europe; and if he will make a statement. [52398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under a Common Position reached at the December 2001 EU Environment Council, member states set an EU-wide maximum limit for sulphur of 10ppm (termed "sulphur-free" fuel) from 1 January 2009, this date being subject to review by the Commission with respect to diesel fuel. The Common Position would also require member states to ensure the widespread availability of these fuels from 1 January 2005 in order that it is available for the latest technology vehicles that can take best advantage of it. The European Parliament will now consider the Common Position at its Second Reading.

  Almost all petrol and diesel sold in the UK is already ultra low (50ppm) sulphur. Sulphur-free petrol and diesel has now been introduced at 18 retail sites in and around Edinburgh. Current availability of sulphur free fuels in most EU member states is minimal. However, sulphur-free diesel is quite widely available in Sweden and all super unleaded petrol is sulphur-free in Germany.

  In the period up to 1 January 2009, the availability of sulphur-free fuels will he influenced by the rate of investment in new refinery technology needed to produce the fuels and also the level of fiscal incentives offered by individual member states to encourage its supply. In this respect, the Chancellor, in his recent Budget statement, announced plans to introduce duty incentives favouring sulphur-free fuels in 2003, subject to European agreement. Germany has also announced similar plans. The Benelux countries are also expected to follow this UK and German lead with the result that fairly widespread availability may be expected in these countries from 2003 onwards. Under the terms of the directive, widespread availability is to be expected in all EU member states from 2005.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tanzania
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what information she has collated with regard to the formal procedures followed by the Government of Tanzania in respect of consideration of tenders for supply of an air traffic control system; and whether such procedures met recognised international standards; [51737]

  (2) what information she has collated with regard to the bidding process in respect of potential suppliers of an air traffic control system to Tanzania; and if she will make a statement. [51736]

  Clare Short
  DFID has not collated specific information regarding formal procedures adopted by the Government of Tanzania on the tender process in this case. However, I can confirm that DFID has been actively involved in helping the Government of Tanzania draft and
  545W
  introduce a new Public Procurement Act, which came into effect on 1 July 2001. This ensures that GoT's tendering procedures meet recognised international standards.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how may net additional staff

  Number of net additional staff recruited at executive officer level 1

  Number of net additional staff recruited at administrative level 2

  Total of net additional staff recruited at executive officer and administrative level

  Month

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Net position

  Entrants

  Leavers

  Net position

  2001

  June

  1

  3

  (2)

  4

  6

  (2)

  (4)

  July

  2

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  August

  1

  0

  1

  6

  5

  1

  2

  September

  1

  3

  (2)

  10

  0

  10

  8

  October

  5

  2

  3

  14

  1

  13

  16

  November

  5

  0

  5

  10

  3

  7

  12

  December

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2002

  January

  4

  2

  2

  5

  2

  3

  5

  February

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  March

  2

  3

  (1)

  5

  1

  4

  3

  Total

  24

  16

  8

  59

  21

  38

  46

  1 Grade B2

  2 Grades C1 and C2

  South America
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid went to each South American country in the last 12 months; and whether it was ring-fenced for particular projects. [52146]

  Clare Short
  The bilateral development programmes for Latin American (central and south) countries last year were:

  £ million

  Country

  2001–021

  Bolivia

  13.780

  Brazil

  7.646

  Central America 2

  5.560

  Colombia

  1.434

  Costa Rica

  0.200

  Cuba

  0.600

  Ecuador

  0.434

  Mexico

  0.460

  Panama

  0.190

  Paraguay

  0.160

  Peru

  9.184

  1 Includes provisional figures for 2001–02 and provisional figures for DFID debt relief (comprising both interest and principal foregone under retrospective terms adjustment. repayment which would have fallen due in year).

  2 A regional programme including Honduras, Nicaragua. Guatemala, El Salvador.

  In addition to these figures the European Commission spent £153 million in Latin America (which includes Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela in addition to the countries listed) of which UK share is approximately over £29 million which is drawn from my Department's budget.
  546W
  her Department has recruited each month since June 2001 at (a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52423]

  Clare Short
  Details of the net additional staff recruited by DFID at executive officer level and administrative levels, for each moth since June 2001, are as follows:

  All our programmes are carried out in accordance with our country strategies, which are jointly agreed with our counterparts in country. Our role is to add value to the combined effort to the international community to create the right conditions necessary for poverty reduction.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of aid from the UK was spent on(a) education, (b) health and (c) environmental projects overseas in the last 12 months. [52147]

  Clare Short
  The information required on the proportion of the UK's bilateral aid programmed allocable by sector in 2000–01, the latest period for which figures are available, is:

  Percentage

  Education

  15

  Health

  17

  Renewable natural resources

  12

  Environment is such a cross cutting issue that it is mainstreamed into many of our projects and programmes and as such we do not have a separate environment market for our projects. Therefore for the purposes of answering this question we have taken renewable natural resources as a proxy.

  These figures represent expenditure on projects specific to sectors but do not capture the full extent of our efforts in each policy area because they exclude multi-sector projects, block funding to civil society organisations and budget support or balance of payments. Also excluded are activities in sectors funded through multilateral channels.

  Forestry (Nigeria)
  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 Cross River State Community Forestry Project in Nigeria. [49200]

  Clare Short
  The Department has been involved with Cross River communities, in the use and management of forest resources on a sustainable basis, at varying times over the last seven years. Implementation on the latest programme commenced in July 1999 and is due to complete in January 2003.

  This project was last formally assessed during an Output-to-Purpose Review (OPR) in September 2001 in conjunction with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The review team observed significant achievements over the two-year period compared to the slow progress under military rule prior to 1999. Most notably, the conclusions from the OPR related to economy, efficiency and effectiveness highlighted the following:
  33 forest management committees (FMCs) have been established. Strong partnerships have developed between all stakeholders in a number of these and communities are organising themselves according to a common constitution to protect their rights and forest.
  Communities have shown more commitment to the sustainable management of their forest resources and to curbing illegal exploitation. This has been largely due to public awareness of the value and importance of sustainable forest management undertaken by the project.
  Communities are receiving a greater share of forest royalties more promptly while changes in forest laws promoted by the project. which will strengthen communities' rights over forests, are about to be submitted.
  Capacity of community based forest organisations and of the forestry commission staff have improved with training provided under the project.

  An important component of the project worked on the institutional strengthening and capacity building of the Forest Commission (FC) to enable it to facilitate implementation of the forest sector strategy and action plan. The capacity of the state to play its role in joint management of forest resources is crucial to sustaining the productive capacity and biological resources and to ecological significance of the tropical high forest. Notable achievements here are:
  Technical assistance initiated by the project in 1999 has been significant in introducing genuine joint management of strategic forest resources.
  A new institutional change programme sponsored by the project is significantly assisting the process of institution reform and financial efficiency and accountability within the FC.
  548W
  A forest sector strategy and an action plan have been drafted under the project while a community forestry support unit has been established within the forest commission.
  Illegal logging and transport of timber have been reduced.
  A number of short-term (international and local) consultancies have provided valuable input into the project implementation eg the Non Timber Forest Products consultancy while the Legal Framework consultancy provided groundwork for the proposed changes in the laws.

  Overall, the review team concluded that the project purpose was likely to be partially achieved, which is significant given the original risk assessment rated this project as medium to high risk, later amended to high risk. This achievement rating could be changed during the next review. CIDA have agreed to continue working with the forestry commission and the communities when DFID's input completes next year. DFID's withdrawal is solely linked to our stated strategy to focus on a limited number of reforming states (four). These states are in the south-west, south-east, north and middle belt. Cross River state is in the south geo-political zone.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what are the latest estimates she has received of changes in total carbon dioxide emissions in the UK in(a) 2010 and (b) 2015; and if she will make a statement. [50432]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest carbon dioxide projections are published in the UK's Third National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Projections, taking account of the policies and measures as quantified in the UK's Climate Change Programme, show estimated emissions in 2010 at about 19 per cent. below the 1990 level. Additional measures that cannot yet be quantified could increase this to a 20 per cent. reduction. Although the uncertainties are greater, current projections indicate about the same level of reduction in 2015 without further policies and measures.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the household waste and recycling fund announced by her Department on 26 March will be used to finance the cost of(a) collection, (b) storage and (c) recycling of waste-refrigeration units in accordance with EC Regulation No 2037/2000; and if she will make a statement. [51534]

  Mr. Meacher
  The £140 million Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund is a ring-fenced grant that is designed to help local authorities in England to improve in particular, their recycling and composting performance, and waste management generally.

  No proportion of the Fund has been specifically allocated for the purposes of financing the cost of (a) collection, (b) storage and (c) recycling of waste refrigeration units.
  549W
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance on the storage and disposal of waste-refrigeration units has been provided to(a) local authorities and (b) consumers since 4 December 2001; and if she will make a statement. [51505]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has now issued the final version of its guidance on the recovery and disposal (including storage) of refrigerators and freezers. In addition, a list of treatment companies has been placed on the DEFRA website to facilitate contact between local authorities and the waste management industry.

  A leaflet for householders advising on how to dispose of old fridges, originally available only on the DEFRA website, has now been published in hard copy as well, and widely distributed. Guidance on the disposal of commercial refrigeration equipment has been placed on the website and we hope to issue a paper version shortly.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to utilise biomass fuelled CHP technology on the Government Estate; and when these plans will be implemented. [51964]

  Mr. Meacher
  All Government Departments have a target to ensure that by 31 March 2003, at least 5 per cent. of their electricity comes from renewable sources, or from self-generation, provided this does not entail excessive cost. They also have a longer-term target for at least 10 per cent. of their supply by 31 March 2008, which is subject to review after March 2003.

  Biomass is just one of the renewable technologies that can help Departments meet this target. I am not aware of any current plans to utilise biomass production technology on any significant scale on the Government Estate, and it is for each Department to determine the extent to which self-generation is a practicable and cost-effective option.

  However, DEFRA, PIU and the National Lottery are funding research and development into energy crops and biomass as fuel for CHP schemes, and I will encourage Government Departments to examine the scope which such technology may in future offer.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the emissions figures are for each of the Kyoto protocol greenhouse gases in every year since 1997; and what different weighting is given to each gas owing to its global warming potential. [51962]

  Mr. Meacher
  UK emissions data for the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto protocol to the year 2000 were reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change earlier this month.
  550W
  The following table summarises the data for the years since 1997, expressed in million tonnes of carbon equivalent. The global warming potential used to arrive at these emission estimates are summarised in the final column of the table. The values are those for a 100-year time horizon published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1995. These are the weighting factors agreed for use under the Kyoto protocol during the first commitment period.

  UK greenhouse gas emissions expressed as million tonnes of carbon

  ses

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Global warming potential (100 year horizon)

  CO2

  152.5

  153.2

  150.8

  152.1

  1

  CH4

  16.3

  15.6

  14.8

  13.9

  21

  N2O

  16.6

  15.8

  12.2

  12.0

  310

  HFCs

  5.0

  5.5

  2.4

  2.5

  1—

  PFCs

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  2—

  SF6

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  23,900

  Total3

  190.9

  190.7

  180.8

  181.1

  —

  1 Values for specific HFCs range from 140–11700

  2 PFCs include mainly perfluoromethane (6500), perfluoroethane (9200), and perfluoropropane (7000).

  3 Totals may not correspond exactly to entries in columns due to rounding.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1340W, on greenhouse gas emissions, when the data for 2000–01 will be published. [51978]

  Mr. Meacher
  The process for the collection of data for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is under way and we plan to continue previous practice by including this data in the Greening Government Annual Report published in November of each year. Commencing this year we intend to report data on the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings on the Government Estate about 6 months after the end of the financial year, rather than current practice of reporting 18 months in arrears.

  Dr. Robert Watson
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's response to US Government action to replace Dr. Robert Watson as the Chair of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. [52154]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK supported Dr. Watson continuing in his post as Chair of the IPCC, but who the US supports is a matter for them.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total amount expended was on overnight accommodation for emergency staff working on the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001; and what proportion of this sum was spent in(a) guest-houses, (b) bed and breakfast accommodation and (c) small hotels. [51264]
  551W
  Mr. Morley
  Total payments for overnight subsistence for staff working on the Foot and Mouth crisis were as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  971,470

  2001–02

  19,808,069

  DEFRA does not hold records by the categories requested (Guest Houses, Bed and Breakfast, or small Hotels).

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the compensation levels paid for(a) cattle and (b) sheep slaughtered in the foot and mouth disease outbreak were; and what percentage they represent of the current values paid for restocking. [51282]

  Mr. Morley
  The compensation levels paid to farmers for cattle and sheep slaughtered in the foot and mouth disease outbreak is as follows:

  £

  Average cost per animal

  Cattle

  1,163.33

  Sheep

  153.19

  The percentage in relation to the current value of restocking is not available because we do not have the restocking prices.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to promote the results of United Nations summit conferences relating to sustainable development. [44352]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have publicised the results of the Financing for Development (FFD) conference on DFID's internet website. We intend to do the same for other major UN conferences. Hilary Benn the Under-Secretary has spoken to a meeting of NGOs about the results of FFD. We are submitting a memorandum on FFD to the International Development Select Committee. We will continue to press in a variety of international fora for progress towards implementing the commitments made at FFD, including on aid volume, aid effectiveness and strengthening the voice of developing countries in the international financial architecture. We intend to hold a meeting with interested NGOs and MPs after the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children to discuss its results.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rent Service
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what performance targets he has set the Rent Service for 2002–03. [53679]
  552W
  Ms Keeble
  Key targets have been agreed for the agency. They are included in the agency's business plan, which includes management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks. Copies of the business plan will be placed in the Libraries of the House in due course.

  The Key Targets for the Rent Service are:
  To process 87 per cent. of housing benefit determination without an inspection within three working days
  To process 87 per cent. of housing benefit determinations with an inspection within 15 working days
  To process 87 per cent. of pre-tenancy determinations within four working days
  To process 87 per cent. of redeterminations within 15 working days
  To process 87 per cent. of fair rent determinations within 40 working days
  To increase the number of cases determined per employees by a minimum of 3 per cent. while reducing the costs per cause by a minimum of 3 per cent. in real terms, and with improvements in the quality of service provided
  To improve the agency's customer satisfaction rating from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Travellers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many times local authorities and police forces have had to move travellers on from(a) public and (b) private land in 2001. [53255]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what extra funding has been made available to local authorities in(a) London and (b) west Sussex in their standard spending assessment budgets this year to provide for the cleaning up of public land left in an unsatisfactory state by travellers. [53254]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The cleaning up of public land is within the district services section of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block of the local government finance settlement. Sums for individual services within this section are not identified separately.

  Westfield Shopping Centre Company
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations his Department and its predecessor has received from the Westfield shopping centre company since 1997. [50080]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 April 2002]: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.
  553W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Planning Minister was informed of the financial arrangement in place between Lord Levy and Westfield when he agreed to meet the latter. [49884]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 April 2002, Official Report, column 776W.

  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the dates since 1 May 1997 when(a) Ministers and (b) officials have met representatives of Westfield. [52163]

  Ms Keeble
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Planning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is taking to protect the Green Belt from further housing development. [53336]

  Ms Keeble
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 2—"Green Belts"—requires that local authorities' development plans should include a strict presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This includes most types of housebuilding.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 798W, on housing, if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance his Department issued to local authorities on the Cash Incentive Scheme in February 2000. [53017]

  Ms Keeble
  A copy of the guidance issued by the Department for the Environment Transport and the Regions to local authorities on the Cash Incentive Scheme in February 2000 will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new affordable housing development schemes in each London borough are being funded by the Housing Corporation's approved development programme in 2002–03. [53019]
  554W
  Ms Keeble
  The Housing Corporation's allocation statement for London for 2002–03 provides information on the allocations of public money made to housing associations for the provision of new affordable housing under the approved development programme (ADP) and safer communities supported housing fund in London. This document is published on the Housing Corporation's website at www.housingcorp.gov.uk. Figure 4.5 in the London allocation statement 2002–03 lists the schemes allocated funding in each London borough. I have placed copies of this table in the Libraries of the House.

  Torbay Unitary Authority
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost will be of the inspections to be conducted in the Torbay unitary authority area into(a) corporate governance and (b) first tier authorities; how many officials will be involved in undertaking each inspection; and what the cost will be of producing a report after each inspection. [52484]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Torbay was one of a number of authorities selected for corporate governance inspection. Corporate governance inspections have been a powerful diagnostic tool to examine the corporate capabilities and management systems of local councils. Torbay was selected in response to concerns raised by the Audit Commission and other inspectorates about the council's management capabilities for key services. The inspection is not yet complete and the report is unlikely to be published before this summer.

  The inspection of Torbay was large, involving a range of representatives from different inspectorates working with the Audit Commission to examine the full range of service issues. The estimated cost of the inspection is approximately £70,000 based on a team of eleven people. Torbay council's net budget is approximately £123 million. It is hoped this inspection will result in significant improvements to the quality and efficiency of local service delivery with clear benefits for local people and the authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that local authorities covering the Malvern Hills receive support grants on the same basis as that received by the unitary authority of Herefordshire. [52975]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are working with local government to develop options for fairer and more intelligible grant distribution formulae. In distributing grant, the new system will take into account the differing circumstances faced by local authorities, and their differing responsibilities. We cannot say now whether any particular authority or group of authorities will gain or lose from the new system. We will be consulting on options over the summer and will consider the views put to us when we come to take decisions.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the new grant formula that will replace the SSA will(a) be improved and (b) address the needs of all classes of authority. [52469]
  555W
  Dr. Whitehead
  We are working with local government to develop options for fairer and more intelligible grant distribution formulae. But if there are to be winners there must also be relative losers, since the formulae will distribute the fixed pot of resources made available by the spending review. We cannot say now whether any particular class of authority will gain or lose from the new system, but we will consult on options over the summer and will consider the responses when we come to take decisions.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that the new finance system for local authorities provides an effective framework within which councils can initiate new and innovative ways of delivering customer-focused services and lead their communities. [52468]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Our comprehensive agenda for reform of the local government finance system was set out in last December's White Paper "Strong Local leadership—Quality Public Services". Our finance reforms will give councils more space to innovate and respond in ways that are appropriate to local circumstances by providing local authorities with greater freedom to borrow, invest, trade, charge and set spending priorities. Our White Paper implementation plan is available on the DTLR website at http://www.dtlr.gov.uk/local-regions/sll/implement/plan/index.htm.

  Business Rate Relief
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to propose amendments to the regulations governing transitional relief for business rates; and if he will make a statement. [52293]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My officials have prepared amendments to the regulations in discussion with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation and others. The amendments would allow transitional relief, backdated to 1 April 2000, to certain properties which currently do not qualify because of errors in the old 1995 rating lists. They would also, among other things, extend the period in which ratepayers can appeal against the values in certificates used to calculate rate bills.

  The draft regulations were sent to local authorities and others with an interest in rating with an explanatory letter on 14 March. The draft is being finalised in the light of comments received.

  Before coming into force amending regulations would first need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

  Local Public Service Agreements
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason district councils are not directly involved in local public service agreements; and what plans he has to extend them to district councils in the future. [52470]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government is keen to involve districts in local PSAs, but believes that better outcomes can be achieved through co-operation between county and district councils than by districts acting alone. It therefore 556W
  offers incentives to encourage county councils to work with their districts in drawing up and implementing their Local PSAs. Most of the county councils involved in the roll out of Local PSAs to top tier authorities have involved their districts. There are no plans to extend local PSAs to districts alone.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many digital radios are owned by his Department for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work; and what the(a) cost and (b) date of purchase of each radio was. [52860]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: DTLR neither own nor have purchased any digital radios for use in departmental buildings from which Ministers work.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52834]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Weekly newspapers and tabloid-format periodicals that have the appearance of newspapers have been classed as "periodicals" and included in this answer. The information on annual cost is given only for the aggregate of central magazine and periodical procurement in the Department since reasons of commercial confidentiality preclude the release of such information by publication. The information relates solely to central procurement in the central Department and does not include purchases made by the Department's agencies and NDPBs, nor purchases made from local budgets for which no data are collected centrally.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52833]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The information is contained in the table. Weekly newspapers and tabloid-format periodicals that have the appearance of newspapers have been classed as "periodicals" and accounted for in the answer above (52834). The information on annual cost is given only for the aggregate of central newspaper procurement in the Department since reasons of commercial confidentiality preclude the release of such information by publication. The information relates solely to central procurement in the central Department and does not include purchases made by the Department's agencies and NDPBs, nor purchases made from local budgets for which no data are collected centrally.

  557W

  Newspapers titles

  £

  Monday to Saturday titles

  Numbers of copies

  Daily Mail (Monday to Friday)

  13

  Daily Mail (Saturday)

  1

  Daily Mirror (Monday to Friday)

  13

  Daily Mirror on Saturday

  1

  Daily Star (Monday to Friday)

  4

  Daily Star (Saturday)

  1

  Daily Telegraph (Monday to Friday)

  18

  Daily Telegraph (Saturday)

  4

  Die Welt (Monday to Saturday)

  1

  Evening Standard (City Prices Edition)

  18

  Evening Standard (Late Prices Edition)

  17

  Evening Standard (News Extra Edition)

  21

  Evening Standard (West End Final Edition)

  29

  Financial Times (Monday to Friday)

  47

  Financial Times (Thursday)

  1

  Financial Times (Weekend)

  8

  Glasgow Herald (Monday to Friday)

  1

  Guardian (Monday to Friday)

  19

  Guardian (Saturday)

  4

  Independent (Monday to Friday)

  20

  Independent (Saturday)

  4

  Irish Times (Monday to Friday)

  1

  Le Figaro (Monday to Friday)

  1

  Le Monde (Monday to Friday)

  1

  Le Monde (Monday to Saturday)

  5

  Le Point

  1

  Lloyds List

  11

  Scotsman (Monday to Friday)

  1

  Sun (Monday to Friday)

  12

  Sun (Saturday)

  1

  The Express (Monday to Friday)

  11

  The Express on Saturday

  1

  Times (Monday to Friday)

  29

  Times (Saturday)

  4

  Total cost

  38,250

  Sunday titles

  Express on Sunday

  1

  Independent on Sunday

  5

  Mail on Sunday

  1

  News of The World

  1

  Observer

  5

  Sunday Mirror

  1

  Sunday People

  1

  Sunday Telegraph

  5

  Sunday Times

  5

  The Business

  5

  Total cost

  1,300

  Correspondence
  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 983W, on target times for correspondence, in what proportion of cases in 2001–02 letters from (a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public were answered within 15 working days. [50339]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information is published annually by the Cabinet Office on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by Ministers and Agency Chief Executives; Departments' and Agencies' handling targets; and their performance in meeting these targets.

  Performance in handling correspondence from members of the public is collated internally each quarter. For the period 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001 the
  558W
  Department's records show that it answered 99 per cent. of letters from the public within 15 working days. Figures for the final quarter of 2001–02 have not yet been collated.

  Port Marine Safety Code
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 56W, on the port marine safety code, whether the Department was the originator of this correspondence; and for what reason his Department has chosen not to make the correspondence public. [53084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The correspondence between Humber Pilots Ltd. and the Department was initiated by the company. As already explained, letters between the Department and its correspondents are treated in confidence unless the originator chooses to make them public.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the statutory harbour authorities in the UK broken down by(a) companies, (b) local authorities, (c) trusts and (d) other which had not completed implementation of the Port Marine Safety Code by 31 December 2001; what steps are being taken in each case to ensure compliance; and if he will make a statement. [52924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following competent harbour authorities have not yet notified my Department that they have implemented the Port Marine Safety Code:

  (a) Company ports

  Brighton Marina Estate Management Company Ltd.

  Eastbourne (Sovereign Harbour)

  Falmouth Docks & Engineering Company Ltd.

  Irvine Harbour Company

  Manchester Ship Canal Company

  Newhaven (Seine Maritime Regional Authority)

  Porthleven Harbour & Docks Company

  Port of Mostyn Ltd.

  Seaham Harbour Dock Company

  (b) Local authority ports

  Argyll and Bute council

  Rothesay

  Carmarthenshire county council Llanelli

  Exeter city council

  Isle of Wight council

  Newport

  North Devon district council

  Ilfracombe

  Orkney Islands council

  559W

  Sedgemoor district council

  Bridgwater

  Waveney district council

  Southwold

  West Dorset district council

  Bridport

  Worthing borough council

  (c) Trust ports

  Blyth Harbour Commission

  Coleraine Harbour Commission

  Crouch Harbour Authority

  Dart Harbour & Navigation Authority

  Littlehampton Harbour Board

  Looe Harbour Commission

  Maldon Harbour Improvement Commission

  Maryport Harbour Commission

  Mousehole Harbour Commission

  Sandwich Port & Haven Commission

  (d) Other

  Duchy of Cornwall

  Isles of Scilly

  Environment Agency Wales

  River Dee

  Norfolk Broads Authority.

  My officials are corresponding with, and visiting, those authorities that have significant responsibilities for marine safety if they have not reported compliance with the Code.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responsibilities Ministers have for the safety regulation duties of the CAA; and if he will make a statement. [52408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Transport Act 2000 lay on the Secretary of State and the CAA complementary duties in relation to the regulation of aviation safety.

  The Secretary of State has responsibility for encouraging measures for promoting safety in the use of civil aircraft and ensuring that international obligations are fulfilled: he is also answerable to Parliament generally for the performance of the CAA. The CAA has responsibility for advising the Secretary of State on all civil aviation safety matters and for regulating air safety through various licensing, certification and approval regimes.

  In practice, the Secretary of State refrains from interfering in the CAA's day to day responsibilities. This is expressed in the letter which is customarily sent to Chairmen of the CAA shortly after their appointments specifying the broad policy framework in which the Authority is to operate. The letter also states that the Chairman's primary objective is to ensure that the CAA continues to promote, in an efficient and cost effective way, high standards of safety in all aspects of civil aviation. A copy of this letter, dated 16 October 2001, is in the Libraries of the House.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure that their 49 per cent. shareholding in NATS is being administered properly. [52409]

  Mr. Jarnieson
  As part of the structure of the public private partnership they have appointed three non-executive directors to the Board of NATS. These directors are responsible for safeguarding the Government's interests in the company. NATS is also required by the strategic partnership agreement to provide regular management information.

  Pilotage
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether pilotage services operated by Humber Pilots Limited are covered by contract; and if he will make a statement. [53072]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Humber Pilots Ltd. no longer provide pilotage services: they gave notice on their contract with the competent harbour authority which expired in January 2002.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the Humber Pilots Limited contract with Associated British Ports was terminated and the former pilots' authorisations revoked; and if he will make a statement. [53070]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The contract between Associated British Ports and Humber Pilots Ltd. is a matter for the parties and it was not appropriate for Ministers to become involved in the dispute which arose between them over it. The Pilotage Act 1987 provides for there to be a contract between authorised pilots and their competent harbour authority, and for authorisations to be revoked if there ceases to be one.

  I understand that, when Humber Pilots Ltd. gave notice on their contract, expiring in January 2002, the authority responded by formally advising each authorised pilot that his authorisation would then be revoked by virtue of termination of the contract between the authority and Humber Pilots Ltd.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many Humber pilots work for Humber Pilots Limited; how many worked on 12 December 2001; and, in each case, how many were formally authorised by the competent harbour authority and what their qualifications were; and if he will make a statement. [53086]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that no pilots worked for Humber Pilots Ltd: it was established as a co-operative under the Friendly Society Act 1965 with its members treated as self-employed. I also understand that, on 12 December 2001, 136 members of Humber Pilots Ltd. were authorised as pilots by the competent harbour authority. The Department does not have detailed information on their qualifications. The paper on the new Humber pilotage service mentioned in the answer given to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on Tuesday
  561W
  16 April 2002, Official Report, columns 803–04W states (in paragraph 4.5.) that about 20 of the 136 did not have a Class 1 Certificate of Competency.

  Flight Paths (London)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes have taken place in the last 12 months in flight paths into(a) Gatwick and (b) Stansted which have affected the number of flights above Walthamstow. [52958]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Walthamstow area is mainly affected by overflight of aircraft inbound to London Heathrow and outbound from London City. It may sometimes also be overflown by aircraft inbound to London Stansted, when that airport is operating in a north easterly direction.

  Aerodromes
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps his Department is taking to ensure the continuance of unofficial safeguarding arrangements for(a) gliding sites and (b) other licensed and unlicensed aerodromes provided for in paragraph 9 of the annexe to Circular 2/92; and if he will make a statement; [52870]

  (2) what progress his Department has made on the revision of Circular 2/92; and if he will make a statement. [52869]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department carried out a public consultation last year on a proposal to revise Department of the Environment Circular 2/92 on the official safeguarding of aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas. Following the end of the public consultation period, and discussions with the main stakeholders. my Department last month issued for further comment by those stakeholders a second draft of a revised Circular. In doing so the Department has reinstated the recommendation contained in the 1992 Circular, to operators of smaller aerodromes and of sites for other aviation activities, such as gliding or parachuting, to lodge an 'unofficial' safeguarding map with local planning authorities, together with the offer by the Civil Aviation Authority of advice on a format for such maps.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on a safeguarding publication to be issued by the Civil Aviation Authority concerning the operators of unlicensed aerodromes and gliding sites; and if he will make a statement. [52871]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from the Civil Aviation Authority that it has undertaken to publish guidance on aerodrome safeguarding for all aerodrome operators. A complete draft of the guidance is at present being considered by an industry working group, and the intention is that the final version will be available to complement the proposed new Departmental Circular to local authorities on safeguarding consultation requirements. Notwithstanding the proposed changes to those requirements, and the proposed publication of guidance, the Civil Aviation Authority will maintain its own safeguarding expertise and will continue to provide advice to aerodrome operators as the need arises.

  Roads
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what major infrastructure work has been carried out on the(a) A12,
  (b) A14, (c) A140 and (d) B1113 in the last 15 years, in each case giving (i) the aim and nature of the works, (ii) details of the Government body responsible, (iii) the length of time the works took and (iv) the costs of the works; [50643]

  (2) what works are planned on the (a) A12, (b) A14, (c) A140 and (d) B1113; [50644]

  (3) on how many days in 2001 the level of traffic on the (a) A12, (b) A14, (c) A140 and (d) B1113 was two or more times the daily average on these roads; [50646]

  (4) how many (a) cars, motorbikes and vans, (b) lorries and (c) camper-vans and caravans use the (i) A12, (ii) A14, (iii) A140 and (iv) B1113 each day; and what the estimate is for the increase in traffic on each road over the lifetime of the Ten-Year Plan; [50645]

  (5) what recent representations he has received from (a) the Highways Agency, (b) local authorities and (c) others, with regards to the (i) A12, (ii) A14, (iii) A140 and (iv) B1113. [50648]

  Mr. Byers
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 29 April 2002:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A12, the A14, the A140 and the B1113.
  During 2001, the level of traffic on the trunk road section of the A12 and the A14, at sites where traffic flows are measured, was never two or more times the daily average at those sites.
  The A140 ceased to be a trunk road on 1 June 2001, when responsibility passed from the Secretary of State to the Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils. At sites where traffic flow was measured by the Highways Agency before June 2001, the traffic flow was never two or more times the daily average at the same sites during 2000.
  The B1113 is not a trunk road and we do hold any traffic data for it. This road is the responsibility of Suffolk County Council.
  Details of past and future improvements to those roads that are, or were, our responsibility are set out in the Annex to this letter.
  The DETR publication 'National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997' (NRTF) sets out the latest forecasts for growth in the volume of motor traffic (excluding motorcycles) on roads in Great Britain until the year 2031. The forecasts are based on current policies, the best available evidence of behaviour and the capacity of the current road network. The publication is available on the DTLR website www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk. The forecasts are broken down by type of road, area and vehicle. Where detailed estimates of traffic growth for a particular location are required, the Department recommends the construction of a local traffic or transport model, incorporating the Department's national trip end model forecasts. For all-purpose trunk roads, NRTF predicts growth patterns between 2001 and 2010 within the range 11.5 per cent to 18 per cent. The Highways Agency does not hold traffic data in the form requested.
  We have received a number of representations recently about the A12 and the A14. Particular issues included our proposals to install lighting on the A12 Brentwood Bypass in Essex and to improve the A14 between Thrapston and Brampton and at Rookery Crossroads; about traffic queuing problems on the A14 westbound at Junction 4 of the A14 (A14/A6 North) in Northamptonshire; about the

  563W
  adequacy of the slip roads at the Swavesey and Boxworth junctions in Cambridgeshire following the opening of new service area facilities and about general issues relating to both roads.

  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent changes to regulations regarding the transportation by road of radioactive material. [52688]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I will shortly lay new regulations to align the requirements for domestic road transport of radioactive material in Great Britain with those applying in Europe and by other modes internationally.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average time in days for processing and dispatching replacement vehicle registration documents by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was in the last 12 months. [53199]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency monitor their annual performance against turnround performance targets sanctioned by the Secretary of State.

  For the year 2001–02 in respect of registration documents issued in response to customers notifying changes to their own or the vehicles details, the agency processed and despatched 95 per cent. of all transactions within 11.4 days.

  Vehicle Ownership
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many cars are registered to households in(a) Dumfries and Galloway region, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [52905]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of currently licensed cars registered to keepers with addresses in the Dumfries and Galloway unitary authority. Scotland and the United Kingdom are shown in the table. The figures for Great Britain are as at 30 September 2001; the figure for Northern Ireland (649,400) included in the United Kingdom total is as at 31 December 2001. The totals include cars registered to companies and other entities as well as to individuals.

  Thousands

  Area

  Number of cars

  Dumfries and Galloway unitary authority

  62.0

  Scotland

  1,922.0

  United Kingdom

  25,629.4

  Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people in(a) mid-Essex and (b) the county of Essex have (i) died and (ii) been injured as a result of vehicle accidents since 1 January 2001. [52606]
  564W
  Mr.Jamieson
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy that persons who abandon vehicles receive penalty points on their driving licence. [52591]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Abandoning a vehicle is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine, six months' imprisonment, or both. We have no plans to change those penalties.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many heavy goods vehicles were fitted with particulate traps in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [52587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The precise number of heavy goods vehicles fitted with particulate traps in 2001 is not known as vehicle owners are not obliged to notify the Secretary of State of this modification.

  However, nearly all owners of heavy goods vehicles fitted with particulate traps will request a Reduced Pollution Certificate (RPC) which, once obtained, can reduce vehicle excise duty by up to £500 per year.

  In 2001 the Vehicle Inspectorate, an executive agency in my Department, issued 2,132 RPCs to owners of heavy goods vehicles that were fitted with particulate traps.

  Bus Subsidies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what improvements to services and changes in passenger numbers have resulted from bus subsidies paid in each of the past four years. [51283]

  Ms Keeble
  Public financial support for bus services has helped to maintain service levels and passenger numbers by reducing operators' costs and subsidising services which are not commercially viable, including some 1,800 new or enhanced rural services supported by Rural Bus Subsidy Grant introduced in 1998. Funding has also provided for concessionary fares for pensioners and a number of other groups and helped operators to achieve high levels of investment in new vehicles.

  Passenger numbers on local bus services have remained relatively stable over the past four years after a long period of decline and rose by 1 per cent. in England in 2000–01. This includes some 17 million passenger journeys made on services supported by Rural Bus Subsidy Grant.

  The overall position on service levels and passenger numbers in England over the past four years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Million

  Operated kilometers

  Passenger numbers

  1997–98

  2,142

  3,773

  1998–99

  2,166

  3,719

  1999–2000

  2,129

  3,732

  2000–01

  2,147

  3,761

  565W
  We are setting up a review of bus subsidy mechanisms to ensure that they contribute as effectively as possible to the achievement of our objectives.

  Bus subsidies in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Channel Tunnel
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he is taking to assist companies that are affected by delays and cancellations in the channel tunnel. [52544]

  Mr. Jamieson
  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 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.

  Mersey Rail Contract
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he has made in transferring the awarding of the Mersey rail contract from the SRA lease to Mersey travel. [51940]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A draft statutory instrument to exempt the Mersey Rail Electric network from the franchising process conducted by the Strategic Rail Authority has been issued for consultation. It is intended to lay this before Parliament in June.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his latest projected completion date is for upgrading the west coast mainline(a) north and (b) south of the Scotland/England border. [52581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is leading a review with Railtrack and other stakeholders of the outputs to be delivered from the project. An announcement on the outcome of the review will be made in due course.

  Crossrail
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the completion dates are for the(a) consultation period and (b) announcement of the preferred route for the east London aspect of the Crossrail project. [53256]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Between May and July, Cross London Rail Links Ltd. will be consulting stakeholders on all the shortlisted Crossrail route options, east and west. They hope to make an announcement on the preferred route in October. This will be followed by a public consultation period lasting about three months.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which groups of people will be involved in the consultation 566W
  period for the east London aspect of the Crossrail project; and if the findings of the consultation period will be published. [53257]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Cross London Rail Links will seek to consult as widely as possible. There will be a period of consultation with key stakeholders on the shortlisted route options, and a period of full public consultation after the preferred route has been identified. The findings of the consultation will be included in the environmental statement when powers are sought for the project.

  SouthEast Network Railcard
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what steps are being taken by his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that the Association of Train Operating Companies provide the Rail Passengers Council with information regarding how the decision regarding plans for the SouthEast Network Railcard was arrived at; [50908]

  (2) what correspondence has been received by his Department or the Strategic Rail Authority from the Rail Passengers Council regarding the Association of Train Operating Companies' proposals for the SouthEast Network Railcard; and if he will place copies of the correspondence in the Library. [50903]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Passengers Council (RPC) wrote to the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on 26 March about the changes to the SouthEast Network Card. They requested that the SRA use its powers under licence conditions to ensure that the financial information on which these decisions were based is provided to the RPC. The SRA has obtained this information from ATOC and sent this forward to the RPC on 24 April.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the last safety audit of road and rail intersections in the UK was conducted; and what action has been taken to address highlighted concerns. [52457]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Where safety audits are carried out they are the responsibility of the individual highway authority and are mainly applied to new works. Safety audits, as such, are not carried out on the railway, but a railway infrastructure authority is under a duty to ensure that it operates in a safe manner. Information about safety audits is not held centrally.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received on track safety issues between Kilmarnock and Dumfries. [52580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Rail Incident (Wales)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to receive a report from the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate regarding its investigation
  567W
  into the circumstances of the incident on the railway line between Abergavenny and Cwmbran on 17 January; and what preliminary findings he has received. [52282]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate have investigated the incident at Abergavenny on 18 January but will not be producing a report because the primary cause of the incident was a road traffic accident on the A40 dual carriageway. Further investigations into this incident are being led by both the Gwent police and the British Transport police.

  Rail Freight
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what his policy is on the protection which will be given to rail freight operators against increases in track access charges by the Rail Regulator in future franchise agreements; [53508]

  (2) when the rail freight franchises will be renewed. [53506]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no franchises for rail freight.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Early Retirement
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have taken early retirement through ill health in each of the past five years. [52540]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of ill health retirements from the maintained schools sector in England in each of the last five financial years for which we have data were as follows:

  Number

  1996–97

  4,980

  1997–98

  3,300

  1998–99

  2,320

  1999–2000

  2,350

  2000–01 1

  2,610

  1 2000–01 data are provisional.

  Note:

  Changes in the statutory regulations governing ill health retirement came into force on 1 April 1997. To qualify for ill-health retirement benefits a teacher must now be regarded as permanently unfit to teach.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members 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. [44549]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department does not hold this information centrally and could provide it only at disproportionate cost.

  Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996 requires employers to allow their staff reasonable time off for public duties. The Civil Service Management Code (paragraph 9.2.5) also requires departments to allow time
  568W
  off for attendance required by section 50 of the ERA 1996. My Department demonstrates its support to employees who are justices of the peace by allowing them special leave with pay to perform the duties associated with their office.

  Licensed Child Minders
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many licensed child minders there were in each of the last seven years. [48221]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Numbers of registered child minders1—England—position at 31 March each year

  Registered child minders

  1995

  97,100

  1996

  102,600

  1997

  98,500

  1998

  94,700

  1999

  82,200

  2000

  75,600

  2001

  72,300

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Notes:

  1. This information was provided by local authorities.

  2. While the change in the number of registered child minders is of concern it has coincided with increases in alternative forms of child care over the past few years, which have offered a greater diversity in services for parents and children.

  3. The Government value registered child minding and are concerned about the decline in child minder numbers. The Government's strategy to help to reverse this trend includes:

  a four year national recruitment campaign to raise the status of working in the sector;

  child minder start up grants;

  grants to help child minders in disadvantaged areas when they have a vacancy; and

  the creation of networks to support child minders.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which secondary schools in England have no indoor facilities for physical education. [48750]

  John Healey
  Data drawn from local Asset Management Plans and sent to the Department in 2000–01 by local education authorities show that the overwhelming majority of secondary schools have indoor facilities for physical education. Appraisal of this information and data has focused on LEAs' overall assessment processes, rather than the details for each school. It is not therefore possible to list those schools which do not have such facilities. Information about individual schools can be obtained from the appropriate local education authority.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people employed by the non-departmental public bodies for which she 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. [49610]
  569W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information about the numbers employed by DIES non-departmental public bodies on new deal programmes, is not collected or held centrally by this Department.

  Sixth Forms and Colleges
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is in respect of similar salaries for comparable work by teachers in further education colleges and schools with sixth forms. [52572]

  Margaret Hodge
  Pay and conditions for teachers in maintained schools, including those with sixth forms, is determined on a statutory basis under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The pay and terms and conditions of the lecturers who work in sixth form colleges and general further education colleges are matter for the employers to determine, in discussion with the relevant unions. A wide range of pay and conditions now exist in the FE sector, reflecting the diverse learning needs of the colleges' local communities and colleges' individual decisions on implementing the nationally recommended pay settlement each year.

  Low Participation Postcodes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will instruct the Higher Education Funding Council for England to publish its list of low participation postcodes; and if she will make a statement. [52267]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: I understand that the Chief Executive of the Funding Council has written to the hon. Member to enable him to have access to this information.

  Agencies (Liaison)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the agencies that fall under her Department's remit that have a duty to liaise with secondary heads on educational matters. [52512]

  Estelle Morris
  There is no statutory duty placed on the Department's agencies to liaise with secondary heads on educational matters. However, agencies do consult directly and indirectly with secondary heads if it is deemed appropriate to ensure the effective delivery of both the Department's and their own remits.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much money in total she estimates schools and colleges will pay in additional employers' national insurance contributions in 2003–04; [52515]

  (2) whether LEAs will receive additional budget provisions for 2003–04 to cover the cost of increased employers' national insurance contributions; [52516]

  (3) how much additional cost on average she expects secondary schools to incur in 2003–04 as a result of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions; [52518]
  570W
  (4) what she estimates to be the total increased national insurance bill for an average primary school in England in 2003–04; [52519]

  (5) how much additional funding colleges of further education will require in 2003–04 to offset the additional cost of employers' national insurance contributions. [52525]

  Mr. Timms
  The additional cost in employers' national insurance contributions in 2003–04 for all English colleges (including sixth form colleges) providing further education is estimated to be about £25 million. This cost will be considered alongside other priorities and pressures in the 2002 spending review. The costs to schools will be in the region of £4k for the average primary school and £20k for the average secondary school. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 311W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what she estimates will be the total cost of employers' national insurance contributions met(a) directly and (b) indirectly from her Department's budget in this financial year. [52529]

  Estelle Morris
  The total amount of employers' national insurance contributions paid directly by the Department for Education and Skills in respect of central administration for the year 2002–03 is estimated to be £7 million.

  Employers' national insurance contributions are paid indirectly by the Department for Education and Skills plus the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions through the funding of education and training providers. Data regarding the total amount of national insurance contributions paid are not held centrally. Using available data, we estimate the cost will be £3,000 million for 2002–03.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent estimate she has made of the funding level related to current and future liabilities of the teachers' pension scheme. [52522]

  Mr. Timms
  The Teachers' Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme, with a "notional" account maintained and valued periodically by the Government Actuary. The last valuation, as at 31 March 1996, revealed that total liabilities of the scheme (pensions currently in payment and the estimated cost of future benefits) amounted to £65,670 million and total assets amounted to £61,710 million. The 1996 report is available in the House of Commons Library.

  I expect to have the Government Actuary's report on the 2001 review by the end of the year.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the cost to the teachers' pension scheme of tax changes since 1997. [52538]

  Mr. Timms
  As the Teachers' Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme there are no associated tax liabilities.
  571W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the fund managers are of the teachers' pension scheme. [52539]

  Mr. Timms
  The Teachers' Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme. There are, therefore, no fund managers.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are made for the payment of a pension to a teacher who takes early retirement through ill health; and how it is funded. [52541]

  Mr. Timms
  Where a teacher is considered to be permanently unfit to teach as a result of illness or injury, they become entitled to receive payment of ill health retirement benefits, consisting of a pension and lump sum. Arrangements for the payment of benefits are made by the administrators of the Teachers' Pension Scheme. The cost of ill health retirement benefits, alongside the cost of all other benefits payable under the provisions of the scheme, is taken into account by the Government Actuary as part of the periodic scheme valuation. The results of the valuation determine the employer contribution rate needed to defray the costs of the scheme. Teachers pay a contribution of 6 per cent. of salary towards the cost of their pension scheme benefits; the current employer contribution rate is 8.35 per cent. of salary.

  Selection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools select more than 5 per cent. of their intake in England and Wales. [52530]

  Mr. Timms
  The 164 schools in England, designated by order as grammar schools, are wholly selective. My Department does not collect information on partial selection. However, a recent analysis of progress reports from specialist schools, undertaken by my Department, found that less than 6 per cent. of these schools select some pupils by aptitude.

  In Wales, there are no maintained grammar schools, and only one partially selective school. The school selects more than 5 per cent. of pupils.

  Specialist Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of schools that will become specialist schools in each of the next three years. [52531]

  Mr. Timms
  By September 2002 we expect there to be at least 150 more specialist schools joining the 834 already designated. This puts us well on course to exceed our target of 1,000 by 2003 and to reach our goal of at least 1,500 specialist schools by 2005.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of current applications to establish specialist schools contain a request to select more than 5 per cent. of their intake by aptitude. [52532]

  Mr. Timms
  None of the specialist school applications currently being assessed by my Department include a request to select a proportion of their intake by aptitude. School admission arrangements are a matter for local determination; they do not require approval by my Department.
  572W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many maintained specialist schools there are in England. [52533]

  Mr. Timms
  There are currently 685 maintained specialist schools in England. A further 149 have been designated for September 2002.

  Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what conditions she will attach to the additional funding announced for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Budget. [52537]

  Mr. Timms
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor announced an additional £85 million of capital funding for schools and colleges in England in 2003–04. The share of this funding going to schools will be provided as an addition to New Deal for Schools devolved formula capital for schools. The increase will add around 20 per cent. to the previously announced allocations of this programme for both primary and secondary schools in 2002–03.

  Guidance on the use of New Deal for Schools devolved formula capital was issued in April 2001, and revised guidance will be issued in the near future. There is no difference between the way in which primary schools and secondary schools may use this funding.

  The Chancellor also referred in his Budget statement to previously announced increases in the School Standards Grant. This direct grant can be used for any standards directed expenditure in schools.

  Further Education
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's policy is on ensuring that public funds made available to further education colleges are reflected in pay offers made to teachers. [52564]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are investing significant funding in the FE sector. In 2001–02, £527 million extra was planned for FE—a 12 per cent. real terms increase, with a further 3 per cent. increase this year. By 2003–04, annual funding for FE will have increased by £1.4 billion since 1996–97, a real terms increase of 20 per cent.

  It is for each college to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to them. In 2001–02, at least 93 per cent. of colleges were able to pay the recommended 3.7 per cent. pay award in full, or in part. The substantial additional investment we are making in the sector should enable colleges to ensure that staff receive an appropriate salary increase this year.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact on forward planning by further education colleges of current funding structures and practices. [52566]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council's (LSC) funding arrangements aim to provide an appropriate balance between the need to move resources flexibly to meet changing student demand, and the advantages for colleges of being able to plan for the medium term.
  573W
  On funding for participation, resources need to follow the learner. Colleges which attract additional students should be supported with additional funding as resources allow. Colleges which do not meet their projected student numbers must expect to adjust their plans accordingly. The LSC has arrangements in place to support colleges in financial difficulties while they make the required changes.

  On funding for improving standards and institutional development, the LSC is developing funding arrangements which support the medium term planning required for such changes. The LSC, when allocating Standards Funds to colleges for 2002–03 will indicate likely funding for the following two years, subject to availability of funds and progress towards agreed improvement targets.

  The Government have also given commitments to colleges about future increases in Teaching Pay Initiative allocations and an assurance that future funding arrangements will recognise the on-going commitments these represent to colleges where they consolidate these payments into lecturers' salaries.

  The Government expect the LSC, in deciding future funding arrangements, to keep under review the balance between flexible resourcing and stability in college funding.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role she plans for(a) further education colleges and (b) school sixth-forms in encouraging students to enter higher education. [52573]

  Margaret Hodge
  Further education colleges and school sixth forms both have a crucial role to play in encouraging young people to enter higher education. The Excellence Challenge brings schools and colleges together in partnership with higher education institutions to raise attainment and aspirations. Schools and FE colleges in Excellence Challenge areas will also benefit from the AimHigher roadshow, which was launched earlier this year to promote higher education to young people. FE colleges also have a valued role as providers of higher education.

  We are working with both the Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England to strengthen ways in which progression to higher education can be supported and encouraged.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average funding per pupil in 16 to 19 education in(a) school sixth forms, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) further education colleges was in 2000–01 in (i) England, (ii) Hampshire, (iii) Dorset, (iv) Surrey and (v) West Sussex. [52549]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 20021]: The figures for school and college funding have not been calculated on the same basis and cannot therefore be used to make comparisons. The FE unit funding figure includes total public funding allocated for further education, while the schools' figure does not. It is based only on delegated funds and excludes other funding the school receives centrally from LEAs which impacts on post-16 students.
  574W
  The latest estimate of the average delegated funding per sixth form student in schools per year in England for 2001–02 is £3,330. The total funding per full-time equivalent student in FE sector colleges per year in England for 2001–02 is estimated to be £3,660.

  Separate figures for sixth form colleges are not available. Separate figures for county funding levels are not available.

  Graduates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of each 10-year age cohort over the age of 25 years are graduates. [52916]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows the percentage of people within each 10-year age group who hold a first degree or higher qualification, estimated from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The estimates relate only to people of working age, as the LFS does not collect data on the qualifications of people above this age unless they are in employment.

  Estimated percentage of the working age population in each age band who hold a first degree or higher qualification

  Age group

  Percentage

  25–34

  21

  35–44

  17

  45–54

  16

  55–64*

  11

  All aged 25–641

  17

  1 Excludes women aged 60–64

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring 2001, GB figures

  Education Funding (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what effect the Budget of 17 April will have on the provision of education in Cheltenham. [52940]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget an additional £85 million investment in 2002–03 in school and college buildings in England. This means that every maintained school in England, including those in Cheltenham, will receive in 2002–03 an additional allocation of about 20 per cent. of New Deal for Schools devolved formula capital for schools. Colleges and other educational establishments will also receive their proportionate share. Details of changes to future funding for education will be announced when the Spending Review has been completed in the summer.

  Golden Hellos (Teacher Shortages)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what factors underlay the decision to restrict golden hello payments to shortage-subject specialists trained for secondary teaching. [53008]

  Mr. Timms
  Golden hellos are available in the five subject-areas where teacher recruitment is most challenging. National statistics published by my Department on 24 April showed that, in January 2002, 70 per cent. of all vacancies for full-time secondary teachers in England were in these subjects.

  Ministerial Powers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers she holds in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. [52536]

  Estelle Morris
  My powers are broadly for England, with some also extending to Wales. The education and training functions previously exercised by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland have transferred to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials work closely with officials in the devolved Administrations on matters of mutual interest across the UK. My Department also represents the UK at international level on education, skills and youth issues, briefed, where appropriate, by the devolved Administrations. Under the Industrial Training Acts, I have levy powers across England, Scotland and Wales to fund the Industrial Training Boards.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children left school in 2001 without any qualifications. [52274]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: In 2001 the proportion of pupils reaching the end of compulsory schooling without any qualifications fell for the sixth year in a row to 5.5 per cent.

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure Ofsted inspections and individual inspectors do not influence individual school reports by applying their religious beliefs to evidence of school performance. [53128]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of the Ofsted inspection conducted in the Torbay unitary authority Area in 2001; how many officials were involved in undertaking the inspection; and what the cost was of producing a report after the inspection. [52486]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  School Funding
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much direct grant was given to(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in
  (i) St Helens, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) the north-west, (iv) the south-east and (v) England in (A) 1997, (B) 1998,
  (C) 1999, (D) 2000 and (E) 2001. [50937]

  Mr. Timms
  School Standards Grant (SSG) was not payable in 1997, 1998 and 1999. For the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 the total amount of SSG paid to all schools (primary, secondary, special, pupil referral unit and nursery), taking into account adjustments made as a result 576W
  of reconciliations, is as shown on the table. A breakdown of the amounts of funding into primary and secondary schools cannot be supplied except at disproportionate cost.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  St. Helens

  1,064,000

  2,345,500

  Merseyside

  8,971,000

  19,128,000

  the north-west

  43,743,750

  94,001,000

  the south-east

  43,964,000

  94,417,500

  England

  292,711,500

  631,103,500

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent by(a) St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, (b) the average council in the north-west, (c) the average council in the south-east and (d) the average council in England on education in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [50938]

  Mr. Timms
  The table sets out the information requested. The Department is due to collect data relating to the 2001–02 financial year from this September.

  Cash £000

  Region

  1997–98 Outturn

  1998–99 Outturn

  1999–2000 Outturn

  2000–01 Outturn1

  St. Helens

  78,961

  84,024

  85,584

  91,093

  North west councils

  131,270

  138,453

  146,787

  157,071

  South east councils

  142,329

  150,559

  171,121

  183,090

  1 Provisional

  Real£000

  Region

  1997–98 Outturn

  1998–99 Outturn

  1999–2000 Outturn

  2000–01 Outturn1

  St. Helens

  84,628

  87,604

  87,158

  91,093

  North west councils

  140,691

  144,352

  149,486

  157,071

  South east councils

  152,544

  156,974

  174,268

  183,090

  England councils

  135,033

  138,618

  150,106

  158,057

  1 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Source of figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are drawn from the DTLR's ROI returns.

  2. Source of figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are drawn from the DfES's Section 52 Outturn statements.

  3. 2000–01 figures are provisional and are subject to change.

  4. Real terms figures are calculated using GDP deflators published by the Treasury 17 April 2002.

  5. Figures reflect Net Current Expenditure which covers all education expenditure by local authorities.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on 19 March. [53025]

  Mr. Timms
  I apologise to the hon. Member for the time taken in providing an answer to his question of 19 March, but it is taking some time in compiling the information which he seeks.

  I anticipate being able to provide a reply by the end of the week.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to award teachers in the FE and college sector pay awards equal to those teaching in secondary schools. [53122]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is for each college to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with its staff in the context of the overall resources available to them. We are, however, aware of the funding gap between schools and FE and have pledged to bring up levels of funding and allow upwards convergence over time as resources allow.

  We are investing significant funding in the FE sector. In 2001–02, £527 million extra was planned for FE—a 12 per cent. real terms increase, with a further 3 per cent. increase this year. By 2003–04, annual funding for FE will have increased by £1.4 billion compared with 1997–98, a real terms increase of 20 per cent. The substantial additional investment we are making in the sector should help colleges and the trade unions reach agreement on appropriate salary increase this year.

  We are also investing more than £311 million in the teaching pay initiative during the period 2001–04 to allow colleges, including sixth form colleges, to reward high quality teaching. This is separate to any general pay rise a teacher may receive.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what duties and responsibilities she has determined are appropriate for teaching assistants in(a) primary and (b) secondary sectors. [53124]

  Mr. Timms
  A working party involving representatives of teachers and support staff, the local government employers and other Government bodies, is currently considering the roles and responsibilities of teaching assistants in primary, secondary and special schools. Following its initial discussions, we expect to issue a consultation paper asking for comments on these and a range of other issues relating to teaching assistants and support staff. The Education Bill currently before Parliament provides for there to be regulations specifying the duties which may be carried out by teaching assistants and others who are not qualified as school teachers.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to provide a career structure for teaching assistants. [53125]

  Mr. Timms
  The question of a career structure and associated training and development for teaching assistants is being considered by a working party which includes representatives of teachers and support staff, the local government employers and other Government bodies. This group's discussions are being used to inform the production of a consultation paper which will address a range of issues relating to teaching assistants and other support staff. National vocational qualifications, based on the new national occupational standards for teaching assistants, are expected to be in place later this year and will form part of the proposed career structure.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to provide schools and local education authorities with model role descriptions for teaching assistants. [53126]
  578W
  Mr. Timms
  Possible roles for teaching assistants in schools are being considered by a working party which includes representatives of teachers and support staff, the local government employers and other Government bodies. We expect to issue a consultation paper later this term, which will ask for comments on enhanced roles and responsibilities and will address the need for the provision of guidance to schools and local education authorities.

  Emmanuel College, Gateshead
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ask Ofsted to carry out a full inspection of Emmanuel College Gateshead. [53127]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to ask HM Chief Inspector to inspect Emmanuel City Technology College.

  Medical Degrees
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many medical degree places were offered by higher education institutions in each year since 1997. [53259]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is given in the table.

  Planned intake of pre-clinical medical students to HE institutions in the UK

  Year of entry

  Planned intake

  1997

  5,020

  1998

  5,062

  1999

  5,165

  2000

  5,595

  2001

  5,928

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by her Department during(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2000–02 sessions; and if their responses have been published. [44387]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO consulted widely on the draft International Criminal Court Bill in 2000. Among others, the consultation document was sent to the Coalition for an ICC (which includes the Women's Caucus for Gender Issues and Sisterhood International) and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. There were no other cases in the years in question when women's organisations were consulted.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many special advisers were employed by him(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41250]
  579W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Two, at a cost of £51,647 in salary and pension contributions.

  (b) Two.

  1998: £79,090

  1999: £93,259

  2000: £132,733

  Special adviser pay for 2001–02 is under review. Figures for 2001 will not be available until the work of the review has been completed.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47190]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 49W.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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 jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [49599]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None of our non-departmental public bodies has employed anyone under the New Deal for Young People over the last four years.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a

  Review

  Scheduled

  Personnel Management and Assessment Units

  2002

  Resource Management Group, FCO Services

  2002

  Personnel Services (excluding Superannuation) Personnel Command

  2002

  Personnel Policy, Personnel Command

  2002

  Prosper (Retirement Service)

  2002

  Crystal Print Services, FCO Services

  2002

  Conference & Visits Group, FCO Services

  2002–03

  Library & Information Services, FCO Services

  2002

  Logistical Services/Airfreight Contract

  2003

  Protocol (including Honours & Royal Matters)

  2003

  Information Services (Overseas & Home)

  2003–04

  Procurement (Purchasing, Global Procurement—including the Logistics contract, Workshops) FCO Services, Purchasing Directorate and small purchasing units

  2003

  Medical & Welfare, Personnel Command

  2004

  Information Technology (IT Strategy Unit/Information Systems Services/ IT Projects/IT Support/ Comcen/IT Training/ Engineering Services

  2004–05

  580W
  percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and if the target was met. [49634]

  Mr. MacShane
  HM Treasury requires executive non-departmental public bodies to include this information in their annual reports. The annual reports for the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe, the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, the British Council, the Great Britain-Russia Centre and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy are available in the House Library. The annual report for the Great Britain-China Centre will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Intervention
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on intervention in matters within the sovereign responsibility of foreign states. [50695]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government believe that sovereignty entails responsibility. The international community has a shared responsibility to intervene when confronted with massive violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity. Any such action should be carried out in accordance with international law.

  Better Quality Services Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the services of his Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50317]

  Mr. MacShane
  My noble Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster informed Departments on 6 February that he had decided to discontinue the Better Quality Services (BQS) scheme.

  Three BQS reviews, of consular services, security and training are still in progress. All are expected to be completed by this summer. In addition the following BQS reviews remained in the programme agreed between the FCO and the Cabinet Office:
  581W
  The FCO is currently considering how best to conduct internal reviews of effectiveness in future, to provide assurance that high standards of performance, particularly in areas of customer focus and service delivery are achieved and maintained. Reviews of personnel and public diplomacy are already in hand.

  Madagascar
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Madagascar with regard to the prospects of avoiding conflict in that country. [52321]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: We welcome the signature of the Dakar Accord on 18 April 2002 by President Didier Ratsiraka and presidential candidate Marc Ravalomanana. Both parties have agreed to form a transitional government of national unity, to work together through dialogue to find a sustainable solution and to bring to an end to the violence and the various blockades which have brought Madagascar to a virtual standstill. Both parties need to live up to this undertaking. We will continue, with our EU and international partners, to monitor developments.

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52839]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: A list giving the requested information will be deposited in the Library of the House. The annual cost of newspapers supplied to the FCO is estimated at £78,147. This does not include the cost of newspapers supplied to overseas posts, which could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the magazines and periodicals subscribed to by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52840]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: A complete list of magazines and periodicals supplied to the FCO as a whole could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The total annual cost under the FCO's main contracts is estimated at £392,509.

  No-fly Zones
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the no fly-zones in preventing Saddam Hussein from repressing the Iraqi people. [50972]

  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the continuing need for the no-fly zones over Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [50939]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The no-fly zones were established in support of UNSCR 688. This called on Iraq to end its brutal repression of Kurds and other minority groups in the north and of the Shia community in the south. The 582W
  no-fly zones were set up in response to a grave humanitarian crisis and they prevent Saddam Hussein from once again using his air power against the civilian population in those areas.

  Terrorism
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure greater consistency in the Government's treatment of terrorism in regard to(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Iraq and (d) Israel; and if he will make a statement. [49824]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Government policy towards terrorism is entirely consistent. We condemn all acts of terrorism wherever they occur.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding military action against terrorism in the Middle East. [50967]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly discuss all aspects of the campaign against terrorism with the US administration. The Prime Minister spoke to President Bush about this when they met earlier this month.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the Green Paper on strengthening the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and countering the threat from biological weapons. [53246]

  Mr. Straw
  I am today publishing the Green Paper. Copies will be placed in the Library and it can also be accessed on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk.

  The Green Paper sets out the work that has been undertaken over many years to develop measures to make the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention more effective. The Foreign Affairs Committee, and Parliament in general, have supported these efforts, for which the Government are grateful.

  The paper expresses our disappointment at the failure of the States Parties to agree on the text of a Protocol to the Convention last year, despite all our efforts. It also explains why, despite this disappointment, it is still essential that efforts continue to find ways in which the convention can be strengthened and to counter the threat from biological weapons.

  The Green Paper identifies possible measures that States Parties might now consider to strengthen the convention. It discusses UK priorities and the next steps ahead of the reconvened BTWC Fifth Review Conference, in Geneva, on 11 November. It also invites comments on these proposals and seeks views from hon. Members, NGOs and other organisations and individuals with an interest in this subject.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out for each civil service grade within her(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. [39176]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am placing the details requested for staff within DTI headquarters and the Department's executive agencies (Radiocommunications Agency, Insolvency Service, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Employment Tribunal Service, Small Business Service, Patent Office and British Trade International) in the Libraries of the House.

  I have asked the chief executive of Companies House which do not use our database to write with similar information.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Paul Burstow:

  In response to your PQ2001/3055 on numbers employed by age range, the following are the figures for Companies House.

  (i) Total employed: 1,186

  (ii)

  A. Age 16–25: 192

  B. Age 26–35: 265

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  16,170

  17,156

  18,627

  21,442

  24,819

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  82,800

  85,600

  82,100

  84,600

  86,700

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  45,700

  47,900

  48,400

  49,900

  53,100

  Economic and Social Research Council

  2,100

  2,300

  2,200

  2.200

  2,500

  Engineering and Physical Science Research Council

  7,100

  7,100

  7,000

  7,300

  7,900

  Medical Research Council

  76,000

  78,000

  82,000

  87,000

  92,000

  Natural Environment Research Council

  76,300

  79,300

  78,300

  77,600

  80,200

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  12,300

  10,900

  8,300

  8,600

  9,500

  Advantage West Midland

  —

  —

  4,058

  5,493

  6,714

  East of England Development Agency1

  —

  —

  2,284

  3,289

  4,028

  East Midlands Development Agency1

  —

  —

  3,771

  4,284

  4,814

  North West Development Agency1

  —

  —

  6,317

  7,742

  8,538

  One North East1

  —

  —

  6,273

  7,135

  7,344

  South East England Development Agency1

  —

  —

  3,438

  4,680

  5,649

  South West of England Development Agency1

  —

  —

  4,737

  5,637

  6,337

  Yorkshire Forward1

  —

  —

  5,645

  6,278

  7,708

  Coal Authority

  2,544

  2,535

  2,693

  2,811

  3,098

  Competition Commission

  3,837

  3,767

  4,302

  5,032

  5,355

  Consumer Council for Postal Services (Postwatch)2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,744

  Design Council

  1,333

  1,324

  1,601

  1,856

  1,978

  Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch)3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,800

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  62,800

  66,100

  73,000

  76,300

  84,600

  1 The Regional Development Agencies were established in 1999

  2 The Consumer Council for Postal Services was established on 1 January 2001

  3 The Gas and Electricity Consumer Council was established on 1 November 2000

  Notes:

  1. The figures include ERNIC and superannuation costs

  2. The 2001–02 figures are provisional

  The information in respect of the National Consumer Council and SITPRO Ltd. can be found in their respective annual reports. Copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  584W

  C. Age 36–45: 411

  D. Age 46–60: 284

  E. Over 60: 34

  (iii) Registered disabled: 48

  (iv) Ethnic minorities: 46

  Sizewell B Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of the Sizewell B Inquiry was. [48028]

  Mr. Wilson
  The costs of the public inquiry completed in 1985 and attributed to the then Department of Energy, or recoverable from the Central Electricity Generating Board, totalled some £2.5 million. However the full costs of the inquiry would be several times that amount and would include the costs of CEGB applying for consent for the power station and the costs of other parties that participated in the inquiry. As the information is not held centrally within my Department, and the length of time since the inquiry, an estimate of the full costs cannot now be obtained without disproportionate costs.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible in each of the last five years. [50303]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following is the information requested:

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) of
  585W
  25 January 2002, Official Report, columns 1183–85W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, if she will list the grant schemes and other mechanisms by which her Department distributes funding to voluntary sector organisations. [51410]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Information on my Department's funding sources and initiatives can be found in table C1 and in the text of my Department's 2001 expenditure plans report (Cm 5112), a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Many of my Department's programmes are not sector specific and providing further information on take-up of these programmes by the voluntary sector would entail disproportionate cost. However, my Department directly funded the following voluntary organisations in 2000–01:

  Organisation

  Funding

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (£ million)

  16.9

  Citizens Advice, Scotland (£ million)

  2.225

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (£)

  180,000

  Child Accident Prevention Trust (£)

  25,000

  Business Volunteer Mentoring Association (£ million)

  1

  Other (£)

  25,015

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what degree energy production from(a) renewable sources, (b) wind and (c) CHP have changed since the introduction of NETA. [51961]

  Mr. Wilson
  The most recent data on the electricity output from renewable, wind and CHP sources were published on 31 August 2001 by Ofgem in its "Report to the DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators", covering the first two months of NETA operation. It found that, for those two months, compared with the corresponding two-month period a year earlier, output had decreased as follows:

  (a) for renewables (excluding hydro and wind), by 7 per cent;

  (b) for hydro, by 14 per cent:

  (c) for wind, by 13 per cent; and

  (d) for CHP, by 61 per cent.

  A significant rise in gas prices that occurred in the same months may have contributed to the very large fall in CHP output recorded in the survey period.

  Ofgem has committed in its corporate plan to carry out a review of NETA covering the first year of operation, to be published in the second quarter of 2002. Ofgem has indicated it intends to include as part of its one year review a chapter on the impact of NETA on smaller generators during the first year of NETA operation. In addition, further data on the output of electricity from renewables (including wind) and CHP sources are expected to be published in July 2002 in the DTI's annual "Digest of UK Energy Statistics".

  Following the Ofgem report of 31 August 2001, the Government set up a consultation on NETA and smaller generators, and on 4 April 2002 published their response. This identifies action to help smaller
  586W
  generators orerate more effectively within NETA. It is available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/industries_energy.html#markets.

  The introduction of the Renewables Obligation on 1 April this year provides a substantial impetus to the use of renewable electricity. On CHP, DEFRA are working to produce a draft strategy that will be out to consultation shortly. In the recent Budget, several measures were announced that would benefit CHP, including extending the exemption of CHP from the climate change levy.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of claimants represented by each of the top 10 claims handlers have been refused any settlement for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [52308]

  Mr. Wilson
  The percentage of claims denied for compensation under the chronic bronchitis and emphysema Claims Handling Agreement, as a percentage of total claims received, for each of the top 10 claims handlers is as follows:—

  Percentage

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Ineligible

  Thompsons

  4.8

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  6.3

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  4.9

  Raleys

  2.8

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  0.8

  Browell Smith & Co.

  1.3

  Graysons

  3.9

  Watson Burton

  1.0

  Irwin Mitchells

  3.6

  Randell Saunders

  3.5

  The percentage of claims denied for compensation under the vibration white finger Claims Handling Agreement, as a percentage of total claims received, for each of the top 10 claims handlers is as follows:

  Percentage

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Denied

  Thompsons

  24.5

  Browell Smith & Co.

  21.6

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  11.0

  Raleys

  16.0

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  23.8

  Graysons

  17.6

  Moss

  31.2

  Watson Burton

  20.0

  AMS Law

  30.8

  Towells

  15.8

  Some of these claimants will be submitting further evidence of vibration exposure which may allow these claims to be reconsidered. The procedure for this has been agreed with the claimants' solicitors.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the probable total compensation payout to claimants for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coalminers. [52311]
  587W
  Mr. Wilson
  It is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of costs of British Coal health claims due to the number of new claims being registered each week. Almost 700 new respiratory disease and 300 vibration white finger claims continue to be registered each week. Presently the Department estimates that the total cost of both compensation schemes will be around £6 billion.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average level of final settlement for claimants represented by each of the top 10 claims handlers for(a) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (b) vibration white finger of former coal miners has been. [52310]

  Mr. Wilson
  The average full and final settlement for each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema is as follows:

  £

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Average full and final settlement

  Thompsons

  6,267

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  8,713

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  4,281

  Raleys

  4,416

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  5,251

  Browell Smith and Co.

  6,719

  Graysons

  4,624

  Watson Burton

  4,936

  Irwin Mitchells

  6,088

  Randell Saunders

  6,329

  The average full and final settlement for each of the top 10 claims handlers involved in the compensation claims for vibration white finger is as follows:

  £

  Top 10 claims handlers

  Average full and final settlement

  Thompsons

  7,283

  Browell Smith and Co.

  9,011

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  8,052

  Raleys

  6,923

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  7,220

  Graysons

  5,978

  Moss

  6,891

  Watson Burton

  8,697

  AMS Law

  8,455

  Towells

  8,310

  Air Traffic Control System (Tanzania)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account was taken of the effect on jobs at BAe Systems in deciding to grant an export licence for the sale of an air traffic control system to Tanzania. [51749]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant export licence applications are considered on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing 588W
  criteria. The effect of proposed exports on the economic, social, commercial and industrial interest of the producer country will not effect the application of the criteria in the EU code of conduct.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria were taken into account in deciding to grant an export licence for BAE Systems in respect of its sale of an air traffic control system to Tanzania. [51750]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 869.

  Export Licences
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the decision in 1997 to give preliminary clearance to Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems under the F680 procedure was taken into account in determining the application for an export licence. [51751]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Form 680 process is administered by the Ministry of Defence and provides advice on the prospects for approval at the marketing stage. When the Government provides Form 680 advice it is always made clear to companies that such advice does not constitute an export licence, nor does it guarantee that an export licence will be approved for the future export of goods and technology.

  All relevant export licence applications are considered on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of the application. Export licensing decisions do not take into account previous advice provided under the Form 680 process.

  BP (Secondments)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost to her Department for the secondment of BP employees since January 2000 has been. [52162]

  Ms Hewitt
  Records held centrally show the total cost of reimbursement to BP for provision of secondees into DTI in the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2002 as £80,334.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what expenses and travel costs BP employees on secondment to her Department are allowed to claim. [52160]

  Ms Hewitt
  Terms and conditions of secondments into the Department are set out in contractual agreements. The standard terms for all secondees in relation to travel and subsistence costs are that the Department reimburses direct to secondees the cost of any travel, subsistence and other expenditure that they may incur in the course of their work while on secondment. Reimbursement is at DTI rates and is made in accordance with departmental rules. The only exception to this arrangement is where any secondee has the use of a company car and uses it on DTI business. In these instances the secondee is not paid a DTI mileage rate but is reimbursed actual costs of petrol used.
  589W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date the secondment of Mr. Bob Saunders from BP to her Department began; what the duration of the secondment will be; what the terms and conditions of the secondment are; and if she will make a statement. [52158]

  Ms Hewitt
  The secondment of Robert Saunders is due to start on 1 May 2002. The secondment will be for two years and will be subject to standard contractual terms and conditions applied to all secondments into the Department.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if employees from BP have to sign the Official Secrets Act when they are accepted on secondment to her Department; and if she will make a statement. [52161]

  Ms Hewitt
  While neither permanent staff nor secondees have to sign the Official Secrets Act all secondments into the Department are subject to specific contractual terms. The contracts, which are signed by the secondee, make it clear that they are subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and to certain other Acts which prohibit unauthorised disclosure of various categories of information and that they are therefore required to conform to the Department's security procedures. An explanatory booklet summarising the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1989 is sent to each secondee with their contract. Additionally the contract makes clear that secondees, like civil servants, are also required to exercise care in handling information that they acquire in the course of their official duties and to protect information that is held in confidence.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the President of the Council how many net additional staff his Office has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52436]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Since June 2001, my Office has recruited three net additional staff, one at executive officer level in October 2001 and two at administrative level, one in January 2002 and one in February 2002.

  It has also in the same period been reduced in size by one senior civil servant.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Council on what subjects and on which dates his Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52495]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department has not yet consulted any organisations representing young people. However, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary is extremely concerned about voter apathy in the young. He is working with the National Council of Voluntary Organisations and the Children and Young People's Unit to arrange some discussion sessions with young people.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many special advisers were employed by the Cabinet Office(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was for each of those years. [41263]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 552W.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46809]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total cost of running the Department's press office in 1996–97 was £933.000.00 and £1,430,000.00 in 2000–01.

  The figure has risen steadily over the years largely due to the increased range of Cabinet Office activity and responsibilities related to increases in ministerial posts and setting up new units. This in turn has resulted in increased communication activity.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [49602]

  Mr. Leslie
  The non-departmental public bodies for which the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility have employed no people under the New Deal for Young People scheme in each of the last four years.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002, regarding publicity expenditure, how many additional staff have been recruited as a result of the additional £326,000 advertising expenditure between 1998–99 and 2000–01, in which posts; and at what cost to public funds. [50551]

  Mr. Leslie
  The costs referred to in the response dated 25 March (36166) were identified from the financial accounting system which uses one account code for press advertising (including recruitment adverts). To attribute these costs to individual recruitment campaigns or other publicity could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For details of advertising expenditure on recruitment of staff in the calendar year of 2001 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 March 2002, Official Report, column 294W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Churchill's Bunker (Neasden)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of refurbishing Winston Churchill's bunker in Neasden; and if he will make a statement. [51245]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  Winston Churchill's bunker in Neasden is owned by Network Housing Association, a registered social landlord. It is situated on a site purchased in April 1997 Network Housing Association, from the London Borough of Brent.

  The planning permission granted for affordable housing development on the site included an obligation that the bunker, a listed building, be opened under the 'London Open House Scheme' to the public, on two days a year for three years after completion of remedial works to satisfy health and safety requirements.

  The remedial works carried out on the bunker cost £40,000 and were paid for from Network Housing Association's own resources.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 391W, on NMEC, what will happen to the £25 million that is not required; and where it is at the moment. [47124]

  Dr. Howells
  The funds currently lie with the Millennium Commission's share of the National Lottery Distribution Fund. The Millennium Commission has not made a decision about how these funds might be used.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will investigate the reasons that(a) the letter of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to the Under-Secretary of State at her Department of 6 November 2001 remained unanswered until 16 April 2002 and (b) the reason for the delay in her Department determining that the question posed in the original letter falls outside its remit. [52401]

  Dr. Howells
  I apologise for the delay in replying to the hon. Member. His letter was transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry as that Department is responsible for advertising and advertising campaigns. Unfortunately there was a breakdown in communications during this process and action has now been taken to ensure this does not happen again. In 2001, the Department answered 90 per cent. of Members' correspondence within 18 working days and I am satisfied that this was an isolated incident.

  Museums and Galleries (Free Entry)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in providing free entry to museums and galleries. [52223]
  592W
  Dr. Howells
  Entry to the permanent collections at all the main museums and galleries sponsored by my Department is now free to everyone. This policy took effect from 1 December 2001 and represents the delivery of a key element of our manifesto commitment. In the first four months since the introduction of free admission at those museums and galleries that previously charged visitor numbers have increased by an average of seventy five per cent. This means that an extra 1.7 million people have been able to enjoy admission to these priceless collections free of charge, no matter what their income or background.

  ITV Digital
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she had made of the implications of the collapse of ITV Digital for the provision of ITV franchise licence fees under the digital dividend of(a) Granada plc and (b) Carlton Communications plc; [50712]

  (2) if she will review the terms of the digital dividend rebate offered to ITV companies for the promotion of digital television. [50711]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996, the percentage of qualifying multiplex revenue payable to the Independent Television Commission by the digital terrestrial licencees has been set by order at nil for the duration of the licences. The purpose of this is to promote the availability of free-to-view digital television by offsetting related costs. The ITV companies therefore do not make payments to the Treasury on the proportion of their advertising revenue attributed to viewing in homes that are digital. There are no plans to review or alter this framework.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much has been spent by her Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52742]

  (2) how much has been spent by her Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52709]

  (3) how much has been spent by her Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52733]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Department has recently introduced a leadership programme which includes a module covering the use of the voice. In the financial year 2001–02 £20,531 was spent on leadership training.

  Our records indicate that no official has received training from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in the last three years. Retrieving the information prior to that date would incur disproportionate cost.

  The Department does not provide training for Ministers.

  Warship Preservation
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy that (a) HMS Whimbrel and (b) HMS Zenith be preserved in Chatham Dockyard. [52876]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust have no knowledge of any plans to seek the preservation of either HMS Whimbrel or HMS Zenith at Chatham. Neither were built at Chatham—HMS Whimbrel was a sloop built at Yarrow in 1942 and HMS Zenith a destroyer built by Denny's in 1944. Both were sold after the war to the Egyptian Navy. The trust's research suggests that neither ship served with the Chatham Division of the Royal Navy during the Second World War.

  The trust's current museum collecting policy does not foresee the acquisition of further ships. Not only would there be difficulty in locating them (the trust's three dry docks are occupied with their existing ships) but the trust does not have the financial resources available to support further major vessels.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Egyptian ambassador to London on(a) HMS Whimbrel and (b) HMS Zenith. [52877]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such discussions with the Egyptian ambassador to London.

  Announcements (Timing)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the process by which she decides whether an announcement is too controversial to be made in a pre-election period. [52890]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The Prime Minister publishes standard guidance on this matter before each election. The guidance published on 21 March 2002, referring to the English local elections to be held on 2 May 2002, made it clear that
  "particular care should be exercised in relation to the announcement of sensitive decisions with a local dimension".

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers each case on its merits in the light of this.

  Portable Antiquities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the portable antiquities scheme. [52891]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The trustees of the Heritage Lottery Fund met on Tuesday 23 April to consider a bid for the three-year funding of an extension of the portable antiquities scheme to the whole of England and Wales. The fund will make a full, public announcement of its decision following next week's local elections.

  Digital Equipment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent steps she has taken to communicate to(a) ministerial colleagues and (b) hon. Members, the importance of digital switchover. [52883]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I frequently draw the attention of hon. Members and ministerial colleagues to the digital television action plan in correspondence and in responses to parliamentary questions. The action plan sets out the Government's proposals to encourage the switchover to digital television for the benefits it can bring to consumers and to the economy.

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the impact on tourism in England of the distribution by the Welsh Tourist Board of its marketing leaflet "Wales-The Big Country"; and what plans she has to enable the English Tourism Council to publish and distribute a similar leaflet in support of tourism in England. [52756]

  Dr. Howells
  The Wales Tourist Board launched their marketing campaign in December 2001. The devolved administrations now make their own decisions on how best to promote tourism, taking into account local conditions and needs and the extent to which financial support is needed to address market failure in different parts of the country.

  A booklet "Hidden England" has already been produced, and is available in Tourist Information Centres in England. I have allocated a further £20 million, matched by £20 million from the industry, for marketing to the overseas markets. The domestic market is already recovering strongly.

  We are committed to improving the competitiveness of the English tourism market through an agenda of modernisation and long term strategic reform. We are currently considering how to provide better co-ordination of the marketing of England's tourism assets and will announce plans soon.

  Lord Chancellor's Breakfast
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what special traffic arrangements were made for the Lord Chancellor's guests attending his most recent official breakfast, with special reference to obeying traffic lights and parking in bus lanes. [48795]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor holds an Annual Breakfast Reception. This last occurred not recently but on 1 October 2001, and takes place as part of the ceremonies to mark the Opening of the Legal Year, in Westminster Hall immediately following the Judges' Service held in Westminster Abbey.

  That is the only official Breakfast which the Lord Chancellor holds.
  595W
  The most recent formal legal occasion was the annual Silk Ceremony on 10 April, when 113 new Queen's Counsel attended in Royal Gallery to make their formal declaration of Office before the Lord Chancellor upon taking Silk.

  There was traffic disruption in front of the Houses of Parliament on 10 April, caused by a demonstration unrelated to the Ceremony.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Courts
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost in 2000–01 was of(a) the maintenance of each of the Crown courts in England and (b) administering each of the Crown courts in England; and what the average cost per case heard was of each of the Crown courts in 2000–01. [50693]

  Mr. Wills
  (a) The table provides the cost of maintenance of each of the Crown (and combined) courts in England for the financial year 2000–01. The figures reflect gross cash expenditure and are based on routine maintenance works only. They do not include figures for any major maintenance/building enhancement works. Figures for the combined courts reflect the total costs of the buildings including non-Crown court areas. For information purposes, the average cost of maintenance per square metre of each court centre is also included.

  (b) A significant proportion of the cost of administering the Crown court is paid for as central overheads and is not held in a format which can identify the individual costs of each court centre. To do so otherwise would incur disproportionate costs to the Department. For information purposes, however, the total cost of administering the Crown court in 2000–01 across England and Wales was £pound;281 million. This figure excludes legal aid costs. The total number of cases disposed of during the same period across England and Wales was:

  Committals for trials—71,330

  Cases for sentence—27,018

  Appeals cases—13,698.

  Based on the total number of disposals (112,046) the indicative average cost figure per case is £2,544. However this does not take into account the relative weighting of each of the different types of cases.

  Circuit/Combined court centre

  Expenditure (£)

  Midland circuit

  Coventry

  91,019

  Derby

  80,341

  Lincoln

  31,884

  Northampton

  84,883

  Nottingham

  136,815

  Stafford

  92,347

  Stoke on Trent

  83,409

  Warwick

  5,632

  Warwick Office

  12,147

  Wolverhampton

  86,925

  North Eastern circuit

  Bradford

  129,062

  Great Grimsby

  58,462

  Kingston upon Hull

  87,632

  596W

  Circuit/Combined court centre

  Expenditure (£)

  Leeds

  172,813

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  174,700

  Sheffield

  125,097

  Teesside

  106,031

  Northern circuit

  Bolton

  55,192

  Burnley

  31,733

  Carlisle

  49,576

  Liverpool

  280,152

  Manchester Crown and County courts

  259,674

  Preston

  216,270

  South Eastern circuit

  Basildon

  76,932

  Canterbury

  59,738

  Chichester

  64,512

  Croydon

  99,755

  Hove Trial centre

  64,397

  Lewes

  87,338

  Maidstone

  143,436

  Norwich

  88,303

  Oxford

  93,153

  Peterborough

  54,431

  Wales and Chester circuit

  Warrington

  70,505

  Western circuit

  Bournemouth

  119,860

  Exeter

  55,543

  Gloucester

  24,645

  Newport (IOW)

  39,190

  Plymouth

  79,320

  Portsmouth

  214,395

  Salisbury

  32,708

  Southampton

  108,349

  Swindon

  39,873

  Taunton

  66,342

  Truro

  55,646

  Weymouth and Dorchester

  8,772

  Weymouth and Dorchester Offices

  4,192

  Winchester

  38,488

  Total expenditure

  4,241,618

  Circuit/Crown court centre

  Expenditure (£)

  Midland circuit

  Birmingham

  122,407

  Hereford

  11,681

  Leicester

  94,067

  Lincoln (Castle)

  25,413

  Shrewsbury

  26,783

  Worcester

  81,511

  North Eastern circuit

  Doncaster

  68,025

  Durham

  21,105

  Newcastle upon Tyne Offices

  21,405

  York

  35,788

  Northern circuit

  Lancaster

  5,745

  Manchester

  185,145

  Preston

  27,627

  South Eastern circuit

  Aylesbury

  10,145

  Aylesbury Offices

  —

  Blackfriars

  127,207

  Bury St. Edmunds

  2,285

  Cambridge

  10,304

  Central Criminal court

  39,321

  Chelmsford

  106,293

  Guildford

  45,461

  Harrow

  100,506

  Ipswich

  25,195

  Isleworth

  50,101

  Kings Lynn

  9,704

  597W

  Circuit/Crown court centre

  Expenditure (£)

  Kingston upon Thames

  153,011

  Luton

  77,083

  Middlesex Guildhall

  93,660

  Reading

  90,753

  Snaresbrook

  253,546

  Southend

  8,257

  Southwark

  137,407

  St. Albans

  33,402

  Wood Green

  115,554

  Woolwich

  160,975

  Wales and Chester circuit

  Chester

  61,469

  Knutsford

  17,444

  Western circuit

  Bristol

  201,600

  Gloucester

  28,607

  Total expenditure

  2,685,992

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the backlog of cases in the IAA is; and what estimate she has made of how long it will take to clear the backlog. [50699]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is currently no backlog of asylum cases within the IAA. At the end of March the IAA was dealing with 20,626 outstanding adjudicator appeals, 1,883 outstanding leave to appeal applications and 1,753 outstanding substantive tribunal appeals. This level of work in progress for asylum cases is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the IAA and is based on the SDA target of clearing 65 per cent. of all cases through both tiers within 17 weeks.

  The IAA is also currently dealing with 4,114 adjudicator appeals, 36 leave to appeal applications and 39 substantive tribunal appeals in immigration cases. In each instance, this is within or in line with expectation. These immigration figures do not cover family visit visas.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what Government buildings owned by the Lord Chancellor's Department have solar panels installed. [51190]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not own any buildings with solar panels.

  Personal Injury Pre-action Protocol
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice the Lord Chancellor's Department has given to solicitors and the Law Society on the operation of the personal injury pre-action protocol. [51003]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: None. The Law Society was instrumental in the development of this protocol. The pre-action protocols are designed to be self explanatory. Each protocol contains notes for guidance on the operation of the protocol.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord 598W
  Chancellor's Department what plans she has to allow parents to appeal against the decision of reports prepared for family courts by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. [52342]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. The purpose of the report is to advise the court. The court must take account of the Children and Family Reporter's recommendation but is not bound to follow it. If a party to proceedings has concerns about the report written by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) or alternate proposals to put before the court, it is possible for all parties to the case to put forward their proposals, or raise concerns, at or before the hearing where the CAFCASS officer can be questioned on the content of the report.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what training she provides to staff working for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; and what qualifications they require. [52343]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All practitioners from the Family Court Welfare Service and Guardian Ad Litem Service who transferred to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) on 1 April 2001 have the Diploma in Social Work (DipSW) awarded by Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW), now the Training Organisation for the Personal Social Services (TOPSS), or an equivalent qualification. This is still a requirement for all staff appointed as of 1 April 2001.

  All staff are encouraged to undertake post-qualifying training approved by TOPSS, such as the Post Qualification award in child care (PQCCA) or in some instances the Advanced Award in Social Work. The PQCCA is at post graduate diploma level, being specific to social work with children and the PQAA is at Masters level.

  Most CAFCASS officers also have many years of experience working in the Family Courts—supported by a programme of induction, and training and development relevant to their work.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the estimated waiting time is for an immigration appeal to be heard. [50591]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average time to hearing for immigration cases received by the IAA between 1 October 2001 and 31 October 2001 was 5.2 weeks to first hearing and 12.5 weeks to substantive hearing at the adjudicator stage.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 6 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. J. B. Cooper. [42798]
  599W
  Mr. Darling
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 11 March.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many members his Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if he will make a statement. [42932]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  One member of staff works full time in the Department's Regulatory Impact Unit. This is a dedicated resource which co-ordinates activity relating to all better regulation issues in the Department.

  It is the job of the Department's Regulatory Impact Unit to establish and promote in the Department, the principles of good regulation, so that all officials within it may contribute effectively to the Government's regulatory reform initiative. The unit also works closely with the Regulatory Impact Unit in the Cabinet Office, and with the Small Business Service. A key element of the unit's work is to help minimise the impact on business, charities, and the voluntary sector, of those departmental regulations which are necessary.

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information he collates on the cumulative value of employers' contributions to a pension scheme(a) on a defined benefit basis and (b) on a defined contribution basis; and if he will make a statement on current trends in what is offered under each of these structures. [43132]

  Maria Eagle
  The cumulative value of occupational pension funds depends on a number of factors including investment growth, employer and employee contributions, tax relief, national insurance rebates, pension payments and transfers. It is not possible to calculate the cumulative value of employer contributions separately.

  However this Department does collect information on private sector contribution rates to defined benefit and defined contribution pension schemes as a proportion of employee salary, through the Employer Pension Provision (EPP) Report. The EPP Report 2000 was published on 18 March 2002, and shows that the median employer contribution rate in 'salary related' (defined benefit) schemes was 6 per cent. of pay, and the rate in 'money purchase' (defined contribution) schemes was 5 per cent. of pay. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  The Government Actuary's Department produces its Occupational Pension Schemes survey every five years. The most recent survey, for 1995, is in the House of Commons Library. It collects data on employers' contribution rates for defined contribution occupational schemes as a proportion of employee salary (note: this does not include payments to personal pensions or group personal pensions).

  The Office for National Statistics collects data on the total amounts contributed to non-state pensions in its MQ5 series, produced quarterly. These figures have been withdrawn due to errors in the publication, and are being investigated.
  600W
  For information about current trends, I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 February 2002, Official Report, columns 660–68.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39082]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most equipment used by the Department is not leased but obtained via service contracts. Most office equipment is provided under serviced accommodation arrangements under the 20-year PRIME PFI deal for estates management services or under other facilities management contracts. IS/IT and telephony equipment is not leased but provided or sourced under long-term service contracts. The Department does enter into leasing agreements for some other equipment, principally photocopiers, but these arrangements are made at local level. The information on these arrangements required to answer the question is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the job advertisements placed by his Department in the last 12 months specifying where the advertisements were placed and the cost in each case. [39071]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47155]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 553W.

  Hospitalisation (Benefit Downrating)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have their attendance allowance withdrawn because they have been in hospital for four weeks or longer. [51574]

  Maria Eagle
  When attendance allowance recipients have been in hospital for 28 days, payments are suspended pending their discharge because the needs arising from their disability are being met free of charge. Information is not available on the annual number of suspensions resulting from these circumstances. The latest available information is that, at 30 November 2001, about 15,600 claims were at that time recorded as suspended as a result of a stay in hospital.

  This figure is based on 5 per cent. data and rounded to the nearest hundred.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the most recent report on the UK by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. [52141]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under Article 11 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it is for the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture to publish reports of its visits together with any comments of the state party concerned. Formally, publication is at the request of the state party.

  We have made that request and I understand that the report on the Committee's visit to the United Kingdom in February 2001 is now available on the Committee's website www.cpt.coe.int with the UK's observations.

  I am placing a copy of the report in the Library.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue was generated through the sale of radio frequencies used by emergency services. [50508]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been no sale of radio frequencies used by the emergency services, and therefore no revenue generated by this means.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the revenue generated by the sale of radio frequencies used by emergency services in the UK has been allocated for reinvestment into the refitting of vehicles and control rooms in the(a) police forces and (b) fire services. [50511]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been no sale of radio frequencies used by the emergency services in the United Kingdom.

  Sex Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) complaints and (b) items of correspondence have been received by (a) the Home Office, (b) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, (c) the Police Complaints Authority and (d) the Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to historical sex abuse investigations in the UK in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [49834]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not officially record complaints received in writing or over the telephone—these are incorporated in overall correspondence figures. Complaints and correspondence can be individually addressed to policy units. There is no current way of tracking these accurately. Records for 1999 in relation to this question do not exist. The figures compiled for 2000 and 2001 combine both public and ministerial correspondence on the subject of violent crime/sexual offences.
  602W
  Figures for the individual areas in each year are shown in the table.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Home Office1

  n/a

  83

  134

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)2

  —

  —

  —

  Police Complaints Authority3

  61

  64

  70

  Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)4

  1

  2

  6

  1 Figures are based on correspondence relating to violent crime/sexual offences

  The subject nature of HMIC correspondence is not officially recorded, hence no figures exist

  3 Figures are based on correspondence relating to allegations of sexual assault

  4 Figures are based on applications for case review that involved sex abuse in care homes

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names of organisations which have registered as umbrella bodies with the Criminal Records Bureau. [48758]

  Mr. Denham
  A list of those registered bodies that have consented to having their details made available for the purpose of countersigning applications on behalf of non-registered organisations is available from the Criminal Records Bureau on request and information is also available on the website www.disclosure.gov.uk.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that smaller voluntary and community organisations can access criminal record checks. [50624]

  Mr. Denham
  We have been determined that employers and organisations wishing to use the new service provided by the new Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) will have a ready means of access. To meet the needs of those employers and organisations which do not wish to register with the bureau in their own right, we have encouraged others to consider acting on their behalf, as umbrella bodies, and we shall continue to do so. Up to 16 April 2002, 707 bodies had registered with the CRB as umbrella bodies, including 419 which have indicated that they are prepared to act on behalf of others outside their own circle or sector.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average charge made by umbrella bodies registered with the Criminal Records Bureau for processing applications for disclosure is. [50625]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not requested by the Criminal Records Bureau. In guidance for umbrella bodies, the bureau urges that any such charges should be kept to a minimum. Those wishing to use the services of an umbrella body would be well advised to ask whether charges are made and, if so, compare charges.

  Offence Statistics
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of recorded offences for(a) begging, (b) breaching an antisocial behaviour order, (c) vagrancy, (d) noise, (e) drunkenness, (f) drunkenness with aggravation, (g) aggravated vehicle

  603W
  taking, (h) rowdy and disorderly group behaviour in public and (i) driving while having a breath/urine/blood alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit, broken down by police force area, in each year since 1997. [49787]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: With the exception of aggravated vehicle taking, the categories mentioned are not collected centrally, or not collected separately, for recorded crime figures. The details for aggravated vehicle taking are given in the table.

  Recorded crime—offences of aggravated vehicle taking by police force area since 19971

  Police force

  19972

  1998–993

  1999–20003

  2000–013

  Avon and Somerset

  61

  30

  40

  19

  Bedfordshire

  31

  53

  67

  59

  Cambridgeshire

  32

  100

  170

  158

  Cheshire

  126

  149

  170

  141

  Cleveland

  205

  197

  165

  163

  Cumbria

  63

  128

  139

  124

  Derbyshire

  215

  226

  225

  189

  Devon and Cornwall

  138

  174

  262

  269

  Dorset

  124

  148

  184

  206

  Durham

  118

  114

  116

  94

  Essex4

  167

  111

  21

  54

  Gloucestershire

  133

  77

  71

  64

  Greater Manchester

  626

  1,122

  1,190

  1,312

  Hampshire

  120

  188

  229

  244

  Hertfordshire4

  8

  52

  104

  142

  Humberside

  270

  338

  276

  276

  Kent

  157

  191

  187

  158

  Lancashire

  220

  265

  301

  318

  Leicestershire

  87

  119

  85

  71

  Lincolnshire

  71

  77

  73

  44

  City of London

  2

  8

  10

  10

  Merseyside

  136

  184

  251

  352

  Metropolitan police district4

  1,016

  983

  1,100

  1,130

  Norfolk

  38

  53

  49

  80

  Northamptonshire

  120>

  161

  154

  137

  Northumbria

  158

  270

  280

  316

  North Yorkshire

  76

  109

  69

  93

  Nottinghamshire

  76

  118

  81

  91

  South Yorkshire

  412

  394

  357

  448

  Staffordshire

  171

  241

  174

  159

  Suffolk

  65

  67

  82

  104

  Surrey4

  27

  60

  131

  149

  Sussex

  170

  288

  318

  343

  Thames Valley

  203

  148

  175

  171

  Warwickshire

  76

  50

  58

  70

  WestMercia

  121

  242

  250

  264

  West Midlands

  299

  674

  770

  850

  West Yorkshire

  892

  1,029

  913

  798

  Wiltshire

  73

  89

  128

  114

  Dyfed-Powys

  90

  129

  109

  110

  Gwent

  140

  144

  143

  140

  North Wales

  109

  182

  135

  151

  South Wales

  589

  616

  604

  574

  England and Wales

  8,031

  10,098

  10,416

  10,759

  604W
  1 1997 is the calendar year, with the other years ending in March.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the Coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.

  3 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  4 There was a boundary change on 1 April 2000 in which parts of the Metropolitan police area were transferred to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, So that these police force areas followed county boundaries thereafter.

  Annual Report 2000–01
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what activities are covered by(a) constitutional and community, (b) criminal policing and programmes, (c) central services, (d) firearms compensation and (e) police and crime reduction as referred to in Table 11 on page 112 of the Home Office annual report 2000–01. [48858]

  Mr. Denham
  (a) In 2000–01, constitutional and community work included the following issues, responsibility for which transferred to other Government Departments in the machinery of Government changes which took place on 8 June 2001: human rights, freedom of information, data protection, constitutional issues, elections, byelaws, gambling, liquor licensing, animal welfare, hunting, and planting and planning for the Golden Jubilee.

  Issues which remain the responsibility of the Home Department, and which currently fall under this heading, are:
  (1) Race equality issues, including implementation of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and publication of race equality performance indicators across public services;
  (2) Leading cross-Government work to promote civil renewal, and to promote and support active citizenship, including a flourishing voluntary and community sector;
  (3) Developing the Government's community cohesion agenda;
  (4) Supporting the continuing development of strong and stable families;
  (5) Regulation of burial and cremation services and arrangements for the investigation of deaths;
  (6) Regulation of the use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes;
  (7) Consultation concerning the introduction of an entitlement card scheme.

  (b) Criminal policy and programmes are led primarily in the Criminal Policy Group although clearly there are links with the work of the Policing and Crime Reduction Group (see (e). The Criminal Policy Group is responsible for Home Office Aims 3 and 4. Aim 3 is "to ensure the effective delivery of justice, avoiding unnecessary delay, through efficient investigation, detection, prosecution and court procedures. To minimise the threat to and intimidation of witnesses and to engage with and support victims". Aim 4 is "to deliver effective custodial and community sentences to reduce re-offending and protect the public, through the prison and probation services, in partnership with the Youth Justice Board". Current activities include:
  (1) Drafting a Criminal Justice White Paper which will introduce fundamental reforms that will enable faster, more efficient delivery of justice, with effective punishment of offenders, and fully joined up services that can rehabilitate offenders and resettle them into the community when they finish their sentence. The White Paper will include reforms following the

  605W
  recommendations of both the Auld report on criminal court reform and the Halliday report on sentencing, and improved consideration of the needs of the victims of crime, including restorative justice. The formulation of policy across the criminal justice system involves close working within the Home Office group and with other Government Departments and interested bodies;
  (2) Ensuring the effectiveness of work to reduce levels of re-conviction. This includes the development of improved ways of working, drawing on the work the Social Exclusion Unit has undertaken on reducing the level of re-offending among ex-prisoners, such as case management of offenders through the system and greater involvement of other agencies;
  (3) Providing a strategic framework within which the Prison Service, probation service and Youth Justice Board operate. This will be achieved in part through a Correctional Services Board which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Angela Eagle) and supported by the development of a Standards Unit to make sure best practice is shared effectively;
  (4) The Criminal Policy Group has an ongoing role in overseeing both the general effectiveness of the criminal law as it applies to both adult and juvenile offenders, and work across the criminal justice system to monitor and improve performance. This includes work to increase the number of offenders brought to justice through the development of operational guidelines and support, in particular in relation to tackling persistent offending;
  (5) Ongoing case management of serious mentally disordered offenders and the introduction and appraisal of pilot schemes for more effective treatment of dangerous people with severe personality disorders.

  (c) Central services are those areas of the Home Office which support delivery of the Home Office's aims. The activities of these central services areas are as follows: financial planning and management, accounting and audit, personnel, accommodation planning and provision, internal and external communication, information technology planning and provision, security (physical, staff and information technology), research and development (including statistical studies and Home Office publications), pay and pensions, records management, health and safety, health and welfare, Ministers' and officials' private offices, and the legal advisers' branch.

  (d) The Home Office introduced a compensation scheme for surrender of small firearms (handguns) following events in Dunblane in March 1996. The Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997 prohibited possession of handguns; compensation was paid for their surrender together with surrender of ammunition and related ancillary equipment (holsters etc.). Although the majority of weapons were surrendered during 1997–98, some residual cases continue to be administered by the Department.

  (e) The activities of the Policing and Crime Reduction Group centre around the provision of an efficient, effective police service and reduction in crime. Policing policy activity covers legislation and implementation of the police reform programme; personnel and resource measures to support the police, including recruitment and pay arrangements and work on police leadership, powers and procedures. The crime reduction focus of the group is achieved through developing and implementing strategies to address particular types of crime and disorder, by encouraging and providing a framework for partnership working and by developing and administering
  606W
  area-based initiatives such as the Crime Reduction Programme, Communities Against Drugs and Safer Communities.

  A significant part of the group's work lies in ensuring that there is scientific and technological support for the police and crime reduction. The group sponsors a number of agencies and non-departmental public bodies in this and other areas. Through the Police Standards Unit and support for the independent inspectorate (Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary), the group has a major commitment to the achievement of high standards and performance in the police service.

  Correspondence
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden dated 29 January concerning funding for the Humberside police authority. [50610]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to the hon. Member was despatched on Tuesday 16 April 2002.

  Pistols
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances single shot 22 pistols of the type used in the Commonwealth and Olympic games have been used in indictable offences within the Metropolitan police area in the past 10 years. [51465]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by date and by authority the HMIC reports since 1993 which cover the detailed force inspections which include arrangements for child abuse and major crime investigations. [51630]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reports are public documents and copies are placed in the Library. Additionally, they can be accessed on the HMIC internet web-site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic.

  A list of the force inspection conducted since 1995 is attached. Thematic reports have been published on matters associated with the investigation of child abuse and major crime investigation, these include: Policing London "Winning Consent (although this report relates only to the Metropolitan Police Service) 2000; Child Protection, 1999". Also, HMIC are currently part of a joint inspection into Children's Safeguards being led by the Social Services Inspectorate. Her Majesty Inspectorate (HMI) Inspections of individual forces do not, however, examine specific police investigations or detail them in their Reports.

  A chronological list of all HMIC Inspections since 1993 is not available and it would involve the disproportionate use of resources to compile one.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of
  607W
  21 March 2002, Official Report, column 483W, if he will list the terms of reference of the thematic inspection into child protection. [51629]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary conducted a Thematic Inspection entitled "Child Protection" in 1999. The terms of reference were as follows: "To examine the role of the police service in protecting children, within a multi-agency context, and with particular reference to strategic direction, effectiveness, efficiency, innovation and good practice". Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary are currently part of an Inter-Agency inspection of safeguards for children. The lead inspectorate of this inspection is the Social Services Inspectorate. Attached is a copy of the objectives for this inspection which has been placed in the Library. Any further information on the inspection should be obtained from the Department of Health.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from chief constables on the way in which police authorities investigate historic allegations of child abuse. [51633]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) has not received any recent representations from chief constables on this matter. However, I have met with the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead officer on child abuse, Mr. Terence Grange, to discuss these issues. It is of course for police forces and not police authorities to investigate allegations of child abuse.

  Police National Computer
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what types, of errors were generated by the Police National Computer in each year since 1 January 1997. [51818]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not available.

  Operation Antler
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on Operation Antler by Wiltshire Constabulary. [52412]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 13 March 2002, Official Report, column 1102W.

  The Attorney-General has granted Her Majesty's Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon permission to apply to the High Court to quash the findings of the Inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison at Porton Down in 1953. The Wiltshire Coroner will be preparing and lodging the application for an order that a new Inquest be held. Wiltshire Constabulary will continue inquiries on behalf of the Wiltshire Coroner in order to facilitate the High Court application.

  Red Cross
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support his Department has given since 1 April 2000 to projects run by the British Red Cross. [52945]
  608W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: As the Minister responsible for the voluntary and community sector, I am answering on behalf of central Government Departments.

  The latest, estimated figures for central Government support to the British Red Cross, available for the 2000–01 financial year only, are as follows:

  £

  Department for Education and Skills

  98,500

  Department for International Development

  32,011,423

  Northern Ireland

  5,591

  Scottish Executive

  20,220

  Total

  32,135,734

  Note:

  These estimated figures do not include potential funding from the Welsh Assembly, which is not currently held centrally.

  Young Prisoners
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile prisoners were held in segregation units for longer than seven days in each prison since April 2000. [52139]

  Beverley Hughes
  As this information needs to be collated, I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Race Monitor
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the appointment of the Race Monitor under section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. [53680]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am very pleased to announce that Ms Mary Coussey has been appointed as the Race Monitor and that she has taken up post. I have asked Ms Coussey to make an interim report to me in September 2002, which I will make publicly available, and to make her first annual report to Parliament in March 2003.

  Visas
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the current average time taken to process a written application for a visa under the au pair scheme in the last 12 months. [50034]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no average times for processing applications received specifically from au pairs.

  There is a target of processing 90 per cent. of straightforward applications within 24 hours. The percentage of straightforward applications processed in financial year 2001–02 was 92 per cent.

  Where an interview is required the target time is 10 working days. In the last financial year 76 per cent. of posts met this target.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been employed
  609W
  by his Department in each of the last three years under (a) the new deal for young people, (b) the new deal for the over 50s and (c) the new deal for lone parents; and at what cost, listed by category, to public funds. [44928]

  Angela Eagle
  Information follows on the number of people who have been employed by the Home Department and its agencies under the new deal programmes for(a) young people; (b) the over 50s; and (c) lone parents:

  (a) 63

  (b) 0

  (c) 0.

  New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs to public funds 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.

  Data on the number of starts on the new deal for young people (18–24) in the civil service has been recorded by the Cabinet Office since the commencement of the programme in January 1998 until 1 October 2001.

  In addition to the figure, the United Kingdom Passport Service reported that a further 185 people have been employed via the new deal initiative by the Criminal Records Bureau's business partner, Capita. The specified categories (i.e. young people, lone parents and over 50s) has not been recorded.

  We continue to remain open to the potential advantages of employing people through the new deal for the over 50s and lone parents.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deal with the problem of antisocial behaviour. [47429]

  Mr. Denham
  Action to tackle antisocial behaviour is being taken across Government Departments. Among the many actions we are taking are the introduction of community safety officers, the proposals to enhance the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs), and measures to speed up court procedures for evictions for antisocial behaviour. We are consulting on further measures to deal with the problems of antisocial tenants and of abandoned vehicles.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review of antisocial behaviour orders will be published; and if he plans to introduce new guidelines. [47600]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office review of antisocial behaviour orders was published on 2 April 2002. We are proposing legislative changes to improve the take-up and effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders in the Police Reform Bill, and will produce clear and practical guidance on antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs), including relevant case studies, to accompany these changes.

  PSA Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the PSA target to reduce the economic costs of crime(a) was met in 2000–01 and (b) will be met in 2001–02. [47447]
  610W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The public service agreement for the economic cost of crime commits the criminal justice system departments to "reduce the cost of crime by March 2004 to be measured by an indicator to be developed by March 2001".

  Estimates of the economic and social cost of crime were published in a report in December 2000, "The economic and social costs of crime" (Home Office Research Study 217). This sets out clearly how the figures have been derived. There are particular problems in providing accurate figures for some types of crime (especially commercial victimisation). The Criminal Justice Departments and Her Majesty's Treasury have not yet agreed how best to measure progress.

  There are no cost of crime targets for 2000–01 or 2001–02. Although there are no interim targets until 2004, we are making every effort to ensure that we reduce crimes with a high economic cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the PSA target to reduce the fear of crime will be met in 2001–02. [47448]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 10 December 2001, Official Report, column 701W, the target is to reduce the fear of violent crime, burglary, and vehicle crime by 2004 from their 2001 baselines. During the baseline year, 22.3 per cent. of people were very concerned about violent crime, 16.5 per cent. about burglary, and 18.5 per cent. about vehicle crime. Data for the following year have not yet been published.

  Street Crime
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how police areas not included in the initial pilot scheme will benefit from the cross-Government working of the anti-street crime initiative. [48576]

  Mr. Denham
  The street crime initiative is targeted at the 10 forces which account for 82 per cent. of robbery in England and Wales, but the effect of the initiative will have benefits for all police force areas. Good practice in partnership working across the criminal justice system and between other agencies will be disseminated to all areas. The 10 force initiative should serve to identify and remove any systemic blockages which may currently hinder the tackling of street crime not only in those 10 areas, but across the country. By setting up this initiative we are sending out a clear signal that we will not tolerate crime on our streets, wherever they occur.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the conviction rate was for car crime offences in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [48299]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, and relating to England and Wales, is shown in the table.
  611W

  Conviction rate1 for persons proceeded against for certain motor vehicle offences2, England and Wales, 1991 to 2000

  Percentage

  Conviction rate

  1991

  68.9

  1992

  61.7

  1993

  59.1

  1994

  59.1

  1995

  59.7

  1996

  60.4

  1997

  61.7

  1998

  63.0

  1999

  63.2

  2000

  62.0

  1 Number of defendants convicted at all courts as a percentage of those proceeded against in magistrates courts.

  2 Theft of motor vehicle, unauthorized taking of motor vehicle (including being carried knowing vehicle to have been taken or driven away), aggravated vehicle taking and theft from motor vehicle.

  Information on court proceedings for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he is taking to increase prosecutions of those committing car crime; and if he will make a statement; [48298]

  (2) what action he is taking to reduce car crime; and if he will make a statement. [48297]

  Mr. Denham
  The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT) was set up in September 1998 to develop and oversee the implementation of initiatives to meet the Government's target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years from 1998–99. They published their strategy for achieving the target on 22 September 1999.

  The main lines of action in the VCRAT strategy include improved security on new and used cars; improved car park security; better policing and community responses which target prolific offenders and crime hotspots; and new procedures for the detection of stolen cars at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 took forward VCRAT recommendations for regulation of the motor salvage industry and controls on the supply of vehicle number plates, and we expect to implement these provisions between July 2002 and April 2003.

  We expect these and other initiatives—such as the introduction of best value targets for forces in England and Wales; the introduction of a vehicle crime toolkit to enable forces to exchange good practice and the provision of better information to the police at the roadside—to impact on the number of apprehensions leading to an increase in the number of prosecutions for car crimes. The latest published figures show that recorded vehicle crime reduced by 10.1 per cent. in 2000–01 compared with 1998–99.

  Police
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of West Mercia police officers in Telford are from a black minority ethnic background; [45133]
  612W
  (2) what proportion of officers employed by West Mercia police are from a black minority ethnic background. [45132]

  Mr. Denham
  I am told by the chief constable (Peter Heimpson) that West Mercia constabulary has seven officers who have classified themselves as black, which is 0.34 per cent. of force strength. Of this number three are deployed to the Telford division, which is 0.86 per cent. divisional strength.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the future pension costs of English police authorities; if he will list the total costs for the three financial years up to 2000–01; what he estimates those costs to be in each of the three succeeding years; and what proportion of the total police authority budget in each authority was represented by pension costs in(a) 2000–01 and (b) is estimated for 2001–02. [40550]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed estimates of police service costs are made annually by individual police authorities and forces. Each makes its own projection of pensions' costs. In formulating projections of grant, careful account is taken of advice from the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers on estimated increases in pensions costs.

  Total net pensions' costs for English Police Authorities were £840.9 million in 1998–99, £897.7 million in 1999–00 and are estimated at £973.5 million in 2000–01 and £1,055.6 million in 2001–02 (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics).

  Police estimated spending on net pensions in England as a proportion of net expenditure in 2000–01 and 2001–02 is set out in the table.

  Proportion of English police authorities net expenditure spent on net pensions costs

  Percentage

  Police authority

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Avon and Somerset Police

  16.16

  16.65

  Bedfordshire Police

  12.48

  12.84

  Cambridgeshire Police

  12.98

  12.69

  Cheshire Police

  11.25

  13.63

  City of London

  15.36

  16.05

  Cleveland Police

  15.18

  14.85

  Cumbria Police

  15.37

  15.25

  Derbyshire Police

  13.41

  12.37

  Devon and Cornwall Police

  13.96

  14.81

  Dorset Police

  14.00

  15.05

  Durham Police

  12.04

  12.54

  Essex Police

  11.30

  12.94

  Gloucestershire Police

  14.20

  14.26

  Greater Manchester Police

  15.21

  16.25

  Hampshire Police

  10.84

  11.35

  Hertfordshire Police

  9.80

  9.51

  Humberside Police

  14.15

  14.49

  Kent Police

  12.50

  12.94

  Lancashire Police

  13.54

  14.35

  Leicestershire Police

  12.11

  12.63

  Lincolnshire Police

  16.25

  16.86

  Merseyside Police

  15.65

  16.43

  Metropolitan Police (GLA)

  13.25

  12.87

  Norfolk Police

  12.64

  12.55

  North Yorkshire Police

  16.31

  17.19

  Northamptonshire Police

  11.91

  10.83

  Northumbria Police

  14.27

  14.41

  Nottinghamshire Police

  13.66

  15.30

  South Yorkshire Police

  10.59

  12.18

  613W

  Proportion of English police authorities net expenditure spent on net pensions costs

  Percentage

  Police authority

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Staffordshire Police

  14.84

  17.03

  Suffolk Police

  13.54

  14.34

  Surrey Police

  9.32

  9.48

  Sussex Police

  15.99

  15.94

  Thames Valley Police

  9.78

  9.90

  Warwickshire Police

  15.25

  16.51

  West Mercia Police

  13.26

  13.65

  West Midlands Police

  11.89

  12.45

  West Yorkshire Police

  14.18

  14.98

  Wiltshire Police

  11.11

  12.26

  Total

  13.26

  13.63

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics (Estimates)

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the figures, by police force, of those individuals who successfully applied to join the constabulary from the ranks of the specials for each year since 1997. [47405]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures for recruits from the specials have not been collected consistently by forces. The figures that are available for the numbers of specials accepted to join the regular service have been collated by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and are set out in the table.

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  22

  28

  9

  14

  Bedfordshire

  9

  7

  0

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  2

  14

  30

  Cheshire

  9

  8

  4

  16

  City of London

  4

  8

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  5

  0

  6

  5

  Cumbria

  1

  4

  0

  3

  Derbyshire

  22

  18

  22

  1—

  Devon and Cornwall

  28

  13

  10

  22

  Dorset

  24

  6

  5

  16

  Durham

  10

  12

  8

  13

  Dyfed-Powys

  1—

  0

  1—

  10

  Essex

  13

  30

  18

  38

  Gloucestershire

  3

  6

  8

  5

  Greater Manchester

  38

  16

  23

  32

  Gwent

  3

  5

  4

  9

  Hampshire

  26

  18

  27

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  3

  18

  10

  12

  Humberside

  10

  4

  4

  0

  Kent

  9

  18

  23

  25

  Lancashire

  27

  15

  13

  18

  Leicestershire

  16

  13

  11

  19

  Lincolnshire

  3

  0

  0

  8

  Merseyside

  25

  27

  6

  6

  Metropolitan Police

  0

  19

  0

  1—

  Norfolk

  4

  0

  5

  17

  Northamptonshire

  4

  5

  1

  18

  Northumbria

  10

  15

  10

  36

  North Wales

  19

  13

  15

  8

  North Yorkshire

  1

  4

  1—

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  8

  6

  0

  South Wales

  11

  15

  7

  10

  South Yorkshire

  17

  9

  13

  1—

  Staffordshire

  35

  1—

  2

  37

  Suffolk

  14

  8

  8

  6

  Surrey

  0

  8

  16

  9

  Sussex

  16

  17

  15

  16

  Thames Valley

  28

  16

  12

  16

  Warwickshire

  8

  15

  2

  1—

  West Mercia

  1

  2

  10

  8

  614W

  Force

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  West Midlands

  2

  5

  11

  1—

  West Yorkshire

  25

  3

  10

  40

  Wiltshire

  6

  2

  5

  13

  England and Wales

  521

  460

  373

  546

  1 Not known

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidance on policing of demonstrations; and if he will make a statement. [48534]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance has been issued to police forces on this subject by the Association of Chief Police Officer. For operational reasons, this has not been made publicly available.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with(a) chief constables and (b) others concerning freemasonry in the police service. [46912]

  Mr. Denham
  I consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers earlier this year on ways to improve the level of registration of freemasonry membership by police officers. I will take their views into account before deciding what further measures might be necessary.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many funded police officers there have been in each year in the Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency since 1998. [50583]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been provided by the Chief constable (Paul Scott-Lee) Queens Police Medal (QPM). I am informed that the Bury St. Edmunds rural sector has only existed since 1999. It is therefore only possible to provide strength information from 1999. Information for actual strength in the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Bury St. Edmunds rural sector is set out in the table.

  Bury St. Edmunds rural sector

  Year1

  Number of officers2

  1999–2000

  21

  2000–01

  21

  2001–02

  22

  1 As at 31 March of each financial year.

  2 Actual officer headcount.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is being given to police officers to improve autism awareness. [51203]

  Mr. Denham
  The basic training received by all recruits to the police service includes an element designed to raise awareness of mental disorder and to highlight the importance of communicating effectively and sensitively with people suffering from a mental disorder (including autism). Individual forces also provide further training for their officers on these issues. Details are not held centrally of such local provision.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance police officers receive about interviewing witnesses who may have an autistic spectrum disorder. [51204]
  615W
  Mr. Denham
  Training for police officers on interviewing witnesses takes place in forces, sometimes carried out jointly with local authorities.

  Centrex will shortly publish an aide memoire for police officers, based on "Achieving Best Evidence", which includes guidance on best practice in interviewing witnesses who suffer from mental disorder or learning disability (including autistic spectrum disorder).

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives to police forces on the(a) detention and (b) destruction of police notes taken during murder investigations, with special reference to the time limit for retaining notes. [47442]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]: Police forces in England and Wales act in accordance with the Code of Practice issued under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. This sets out the procedures for the retention and destruction of material obtained in a criminal investigation which may be relevant to the investigation. All material which may be relevant to the investigation must be retained until a decision is taken whether to institute proceedings against a person for an offence.

  If a criminal investigation results in proceedings being instituted, all material which may be relevant must be retained at least until the accused is acquitted or convicted

  Year ending

  Offence Group

  March 1999

  March 2000

  March 2001

  Recorded crimes for Merseyside

  Violence against the person

  12,208

  14,639

  15,855

  Sexual offences

  1,019

  935

  982

  Robbery

  2,484

  2,663

  2,405

  Burglary in a dwelling

  14,177

  13,606

  12,514

  Burglary in other building

  12,321

  12,032

  11,424

  Theft and handling stolen goods including:

  59,044

  62,230

  57,844

  Theft from vehicle

  15,031

  16,960

  14,220

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  15,306

  16,775

  16,157

  Fraud and Forgery

  4,884

  4,794

  5,021

  Criminal damage

  27,465

  30,822

  30,593

  Drug Offences

  5,620

  4,838

  4,421

  Other Offences

  1,652

  1,613

  1,748

  Grand Total

  140,874

  148,172

  142,807

  Recorded crimes for the St. Helens Basic Command Unit1

  Violence against the person

  n/a

  1,693

  1,795

  Sexual offences

  n/a

  109

  153

  Robbery

  n/a

  171

  168

  Burglary in a dwelling

  n/a

  1,550

  1,669

  Theft from vehicle

  n/a

  2,000

  1,923

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  n/a

  1,680

  1,725

  1 A subset of recorded crime has been collected since 1 April 1999.

  616W
  or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case. Where the accused is convicted, all material which may be relevant must be retained at least until:
  the convicted person is released from custody, or discharged from hospital, in cases where the court imposes a custodial sentence or a hospital order;
  six months from the date of conviction, in all other cases.

  If an appeal against conviction is in progress when the release or discharge occurs, or at the end of the period of six months specified above, all material which may be relevant must be retained until the appeal is determined.

  It is for each police force to determine their policy in relation to retention of material for certain criminal offences. For example, the Metropolitan police service retain all material relevant to a murder investigation for 25 years following a conviction.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded crimes of(a) violence against persons, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary, (e) total theft and handling stolen goods, (f) theft of and from vehicles, (g) fraud and forgery, (h) criminal damage, (i) drug offences and (j) other notifiable offences there were in (i) St. Helens police area and (ii) Merseyside police area in the years to (A) March 1999, (B) March 2000 and (C) March 2001. [51618]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: The requested information for Merseyside, and the available information for the St. Helens police Basic Command Unit, are given in the tables.
  617W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been(a) sick and (b) on light duties for (i) two to eight weeks, (ii) eight to 26 weeks and (iii) 26 weeks to one year in the last year for which information is available. [47123]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), however, collect data on the number of officers on long term sick leave (i.e. more than 28 days), the working days lost due to long term sickness and the number of days spent by officers on recuperative or restricted duties. 2000–01 is the last full year for which data is available.

  Not all forces have systems in place to provide the full information requested by HMIC on sick leave. The data for 2000–01 is therefore incomplete but shows that at 31 March 2001, 2,591 officers were on long term sick leave. In the 12 month period ending 31 March 2001, 760,533 police officer working days were lost due to long-term sickness. Additionally the number of days spent by officers on recuperative duties in 2000–01 was 241,159.

  The way in which police forces record sick leave duties is currently under review. This work will establish common standards to make data more comparable between forces.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what number and percentage of police officers in England and Wales who are entitled to retire early on grounds of ill health(a) chose to stay on in the police service in another role and (b) were offered and accepted a desk job in the last year for which figures are available; [50681]

  (2) what number and percentage of police officers in England and Wales retired early for reasons of ill health in each year since 1996; what pension entitlements apply in these circumstances; and if he will make a statement. [50686]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures are not centrally available for the number of police officers medically certified as permanently disabled, and therefore eligible to be considered for medical retirement, but who are retained in their force. The figures relating to the number of ill health retirements are given in the table.

  Medical retirements

  Percentage of police strength

  1996–97

  2,012

  1.6

  1997–98

  1,827

  1.4

  1998–99

  1,642

  1.3

  1999–2000

  1,232

  1.0

  2000–01

  1,209

  1.0

  An officer's pension entitlements on being compulsorily retired on ill health grounds depend on his or her length of pensionable service in the police pension scheme. An ill health pension, which is payable immediately on retirement, is calculated in a similar way to an ordinary pension but is subject to enhancement where an officer has at least five years' pensionable service. This is to compensate the officer at least in part for the lost opportunity of serving until normal retirement.
  618W
  An ill health pension is subject to the limit of 40/60ths of average pensionable pay (app), which is the maximum ordinary pension, and is also subject to the qualification that pensionable service may not be enhanced to exceed what the officer could have completed by the age of compulsory retirement. The scale of benefits applicable is shown in the table.

  Pensionable service

  Pension

  Less than 2 years

  An ill health gratuity—no pension

  2 to less than 5 years

  Pension with no enhancement—

  1/60 of app per year

  5 to 10 years

  2/60 of app per year

  More than 10 to 13 years

  20/60 of app

  More than 13 years

  7/60 of app plus

  1/60 for each year up to 20

  2/60 for each year over 20

  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) are considering ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health. This should enable forces to reduce the level of ill-health retirement and match the performance of the best quartile of forces in 2000–01 by 2005. The measures under consideration include amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations and joint guidance being issued by the PNB to police authorities and senior management to ensure that wherever possible officers continue in employment where they are capable of performing sufficient duties to make their retention operationally justifiable.

  In the White Paper on police reform the Government also announced that it will establish a national occupational health strategy for the police service, which should assist forces to manage cases of ill health more effectively at the outset.

HEALTH

  General Social Care Council Codes of Practice
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the General Social Care Council Codes of Practice for(a) employers and (b) employees; and if he will place copies in the Library. [45629]

  Jacqui Smith
  Publication of the Codes of Practice is a matter for the General Social Care Council. The council is currently carrying out a major consultation exercise on draft codes. It expects to publish the codes in the summer. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  RSV
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which section of the Government's proposed National Service Framework the issue of RSV immunisation falls. [41480]

  Yvette Cooper
  One of the external working groups driving forward work on the Children's National Service Framework has been set up to look at services needed by all children in order to maintain and promote good health. This will include issues such as childhood immunisation.

  Hospital Planning
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors are taken into account when planning the future location and size of(a) hospital maternity services and (b) hospital paediatric services. [41402]

  Yvette Cooper
  The national health service provides care for women during pregnancy and childbirth in various types, sizes and locations of maternity units, including units within general hospitals or stand-alone units. The Department expects this choice to continue. It is for area strategic health authorities, trusts and local health communities to decide on the best pattern of service provision, taking into account the needs of local people, evidence of effectiveness and available resources. The Department has also set up a maternity and neonatal work force group to consider work force issues for various models for maternity care. Its findings will feed into the development of the maternity module of the Children's National Service Framework, which will be published at a later date.

  The acute module of the new National Service Framework for Children will among other issues consider access to appropriate hospital paediatric services. It will be published later this year.

  Variant-CJD
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has estimated the number of patients exposed to surgical instruments possibly contaminated with vCJD in each of the last five years. [41804]

  Yvette Cooper
  No. Because of the many uncertainties surrounding this issue—including the incubation period of vCJD and the difficulties of tracking individual instruments—we do not consider it feasible to make such an estimate. The risk assessment therefore did not predict the scale of any secondary epidemic of vCJD, instead, it developed different scenarios to address the various uncertainties—including the standard of decontamination—and gaps in our knowledge about vCJD.

  The advice we had from the spongiform encephalopathology advisory committee was that good decontamination is key in reducing the risk of person to person transmission of vCJD via surgical instruments. This was confirmed by the risk assessment. As a result of the work we did last year on improving decontamination, all national health service hospitals in England have access to decontamination services of an acceptable standard.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were charged to patients in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997. [41812]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information at a constituency level is not held centrally. The table shows the amount of prescriptions charged to patients in the Shropshire area.620W

  Prescription items dispensed in Shropshire health authority by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only by charged prescriptions and those categories where no prescription charge is made, 1997–2000

  Charged total

  Free

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage of total

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage of total

  1997

  517.1

  16

  2,763.8

  84

  1998

  532.2

  16

  2,847.5

  84

  1999

  566.5

  16

  2,978.5

  84

  2000

  593.5

  16

  3,095.5

  84

  Note:

  The analysis is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescriptions submitted to the PPA by community pharmacists and appliance contractors. Items dispensed by dispensing doctors and personal administration prescriptions are excluded.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve access to mental health services for women from Asian, black and ethnic minority communities. [42391]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is introducing a range of initiatives to address issues of inequalities in access to mental health services for people from Asian, black and minority ethnic groups, including:The development of a strategy for women's mental health which highlights the needs of women from black and minority ethnic groups.
  A strategy on black and minority ethnic mental health, to promote more accessible and appropriate services for people from these groups.

  Emergency Care
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cash allocations have been made under the reforming emergency care accident and emergency nurse allocation for 2002–03 to each NHS trust in the northern region; upon what basis the allocations have been made; and which trusts are involved in PFI programmes. [43882]

  Jacqui Smith
  Cash allocations to national health service acute trusts in the Department's northern and Yorkshire region, under the reforming emergency care accident and emergency nurse allocation for 2002–03 are shown in the table. All trusts received funding for two additional nurse posts for each accident and emergency department. Trusts at which more than 25 per cent. of their accident and emergency attendees were spending over four hours in the Department received funding for a further six extra nurse posts in each accident and emergency department. The table also indicates those trusts that are involved in private finance initiative programmes.

  NHS trust

  Allocation (£)

  PFI

  Airedale

  73,561

  Yes

  Bradford hospitals

  73,561

  Yes

  Calderdale and Huddersfield

  147,122

  Yes

  City hospitals Sunderland

  73,561

  No

  Dewsbury health care

  73,561

  No

  Gateshead health

  73,561

  No

  Harrogate health care

  73,561

  No

  Hull and East Yorkshire hospitals

  73,561

  Yes

  Leeds teaching hospitals

  588,488

  Yes

  Newcastle upon Tyne hospitals

  73,561

  Yes

  621W

  NHS trust

  Allocation (£)

  PFI

  North Cumbria acute

  147,122

  Yes

  North Durham health care

  588,488

  Yes

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  147,122

  No

  Northallerton health services

  73,561

  Yes

  Northumbria healthcare

  147,122

  Yes

  Pinderfields and Pontefract

  73,561

  Yes

  Scarborough and north-east Yorkshire health care

  73,561

  No

  South Durham health care

  73,561

  Yes

  South Tees acute hospitals

  73,561

  Yes

  South Tyneside health care

  73,561

  No

  York health services

  73,561

  No

  National Institute for Technical Excellence
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time a(a) technology and (b) medicine appraisal has taken place under the auspices of the National Institute for Technical Excellence. [47862]

  Yvette Cooper
  The appraisal process of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence takes about one year from initial scoping work to the issue of final guidance. The timetable can be longer for appraisals which are particularly complex or where the determination is subject to appeal.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diagnostic and treatment centres have been developed; how many are operational; and how many patients they have treated in the last 12 months. [47825]

  Mr. Hutton
  A "first wave" of eight diagnostic and treatment centres (DTCs) is due to be operational by the end of 2002. When these DTCs are up and running they will provide an extra 20,000 treatments a year.

  The NHS is on course to meet the NHS plan commitment to have eight DTCs open by 2004 with a further 12 in development.

  CT Scanner Procedures
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra CT scanner procedures have been carried out since the publication of the NHS National Plan. [47013]

  Yvette Cooper
  For the financial year 2000–01, there were a total of 1,488,752 computed tomography (CT) scans carried out by national health service trusts in England. This compares to 1,359,852 CT scans in the previous financial year.

  Medical Records
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients have access to electronic personal medical records. [47001]

  Yvette Cooper
  At present no official figures are available on the proportion of patients who have been given direct on-line, secure access to their electronic medical records. However, we are aware of a number of 622W
  sites who have taken forward work in this area. These include the Bury Knowle Health Centre (Oxford) and the Hadfield Medical Centre (Derbyshire) funded by the electronic record development and implementation programme (ERDIP). These sites, as well as the work being taken forward by the ERDIP site in south Staffordshire (how to satisfy requirement of law, ethic and policy), will inform policy development and any future national rollout.

  School Fruit
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify the countries of origin of the fruit supplied as part of the National School Fruit Scheme. [47032]

  Yvette Cooper
  The countries of origin of fruit supplied to schools as part of the national school fruit scheme are the UK, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, New Zealand, Cameroon, South Africa, Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guadaloupe, Martinique, Surinam, Uruguay, USA and Windward Islands. The choice at any one time depends on season and crop in supplying countries.

  MRI Procedures
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRI procedures have been carried out since the publication of the NHS National Plan. [47014]

  Yvette Cooper
  For the financial year 2000–01, there were a total of 632,594 magnetic resonance imaging scans carried out by national health service trusts in England.

  Selenium
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on article 5 of the European Union food supplements directive and the potential banning of selenium. [48217]

  Yvette Cooper
  Article 5 of the proposed food supplements directive would establish the approach to setting maximum limits for vitamins and minerals present in food supplements. The Food Standards Agency, which has taken the lead on negotiating this directive on the Government's behalf, is now directing its energies towards arguing the case for these limits to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments and forging strong links between the scientific committee on foods and an expert group it has set up to advise on acceptable levels.

  The positive list in annexe II of the directive, which lists permitted sources of vitamins and minerals, already includes three sources of selenium; additional sources may be added during the seven-year transitional period allowed under the directive.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of folic acid. [47419]

  Yvette Cooper
  A Medical Research Council trial in 1991 showed that supplementation with folic acid significantly reduced the risk of neural tube defects
  623W
  (NTD) in women who had already been through a pregnancy affected by NTD. Following this, in 1992, the then Government issued guidance on supplementation. All women planning a pregnancy are advised to take a daily 400 milligramme supplement from before conception until the twelfth week of pregnancy. They are also advised to eat folate-rich foods.

  In 2000, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) advised that fortification of wheat flour with folic acid would help to reduce the number of births affected by NTDs. However, COMA also recognised the potential for increased folic acid intake to mask vitamin B12 deficiency, particularly in older people. The level of fortification recommended by COMA aimed to minimise the number of people having intakes of folic acid which may mask B12 deficiency.

  A consultation document on COMA's conclusions was issued in July 2000 jointly by the Health Departments and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The majority of residents were in favour of fortification although this was not overwhelming (59 per cent.). The most common concerns were over the potential risks of fortification and the possible restriction of consumer choice.

  Meat Products
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what outbreaks of disease in humans in Britain have been linked to the import of illegal meat products in the past five years. [46775]

  Yvette Cooper
  The UK organisations involved in the collection of foodborne disease data are not aware of any links of illegal imported meat products to outbreaks of foodborne disease in humans in the last five years.

  Net present costs of PSC v. PFI option

  Trust

  PFI £000

  Public £000

  Savings in net present value terms £000

  Difference percentage

  Northallerton Health Services National Health Service Trust—Richmond Friary Community Hospital

  2,457

  3,722

  1,265

  0.05

  Bradford Community Health National Health Service Trust—Horton Park Centre

  7,136

  8,350

  1,214

  0.17

  Hull and East Riding Community Health National Health Service Trust—Withernsea Hospital

  1729,926

  1734,667

  14,741

  10.064

  1 Equivalent annual cost.

  Research (Maternity and Paediatric Care)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) published on the relationship between maternity and paediatric care. [41405]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not commissioned any such research. The maternity and neonatal work force group (MNWG) that was set up last year is considering the best models for providing maternity and neonatal care based on existing evidence.

  Paediatrics
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric intensive care beds have been(a) funded, (b) established and (c) staffed by quarter in the last five years for which figures are available. [41478]

  Overseas Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2002,Official Report, column 1412W, on overseas treatment, how many patients have travelled overseas to receive treatment in continental hospitals since 15 February; and from which health authorities. [47523]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Between 15 February and 22 April a total of 138 patients travelled overseas to receive treatment in continental hospitals. 57 of these patients were from East Kent, 36 from West Sussex and 45 from Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the Richmond Friary Community Hospital for the Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49511]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Withernsea Community Hospital for the Hull and East Riding Community Health NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative; [49509]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for Leeds Road Hospital-Horton Park Centre for Bradford Community Health NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49547]

  Jacqui Smith
  The business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the net savings in present value terms (ie all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme is set out in the table.

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of paediatric intensive care beds that are funded, established and staffed for each quarter for the last five years is not collected centrally.

  The number of available paediatric intensive care beds is collected in an annual census. Available beds are those beds available to be used/or being used by patients. The information is given in the following table.

  Paediatric intensive care beds available at 31 March, England

  Available number of paediatric intensive care beds

  31 March 2001

  291

  31 March 2000

  280

  31 March 1999

  278

  31 March 1998

  289

  31 March 1997

  235

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03

  NHS Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the level of(a) waste, (b) fraud and (c) inefficiency in the NHS in each of the last five years; and what measures he has introduced to reduce the level. [46730]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department monitors and manages the performance of the NHS in the delivery of the key targets set out in the "NHS Plan". In addition, the NHS is subject to external independent audit by the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office. They publish a number of studies each year on the value for money of aspects of the NHS. The Department considers each of these reports, and implements their recommendations where appropriate.

  Analysis using data from November 1998 identified £117 million of pharmaceutical patient fraud. Further analysis showed that this had been reduced to £48 million by 1999 (41 per cent.). A range of measures have been introduced to reduce fraud, including patient exemption checks and a penalty charge where a person fails to pay appropriate NHS charges.

  In addition, we have set about improving governance arrangements to ensure the necessary standards of accountability, probity and openness through the introduction in 1999 of the controls assurance standards.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total sum was achieved for efficiency and other value for money gains in the NHS in 2000–01. [47729]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Allocations to health authorities (HAs) in 2000–01 were made net of 3 per cent. efficiency savings. This means that HAs needed to achieve the efficiency target to fully fund delivery of national targets.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the draft scheme for the Food Standards Agency to comply with Welsh language obligations has been finalised; and when it will be implemented. [49227]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following a period of public consultation, the draft Welsh Language Scheme was approved by the Welsh Language Board on 5 March 2002. The scheme will be officially launched shortly. Many aspects of the scheme have already been adopted by the food Standards Agency.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the service delivery agreement target of the Food Standards Agency to ensure effective enforcement of animal feed legislation has been met. [49247]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is carrying out a number of initiatives to ensure effective enforcement of animal feed legislation. In particular, the FSA is making available over £7 million to local authorities to help them increase enforcement of food legislation.

  Feed law enforcement is part of the FSA's Framework Agreement with Local Authorities on Food Law Enforcement. Returns being provided under that
  626W
  agreement will help the FSA to check the use of resources and ensure feed controls are being properly enforced. The initial results are not yet available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the service delivery agreement target of the Food Standards Agency to undertake additional research into new techniques for assessing the safety of genetically modified foods has been met. [49246]

  Yvette Cooper
  A three year research programme looking at the applicability of new and emerging techniques to the safety assessment of genetically modified foods began in September 2001.

  Hospices
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2002,Official Report, column 536W, on hospices, what assessment he has made of the proportion of patients who died from cancer in hospital who could have received terminal palliative care in hospices had there been sufficient capacity in the last five years. [47131]

  Yvette Cooper
  No such assessment has been made. Palliative care should involve a combination of services including hospital, hospice, community and day care. We know that, given the choice and the right circumstances, many people with cancer would prefer to die at home. Cancer networks have been asked to draw up service delivery plans on palliative care, including a review of the level of services offered in their area. These plans will aim to ensure that each network has a range of palliative care services available to suit the local population. They will be supported by the extra funding for palliative care pledged in the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution the Government makes to the independent hospice sector towards the cost of(a) employment of doctors and nurses and (b) drugs, provision of ambulances and other medical services. [48721]

  Yvette Cooper
  Funding for hospices is a matter for local decision, based on a strategic view of palliative care services. In the NHS Cancer Plan we pledged an additional £50 million per year nationally for specialist palliative care by 2004. We are monitoring progress in providing this extra investment.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in state funding of independent charitable hospices in the last five years. [48723]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are wide variations both in the range of funding from the national health service and in the provision of specialist palliative care services across the country. We are committed to improving palliative care. That is why we have pledged to make available an additional £50 million by 2004 for palliative care so that the NHS can make an adequate contribution to the costs hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. The additional funding will mean that for the first time, NHS investment in specialist palliative care services as a whole will match that of the voluntary sector. We are monitoring progress in providing this increased investment.

  Mount Vernon Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review of cancer services at Mount Vernon Hospital is expected to be published; and if he will make a statement. [48902]

  Yvette Cooper
  The long-term review of the Mount Vernon Cancer Network and Centre includes stakeholders from the London and south-east regions and has been looking at the long-term options for the provision of high quality cancer services to the two million people who currently use Mount Vernon hospital. The review is scheduled to be published in June 2002.

  Butchers' Licensing Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated annual cost(a) to butchers and (b) to public funds is of the implementation and enforcement of the Butchers' Licensing Regulations. [49255]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was published in April 2000 to coincide with the introduction of the Butchers' Licensing Regulations in England.

  The RIA estimated the annual cost per butcher's shop would be approximately £490, comprising £100 payable by the butcher on receipt of a licence from the local authority and an average cost of £390 per shop for staff hygiene training necessary to satisfy one of the licensing conditions. The total recurring compliance costs for the butchery sector were estimated at £3.3 million per annum.

  The annual costs to public funds stem from the issue of licences by the local authorities. The RIA estimated the £100 licence fee, which is retained in full by the issuing local authority, would offset these costs.

  A copy of the RIA is available in the Library.

  Separate butchers' licensing schemes have been introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and are the responsibility of the devolved administrations in those parts of the United Kingdom.

  Doctors
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of doctors is per 100 beds in the Suffolk health authority. [50585]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is in the table.

  Hospital medical staff per 100 beds in Suffolk health authority

  Number

  Hospital medical staff

  580

  Average daily available beds

  1,660

  Doctors per 100 beds1

  34.8

  1 Calculation based on unrounded figures

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census at 30 September 2000

  Department of Health form KHO3 2000–01

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the Suffolk health authority has reached its bed blocking targets since February. [50580]

  Jacqui Smith
  Suffolk health economy is working hard to reduce the number of delayed transfers of care, and has more than met its target for the end of March. This is in line with the overall national trend.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time between a child on the Register of Special Educational Needs being referred to a speech therapist and the first consultation taking place has been in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [51052]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: Data on waiting times for children accessing speech therapy services following referral are not collected centrally. However, we are aware that children make up more than 70 per cent. of the work load of speech and language therapists (SLTs) and it is important that appropriate treatment and interventions are accessed as soon as a problem is identified.

  The NHS Plan sets a target to reduce the maximum wait for any stage of treatment to three months. Provided we can recruit and retain the extra staff, and the national health service makes the necessary reforms, we hope to achieve this objective by the end of 2008.

  We also announced in the NHS Plan an increase in the number of training places for therapists and other health professionals including SLTs. By 2004 there will be 4,450 more training places. Current initiatives including the grading exercise under way in all speech and language therapy services in England will result in improved pay and career opportunities for SLTs. We firmly believe that this initiative will help in the recruitment and retention of SLTs currently working, the return of therapists who have left the profession, and an increase of applicants for training places.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 6 December 2001 from Mrs. Linda Greatorex, and subsequent correspondence of 27 March. [51398]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: A reply was sent on 22 April.

  Walton v. Independent Living Organisation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible implications of the Employment Appeals Tribunal case Walton v. Independent Living Organisation (EAT/0731/01); and if he will make a statement. [51509]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Employment Appeals Tribunal in this case is still considering the judgment. It is therefore not appropriate for me to comment.

  East Riding and Hull Health Authority
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects a decision to be made on how many posts will be made redundant following the termination of the East Riding and Hull health authority. [51814]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is too early to assess how many redundancies may be made following the replacement of the East Riding and Hull health authority. Following "Shifting the Balance of Power" every effort is being made to minimise redundancies and ensure that valuable skills and experience are retained to support the national health service.

  Pneumococcal Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is available in the NHS budget in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 for the immunisation of all children under two years against pneumococcal disease; and if he will make a statement. [51927]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: No decision on immunisation of all children under two years can be taken until the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has reviewed all available evidence and given advice to Ministers. Studies on the use of the vaccine within the UK schedule will not be complete until later in the financial year 2002–03.

  The national health service budget for 2003–04 will increase by 7.6 per cent. in real growth terms. Decisions have not yet been taken regarding the allocation of funding.

  Elderly People (Health Care)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the general practitioner service needs of elderly people. [53329]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care.

  The Department's policy research programme is funding three relevant projects. These are:
  an evaluation of inequalities in influenza vaccination coverage in the elderly;
  a prospective study of health inequalities and informal care; and
  a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the health effects of welfare advice in primary health care.

  The Department's policy research programme is also co-funding the Medical Research Council's study of assessment and management of elderly people in the community.

  The Department's health technology assessment programme is funding four relevant projects. These are:
  the community provision of hearing aids—a systematic review of the evidence;
  the use of laxatives in the elderly;
  the effectiveness of health visitor domiciliary visiting—a systematic review of the literature; and,
  an economic evaluation of a primary care based patient education programme for osteoarthritis of the knee.
  630W
  In addition, the Department allocates funds to the national health service to support research commissioned by the research councils and charities. Management of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved. This research activity is reported to the National Research Register, which may be consulted at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  NHS Patients (Treatment Abroad)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) the local health authorities or (b) the private health care companies involved in sending NHS patients for treatment abroad have the final decision in selecting individual patients for the project. [53323]

  Mr. Hutton
  The local health authorities involved in sending patients overseas have been responsible for identifying groups of patients to whom the opportunity of treatment overseas should be offered. The final decision on whether a patient should be treated in an overseas hospital rests with the receiving clinician. The essential clinical criteria are that patients are fit to undergo the journey and that in the clinician's opinion they require treatment.

  St. Thomas's Hospital
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget is available for cancer treatment at St. Thomas's Hospital; and what the budget was in each of the last five years. [53296]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Residential/Nursing Home Beds
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average occupancy rates are for(a) residential home beds and (b) nursing home beds in the last 12 months; and whether the figures he collates for capacity in those homes are based on (i) actual occupancy and (ii) availability for use; [53272]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of (a) residential home beds and (b) nursing home beds which are unoccupied and likely to de-register for use in the next 12 months. [53268]

  Jacqui Smith
  In March 2001 (the most recent date for which figures are available) the occupancy rate for private residential homes was 90.4 per cent. In March 2000 the respective figures were 88.3 per cent. and 88.4 per cent. These figures were collated by care consultants, Laing and Buisson, and are based on occupied beds as a percentage of registered beds. Comparative figures for local authority owned homes are not available.

  As announced on 17 April by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are increasing the resources for personal social services by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Local authorities will be able to use these substantial extra resources to stabilise the care home market.

  Kidney Disease
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding his Department is making
  631W
  available for research into kidney disease in 2002; and of this how much is to go to (a) companies and (b) charities. [53319]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments for disease in the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC's expenditure on kidney disease in 2001–02 was £1.9 million.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department's policy research programme is spending £87,380 on kidney disease projects in 2002–03. The Department's health technology assessment programme is spending £71,210 on kidney disease projects in 2002–03.

  In addition, the Department allocates funds to the national health service to support research commissioned by the research councils and charities. Management of the research supported by NHS research and development (R and D) funding is devolved, and details of the NHS expenditure related to this research are not held centrally. NHS R and D funding does not support companies' research.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) African-Caribbean and (b) Asian people in the United Kingdom have suffered from kidney disease in each year since 1997; and what the survival rate is. [53318]

  Jacqui Smith
  The source of information on the ethnicity of kidney patients is the UK renal registry. Submission of data is voluntary and coverage by all units in England is not yet universal. In those units that submitted data in 2000 an average 3.3 per cent. of all new adult patients were from the African-Caribbean minority ethnic group and 9.7 per cent. were Asian people. A breakdown of adult patients continuing to receive renal replacement therapy shows that 3.7 per cent. were from the African-Caribbean minority ethnic group and 10.1 per cent. were from the Asian community. Information on survival broken down into ethnic groups is not yet available.

  NHS Finance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 945W, on NHS finance, when he will publish the annual audited accounts for NHS trusts, health authorities and PCTs. [53299]

  Mr. Hutton
  Individual national health service bodies are required to publish their own accounts so that they are available in advance of the public meeting which should be held on 30 September.

  Provisional 2001–02 data will normally be available once validation checks have been completed by the Department in November. 2002.

  Liver Transplants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS was of liver transplants in the last 12 months. [53290]
  632W
  Jacqui Smith
  The liver transplant service is a national service commissioned by the national specialist commissioning group (NSCAG) on behalf of the national health service. In the last financial year (2001–02) NSCAG allocated £33,549,549 to the service.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many liver transplants he estimates will be required in(a) the current year and (b) in five years' time. [53288]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is difficult to estimate the total potential demand for liver transplants. However, the median waiting time for a transplant for adults is only 60 days. At the end of March this year there were only 131 English residents on the waiting list and each year some 550 to 600 transplants are performed on English residents depending on the availability of suitable organs. The number of transplants performed in the current year should fall within the same range.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many liver transplants have taken place in each of the last five years. [53291]

  Jacqui Smith
  The total number of liver transplants (adults and children) performed by the designated units in England in each of the last five years is:

  Number

  1997–98

  547

  1998–99

  568

  1999–2000

  590

  2000–01

  549

  2001–02

  555

  Private Sector (Statistics)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many day cases have been carried out in the private sector since November 2000; [47861]

  (2) how many out-patient appointments have been carried out in the private sector since November 2000; [47860]

  (3) how many in-patient treatments have been carried out in the private sector since November 2000. [47868]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect information on the total number of appointments and treatments provided by the private health care providers. We do, however, have information on services provided for national health service patients. Since November 2000 the Independent Healthcare Association (IHA) has collected monthly data from independent health care providers (which includes both private and voluntary sector providers) about the number of NHS patients treated by them. According to data made available to the Department by the IHA, between November 2000 and January 2002 (the latest month for which figures are available) at least 25,000 day cases, 34,500 out-patient appointments and 28,500 in-patient treatments were carried out in the independent sector for NHS patients.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Proof of Age Scheme
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the British Retail Consortium's efforts to introduce a nationally recognisable PASS (Proof of Age Standards Scheme) for use by those aged 12 and over.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government welcome the British Retail Consortium's proposals and congratulate it on the steps it is taking to help retailers to comply with the law. We have held very positive discussions with the British Retail Consortium about how its scheme would work in practice. In giving our full endorsement we would need to be satisfied that acceptable standards were in place to check the age of an applicant and that the British Retail Consortium would put in place procedures to ensure that those standards would be applied to all cards in the scheme. Any scheme would also need to be self-financing. The British Retail Consortium is aware of our views and I am confident that it will be able to satisfy them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that satisfactory reply. It would be marvellous to have a national scheme. Does the Minister agree that in the past one of the difficulties has been that although a number of card schemes existed for proof of age they were not recognised in various parts of the country? A scheme produced in Essex might not be acceptable in Northamptonshire. I mention that as an example. I know nothing of the practice in those counties. Do the Government believe that it is important to have a hologram or a photograph on the cards? The British Retail Consortium considers that to be necessary.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as regards the latter part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question, I understand that the proof of age industry steering group will meet tomorrow, 30th April, to finalise he details of the scheme. We shall then have a better idea of the scheme. However, I understand that the cards will conform to all the normal criteria as regards date of birth and will probably include a photograph and a hologram. As to the first part of the supplementary question, it is crucial to have a national standard and a national logo on all cards. Such a measure would be beneficial. At present some local authorities produce cards which are not acceptable in other parts of the country. There are many age-related limits regarding
448
what young people can or cannot do. I refer to age-related limits applying at the ages of five, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21. Therefore, there is a need for a proof of age card that can be used nationally. The BRC is going in the right direction.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why do we not just go the whole hog and introduce the national identity card scheme which a majority of the people of this country actually want?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there are two reasons why we cannot do that. The first concerns time. The BRC initiative could be up and running quickly once it is accepted as an accredited system. As regards an identity card system, these days the Home Office calls that the entitlement card. As I said, the Government will produce a large consultation paper before the Summer Recess with a long consultation period to follow. I cannot be precise about that period but it will be rather longer than normal. If legislation were to follow, it would take one or two years or longer. The delay involved would be a factor to be taken into account. A stand-alone proof of age card would be useful for young people who may not always want to carry an entitlement card, particularly if it is part and parcel of a passport or a driving licence. A stand-alone proof of age card would have many uses.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under no circumstances would I carry or even apply for a proof of age card? Is this not a case of the bossy boots nanny state with a card stating that one is five, 12, 14, 18 or 21? Cannot we get on with our lives without holograms and dates of birth? It is Nineteen Eighty-Four gone mad.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Earl's question proves that he belongs to a bygone age.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, welcome though the British Retail Consortium's proposals are, and reassuring though it is that the measure, once agreed, could be introduced quickly, to refer to the Minister's qualification, is it not somewhat humiliating that the British Retail Consortium can act quicker than the Government, given all the powers and authority that the Government possess?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord confuses the position. The British Retail Consortium seeks to accredit on a national basis all the cards that exist at the present time. I refer, for example, to the successful operation of the cards of the Portman Group on behalf of the alcohol and brewing industry and other cards that already exist. The British Retail Consortium wishes to have a nationally accepted logo on cards to enable a retailer or service provider in one part of the country to accept a card produced by a local authority elsewhere as the BRC PASSlogo is implanted in it. That would make compliance with the law much easier. It is not a matter of introducing a new card, rather it is a national accreditation system for existing cards.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a substantial number of the shops we are discussing are owned by people from ethnic minorities? Will he consider discussing with the British Retail Consortium the need to have the relevant information in various languages to ensure that the staff who serve in those retail outlets understand their obligations under the law?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I never experienced any difficulty in my former constituency as regards proof of age cards among corner shop licensees and newsagents who sold tobacco. Those shops are the bedrock of this country and many of them are owned and managed by members of the Asian community. I saw notices regarding providing proof of age pinned to the backs of tills. It is clear that such a system must take account of all shades of opinion and language issues. However, by and large, we are talking about proof of age. That matter should be fairly easy to accommodate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the statement he made will be warmly welcomed by all those involved in any form of retailing? Will he confirm that at the moment it is illegal to purchase fireworks under the age of 18, airguns and pellets under the age of 17, petrol under the age of 16 and video and computer games under the age of 12? Does the Minister accept that retailers in general have done a great job in the difficult area of policing and monitoring the law and that a measure such as that proposed by the BRC would not only help the country but would also be of considerable assistance in enabling those involved in retailing to keep within the law?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. This is a matter of serious proportions. However, if I were to read out some of the requirements involving age-related limits about what one can and cannot do—they appear on a website—it would show that the situation has grown like Topsy over the years. Some of the requirements appear to be quite preposterous. They are nevertheless the law. Such a card and a national accreditation system would help retailers to comply with the law. The issue of consolidation is for another time and, I suspect, another piece of legislation.

Young Offenders: Arrest and Sentencing
2.43 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Valeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on reducing the time taken between the arrest and sentencing of young offenders.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, for all youth offenders in the youth court, we have reduced the time from arrest to resolution from 87 days in 1997 to 57 in 2001. Persistent young offenders are more troublesome to deal with and in that regard the figures are encouraging.
The Government's target to halve the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders was achieved by August 2001. By January 2002, the time from arrest to sentence had been reduced from 142 days to 69.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and ask that she congratulates all those in the criminal justice system who have worked so effectively to achieve that welcome improvement. Can she comment on reports that the £319 million Libra IT system, which was meant to enable magistrates' courts, the police and the probation service to exchange information at the touch of a button, is on the brink of being abandoned? If that were to happen, what impact would it have on reducing delays in the criminal justice system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the question relating to Libra is perhaps a little off the point. However, everything is being done to ensure that the system that is involved in delivering these results continues. It will not he adversely affected by any delay or difficulty caused by the Libra project.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious problem with persistent young offenders who commit other offences between the dates of arrest and conviction? Does she further agree that it is essential to provide more local authority secure accommodation so that those exceptional young offenders are not simply left on the streets to commit offences over and over again?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree that persistent young offenders are a real concern. It is absolutely essential that appropriate accommodation is made available to them. The noble Lord will know that the Government have taken many initiatives to try to ensure that the issue of persistent offenders is addressed effectively.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, while congratulating the Minister on reducing the time between arrest and trial, I recall when people were arrested one evening and the following day were brought before the courts and dealt with, particularly if there was a guilty plea. Lawyers, of course, were not involved. Does she think that there may be an advantage in dealing with people without the involvement of lawyers?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that many are tempted to return to the days when there was no legal representation and people could not give voice

451
to their rights. But, thankfully, those days are gone. Now, the individuals who come before our courts can be assured that they will receive proper representation from proper, qualified lawyers, who are able to assist them—as is their right.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, while we are very encouraged by the figures that the Minister has given us in relation to the time between arrest and sentencing, will the Minister comment on the figures for detection rates? In London alone, the detection of crime has fallen from 25 per cent to just 17 per cent of all known crime.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to comment on the noble Baroness's figures but they do not directly relate to the Question, which was about persistent young offenders. In relation to persistent young offenders, it is right that we have done much to reduce the amount of activity that those young people have engaged in, not least by reducing the rate of recidivism—or at least by attempting so to do.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any appreciable difference, in terms of the time involved, between girl persistent offenders and boy persistent offenders?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to help my noble friend but I am more than happy to look at the figures to see whether there is any such difference. I shall write to my noble friend if any such indication is found.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that there appears to be a culture of adjournment in youth courts? That will obviously considerably delay matters.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish my noble friend a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very much aware that in the past there was an issue in relation to delay. That is why, on 21st May 1997, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wrote personally to the chairmen of all youth panels emphasising that speed was essential in terms of confronting young people with the consequences of their wrongdoing. Speed is essential in terms of bearing clown on the easy habit of re-offending. The youth courts, as we have seen, have responded very well. I emphasise that when any particular adjournment is necessary in the interests of justice, that is determined by the magistrates through the exercise of their own independent judicial discretion.

Young Offenders: Community Sentences
2.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to offer to young offenders, as an alternative to community service, playing parts in special performances of Shakespeare's plays.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have introduced a range of community sentences for juveniles which provide individual programmes to tackle their offending behaviour and its causes. The arts can, and indeed do, play a valuable part. Youth offending teams across the country have successfully used music and drama, including Shakespeare, and other art forms. But we believe that these activities should remain available as part of an offending behaviour programme where appropriate and not become alternatives to them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that schemes involving Shakespeare are already proving themselves in the United States? But would the Government approve of such a project here while not, of course, supporting any idea that the quality of mercy blesses him that takes as well as him that gives, or that "Once more unto the breach" might refer to prison walls?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, being only a simple engineer, and at the risk of upsetting people, I have to say that The Merchant of Venicei was the only piece of Shakespeare penance that I ever did at my old school, Handsworth Technical College. Therefore, there is a big gap in my cultural life, and I mean that.
However, I fully accept what the noble Lord said. This morning I asked my officials where they believed the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was coming from. They told me that there had been a most interesting article in The Times of 15th April, which I read, giving information about what is happening in America. The article was incredibly positive and informative, and we shall certainly consider the issues that it raised. We are using art and sport, and not only in relation to those who have offended. It is very important that those who do not offend do not believe that they are being kept out of these programmes. That would send the wrong signals. The Youth Justice Board has a large programme, and youth offending teams across the country are making good use of such material.
This morning, I also discovered that there is such a thing as a Henry V leadership programme, which I understand is run by someone by the name of "Olivier". Indeed, Home Office officials have been sent on it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not one common theme in both the Question and the Answer: much ado about nothing?
Lord Addington: My Lords, if we are to use any form of art therapy or artistic or cultural activity in relation

453
to young offenders, does the Minister agree that it is important to remember that good playwrights have existed in this country since the 17th century?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, indeed, they have. However, the nature of Shakespeare's language and the way in which people are able to describe events and convey violence through language rather than physically have proved to be beneficial both here and in the United States. Again, I refer noble Lords to the important piece in The Times. I believe it is important that people use both modern and what one might call "less modern" initiatives in both sport and art.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of such initiatives are already taking place in prisons? For example, last summer Winchester Prison put on a most brilliant opera—"The Threepenny Opera".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, indeed. One arts-based initiative—the London Shakespeare Workout—uses the language and themes of Shakespeare with professional theatrical performers to engage inmates, education staff and prison officers. Therefore, an enormous amount of such work is taking place now. It is not new. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has raised an important issue. It is not all about clamping people down; it is about opening people up and encouraging them to be positive, whether they have offended or not. This is an important issue to have been raised in the House.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister mentioned those who have not offended. Does he believe that enough is being done to promote youth services in this country? It is most important that young people partake in positive activities, but there has been a considerable run-down of youth activities, largely by local authorities.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. I highlight, for example, the Youth Justice Board. Its Splash schemes have been run in the school holidays since the summer of 2000. They have included more than 200 projects and have provided sports and arts activities for 20,000 13 to 17 year-olds in deprived areas of the country over a five-week period. In the scheme's first year, 2000, the total crime rate fell by 6 per cent in those areas compared with a national rise of 3.8 per cent. Therefore, an enormous amount of work is being done, and I do not believe that one should use such Questions simply to take a knock at local government.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the introduction of the community service order, which, I am happy to say, was introduced by a Conservative government in 1972, was one of the most imaginative and important changes to take place in penal policy? Faced today with a situation, such as we were faced with in 1971, of
454
overcrowding in prisons, will the Minister say what steps this Government are taking to consider alternatives to prison?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is absolutely right. The total number of sentences received by juveniles—that is, young people between the ages of 10 and 17—in the year 2000 in England and Wales was 91,000. Community sentences accounted for 39 per cent of that number. There were probation orders and supervision orders, and community service orders made up 5·3 per cent of the grand total, which is very high. With attendance centre orders, combination orders, curfew orders, reparation orders, action plan orders, and drug treatment and testing orders, community sentencing forms 40 per cent. That is a considerable improvement on what went on in the past. We are always looking at other systems, and I believe that the work carried out by the Youth Justice Board during the short time that it has been in existence has made a considerable contribution.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal takes an active part in an organisation called Crime Concern, which works in the most deprived parts of Britain? Some of its resources come from the Youth Justice Board, but at present it is trying to increase its funding. Does my noble friend believe that he will be able to get the Home Office involved far more in such funding? Crime Concern works not only with young people who have not committed crimes; it also works with families in the most deprived areas. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that it is also getting young people to write their own plays about their lives and to act them out with others. They are highly supervised.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I want to answer my noble friend's question about funding. It is a very sensitive matter at present. If I say that the Home Office does not have enough funds, that will be construed as an attack on the Treasury, which it is not. If I say that we have all that we need, we shall be told, "Well, you don't need any more", and our funding will be cut back. Therefore, I shall have to take away for consideration the suggestion about funding.
My noble friend is right about the amount of work that is taking place. Of course, the Home Office is also part of the regional government machinery. Together with the Home Office agencies, it works with people in the regions so as to be more in touch with what is going on on the ground. I believe that in that way it will also make an important contribution.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, will the noble Lord join me in celebrating the success of drama in prison and, in particular, that of Shakespeare in prison, which engages the most resistant learners? It brings them out of themselves and starts them on the path to learning. It has a long and successful history. Will he also

455
celebrate the success of Shakespeare rather early in his time in writing in rap rhythm, which is extraordinarily helpful when one is trying to work in prisons?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am happy to support and agree with what the noble Lord said, but I shall certainly not get into Shakespeare and rap.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
2.59 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have referred the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill to the European Commission under Directive 98/34 EC as amended by Directive 98/48 EC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we notified the Bill on 28th March. The notification is without prejudice to the Government's view that the Bill does not contain any technical regulations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what was slipped out by Written Questions in both Houses of Parliament. Does the noble Lord agree that this is an extraordinary situation as the Government have made a complete U-turn, having resisted such a proposition on no less than five different occasions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. We have always taken the view that this is not notifiable. We have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by many noble Lords during the passage of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill through your Lordships House. As a result of the points that were raised, we decided, as a precaution, that it would be sensible to notify, as we have done. We remain of the view that it is not notifiable, but as a result of the discussions in your Lordships' House, I believe that we are justified in notifying as a precautionary measure.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on adopting the Bill in the other place, where today it has its Second Reading. Will he join with me in deploring the decision of the Conservative Front Bench in the other place, which is in stark contrast to the decision of the Conservative Front Bench in this House, to oppose a Second Reading for the Bill on the spurious ground that there is a lack of evidence that the Bill will be effective and on the ground that the stand-still provisions under the technical services directive will apply?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his initiative in bringing forward a Bill in this place. I pay tribute to the skills of his draftsmanship in so doing. On the position of the party opposite, I must express
456
my great disappointment that it does not seek to support the intent of the Bill. If the Bill passes in another place, I have no doubt whatever that it will have an enormous impact in terms of reducing smoking among the people of this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the two directives cited in the Question have little other than general relevance to the Question? At the moment the matter is in the hands of the Conciliation Committee of the European Parliament and the Council. Once the Council reveals its decision, it has to be laid before the Scrutiny Committee of both Houses before it can become effective.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I doubt that anyone knows more than my noble friend of the intricacies of European legislation. I believe that he refers to the European advertising directive. In 1998 we supported a directive that provided for a comprehensive tobacco advertising ban in Europe. That was challenged in the courts and in October 2000 it was struck down by the European Court of Justice. As a result, the Government decided to deliver its commitment by way of UK legislation, which, if the current Bill passes in another place, we will have done. However, my noble friend is right. Since then the European Commission has brought forward further proposals for a directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. That is still subject to discussion within Europe.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, as the Minister has indicated that notification of the Bill was in response to the protestations made from noble Lords on this side of the House, will he tell the House whether in the interim he has also considered the situation of treating all sports equally, or is Formula 1 motor racing the only sport to be allowed a long period in which to comply whereas every other sport is to be treated on a short timeframe?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I had thought that the issue of notification had been raised by noble Lords from various parts of your Lordships' House, including the Cross Benches. On sponsorship, the noble Lord knows that our intent is that sponsorship events with a view to promoting tobacco advertisements need to stop, but we do not want the ban to harm sports. When the original Bill was debated, we made it clear that we believe that it is right, subject to consultation, to expect most tobacco sponsorship of sporting events to end as soon as possible, but that global sporting events which receive considerable income from tobacco interests should be given a certain period of time to phase out the use of tobacco sponsorship. That remains the position of the Government.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is it the case that there are no European Union or WTO free trade rules that prevent governments from making

457
exemptions in order to protect health? As the Bill when enacted will have the effect of saving at least 3,000 lives a year, it falls into that category.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend puts the matter correctly. From the evidence that I have seen, both from the World Bank and from Clive Smee, the economist commissioned by the previous government to look at the impact of a ban on tobacco advertising, there is no doubt that the effects of the Bill, if passed by another place, will have a positive impact on our overall strategy to reduce smoking in this country.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Israel and the Occupied Territories.

The Queen's Golden Jubilee
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an historic occasion. The whole House will agree with me when I say that, as the fifth longest serving monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has had an exceptional reign.
Over the past 50 years she has met more people in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and overseas than any other monarch. She has been advised by 10 Prime Ministers, including Lord Home of the Hirsel, the last Prime Minister to sit, even if briefly, in this House. She has given Royal Assent to no fewer than 3,135 Acts of Parliament and has opened Parliament on 49 occasions. Those statistics bear witness to the quantity of work that Her Majesty has performed, but they do not describe to us the grace and dignity with which Her Majesty has reigned. It is those qualities that we celebrate today.
The past months have not been exclusively happy. We hope that tomorrow's ceremonies will mark the beginning of a brighter period for Her Majesty. We can look forward to a great season of celebrations over the coming months. We shall see country and Commonwealth join together to celebrate 50 years of Her Majesty's reign. There will be street parties, concerts, parades and tributes as all join together, with the Royal Family, to mark this splendid anniversary.
I know that your Lordships will wish to join together to thank Her Majesty for half a century of service, to offer her our affection and support. In
458
agreeing this humble Address, we express our hopes that the years ahead will be rich in joy and fulfilment for her and for the nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a delight to follow the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House in the sentiments that he has expressed. I shall be brief for I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will speak eloquently tomorrow of the deep sense of admiration and loyalty that this House bears Her Majesty the Queen.
Few in all the long generations of our monarchy have reached a Golden Jubilee: four in England and one in Scotland. This rare event is a just cause for national celebration. It should not be a "low-key" jubilee. Her Majesty deserves the fullest expression of the gratitude and affection of the nation and it is right that tomorrow this House and another place should lead in that.
Some no doubt will stress the changes that have taken place during Her Majesty's reign. I would like to stress something that has not changed since February 1952—Her Majesty's unswerving dedication to her high sense of duty to our nation and to all its people.
As others reminded us, 55 years ago as a young princess Her Majesty gave a memorable and moving pledge of service to this country and to the Commonwealth. With the constant support of Prince Philip at her side, she has never for one moment failed in that promise. Indeed, has any monarch ever given such unstinting and varied service to Britain or the Commonwealth?
This jubilee year began under the dark clouds of personal sorrow for Her Majesty. But even in those sad days, which touched so many millions of people, she was, I hope, able to see in a striking and remarkable way the deep well of affection in this country for Her Majesty and for the Crown.
Over 50 years, people in all walks of life and in all parts of the world have felt their lives enhanced by the presence of the Queen. She literally embodies the union of our kingdom. Let us hope that in her jubilee year, Her Majesty will feel ever more deeply the warmth of the respect and affection of her people which, by her service and unrivalled sense of duty, she so justly deserves.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have great pleasure in associating ourselves with the remarks of the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. We too look forward with great anticipation to the undoubtedly eloquent phrases we shall hear tomorrow from the Lord Chancellor.
I believe we all recognise that the vow taken by Her Majesty the Queen in her Cape Town speech on 21st April 1947—her 21st birthday—has been fulfilled

459
in every possible sense. Most of us when we are young have good intentions. Most of us, over the years, fall away from those good intentions. The Queen has, in every possible way, fulfilled the intentions she expressed on that occasion. I believe that the people of this country recognise that perhaps more generously and full-heartedly than sometimes do the media, as exemplified by their response to the deaths of Her Majesty the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, and their strong fellow feeling with the Queen in her bereavement.
I remind the House also that the Queen has been deeply respected and much admired by all those who have served as Prime Minister, another extremely lonely post. In this House we have the benefit of one former Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who himself has served for 50 years and whose golden jubilee is celebrated this year. He, I know, would give full attribution to the experience and wisdom of Her Majesty in her discussions with her Prime Ministers.
Finally, as well as being Queen of the United Kingdom, the Queen is also the Head of the Commonwealth. It is important to say that 25 years ago, at her Silver Jubilee, many people would not have predicted that the Commonwealth would still be here. Not only is it still enduring; it is also expanding in size because other countries wish to join it. With her usual extraordinary felicity, when the Queen returned to South Africa in 1993, after the installation of a new democratic regime under President Mandela, it was in the townships that the signs said, "Thank you for coming back". It could hardly have been put more eloquently. Since that time both Mozambique and Cameroon have joined the Commonwealth, something we often value insufficiently.
We on these Benches are delighted to be associated with the words of respect and admiration for Her Majesty. We wish her a very happy tour of her kingdom with the support of her family and of course of her long-standing and devoted husband, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for introducing this Motion. It is a great privilege to be able to congratulate Her Majesty the Queen from these Benches in the year of her Golden Jubilee. On behalf of all the Cross-Benchers I humbly express to Her Majesty our profound loyal greetings and good wishes.
Fifty years is a long time to have been always active and so utterly dedicated to duty at the heart of this nation and the Commonwealth. In no other role in life does the individual have to start off and hit the road running, as it were; and then continue to travel that road years after others who, reaching an age of honourable retirement, settle back to enjoy their grandchildren, to indulge their hobbies and other interests, to unwind and to become free of the thousand-and-one pressures that once used to crowd in upon them in their working lives.
460
Her Majesty has many fine attributes and qualities. Grace and dignity have already been mentioned and many others can be identified. If, I hope without presumption, I single out one of the many characteristics of being our Queen, it is because it is so unique and has been fulfilled in such an exemplary way.
Modern information technology, to say nothing of the methods of today's media in covering every aspect, real and imagined, of a story line makes for a permanent, or near permanent, public parade and coverage of all that is said or done. No moment of private grief, of joy, of concern about family or nation, escapes today's paparazzi attention. The telephoto lens and eavesdropping devices abound. They can never be safely ignored. To have been blessed with Her Majesty's constant, long and total dedication to her duty and to her subjects against a background of coverage unique in its intrusiveness is without any parallel in previous generations.
I pay tribute also to the fine supporting role that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has played as consort throughout the Queen's years of commitment and service to the nation. Unalloyed admiration, genuine warmth of feeling and heartfelt congratulations from all her subjects on her Golden Jubilee are richly deserved by Her Majesty. Long may she reign over us.
3.15 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, from the Lords Spiritual I rise to support the Motion. The politicians among us have rightly remarked on the wisdom and knowledge which Her Majesty brought to the government of her kingdom, and the diligence with which she attends to the affairs of state. I want to pay tribute to a different kind of wisdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned that on her 21st birthday the Queen committed herself to our nation. The actual words were to invite us to go forward together with an unwavering faith, high courage and a quiet heart, promising to dedicate her whole life to the national service. Just five years later, looking ahead to her Coronation, Her Majesty asked all her people around the world to pray for her; that God would give her the wisdom and strength to fulfil those awesome coronation promises to rule lawfully, to judge mercifully and to uphold His Church. How magnificently those prayers have been answered.
Through 50 years of profound change and upheaval, Her Majesty the Queen has been the steadfast heart of a worldwide family of nations and peoples setting the finest examples of faithful Christian service; of duty born with courage and joy; of loyalty, dignity and sacrifice. As we look forward to a summer of jubilee celebrations I want simply to say this. We have been richly blessed to have had such a person as our gracious sovereign. We thank God for her and for her husband Prince Philip, whose magnificent support has contributed so much to a remarkable reign. Today we pay grateful tribute for all that they have given and continue to give to our nation, our Commonwealth and our world.

461
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; and it was ordered that the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House in Westminster Hall tomorrow at eleven o'clock.

Communications
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft communications Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the committee should report not later than three months after any such Bill has been presented to both Houses.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.19 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [English Health Authorities: change of name]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
"(5) No order shall be made under this section relating to a Strategic Health Authority until after the completion of such consultation as may be prescribed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for helpfully recommending in Committee on 14th March that the Government could usefully reconsider the wording proposed by new Section 8(5) of the 1977 Act as inserted by Clause 1(2). I promised to look at the wording again. I am pleased to say that on reflection we are able to bring a revised and shortened version before your Lordships' House.
The wording as now drafted follows closely the precedent set for NHS trusts in Section 5(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—as substituted by the Health Authorities Act 1995 (Section 2(1), Schedule 1, paragraph 69(B). The term "prescribed" has the same meaning as in Section 128 of the 1977 Act; for example, prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, we are very grateful that the Government have accepted that wording.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 1.
462
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have tabled the amendment because I want to explore the functions of strategic health authorities. In Committee, we debated them quite extensively. In particular, I want to explore what the term "performance management" means in the context of strategic health authorities. We are told by the Government that by 2004 primary care trusts will control 75 per cent of the entire NHS budget and will thereby acquire a great deal more autonomy than hitherto—"shifting the balance of power" to the front line.
There are many of us who cannot help being somewhat sceptical about this shift in the balance of power. The reason for that is that the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in the affairs of the health service and to micro-manage remain unaltered. Indeed, by virtue of the Bill those powers are considerably augmented. The Government say that in order to preserve proper accountability to Parliament it is necessary to retain such reserve powers. I wonder how "reserve-like" the Secretary of State's powers feel to those in the NHS who battle daily with the welter of targets, directions and instructions that descend on them from health authorities and from Whitehall. Last week I heard from a doctor that there is an instruction relating to the degree of lustre which must be achieved on polished surfaces in NHS buildings.
However, let us look at the mechanisms being established in the Bill and their functions. We are told that strategic health authorities will be there to set the strategic framework, to knock heads together, to broker solutions, to performance-manage, to lead policy development and so on. As the Minister emphasised in Committee, they will he there,
"accounting to the Secretary of State for the performance of the NHS in their areas".—[Official Report, 14/3/02; col. 1039.]
One bets they will.
How will that work in practice? It might be illustrative if I cited one example of the heavy-handed way in which strategic health authorities are already making their presence felt on the ground.
At a recent trust board meeting—I shall not say which one for obvious reasons—the directors found themselves unable to present a finance plan for the year we are just entering because of last-minute restrictions imposed by the strategic health authority. The relevant PCT was told that it will begin the year underfunded by some £500,000. As a result, earmarked funds allocated last year for the various national service framework programmes on cancer, mental health and the NICE agenda have gone out of the window. The money has to be used instead to plug shortfalls in the budget. Any additional shortfalls have to be plugged by what is termed "repayable brokerage"—in other words, short-term loans.
The language used by the board to describe the actions and attitudes of the strategic health authority is revealing. The strategic health authority, said one board member, was being "excessively prescriptive and restrictive". Another said that the strategic health authority was behaving like "control freaks".

463
That is the kind of decentralisation and operational freedom which we are going to see rolling out across the National Health Service. It is the tone of things to come. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said in Committee, what all this amounts to is an illusion of decentralisation in which true decision-making takes place at the level of the SHA.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has expressed his concern that strategic health authorities will not be strong enough to withstand micro-management from the centre. I think that I would put the argument slightly differently: they have been created expressly as vehicles to implement and enforce centrally driven directives.
Ironically, this brings us back full circle to some of the conundrums that we were wrestling with in Committee: what to do about those activities and services for which a single PCT is not equipped individually to perform, but which can only be delivered across a wider area—teaching and research, specialist services and public health. The Government's answer is that in many cases of this kind there should be a PCT with lead responsibility within an informal grouping of PCTs. But that sounds extraordinarily cumbersome. How many informal groupings will a PCT find itself in simply because the Government are determined that no higher tier of management in the health service should take responsibility for these broader strategic matters? Why not recognise the operational leverage vested in strategic health authorities, rather than labour under the illusion that PCTs will be the drivers of decision-making?
I do not intend to anticipate our later debates on these matters. However, it seems to me that in these areas of broader relevance for the health service we should acknowledge that here is a way in which strategic health authorities can sensibly play a lead role.
Finally, I turn to a question that I asked the Minister in Committee, but which he did not answer. If there is a conflict or divergence of opinion between one strategic health authority and another, what mechanisms are there in place to resolve such disagreements? That is not such a simple question as it may sound. If one imagines a strategic health authority brokering sometimes difficult solutions across several primary care trusts for the benefit of the population in an area, how will it be capable of compromising such a brokered solution, merely because there are objections from the strategic health authority down the road? If there are two opposing and conflicting views of what is strategically best for an area, who decides which way to go? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said. One of the key debates in Committee was over the setting up of these strategic health authorities. In Committee, the Minister claimed that the key roles of these strategic health authorities would be performance management, capital investment strategy, workforce development and information management, but not
464
other functions such as public health and specialised commissioning. We shall have the debates later on those particular topics, but it is still not clear to us on these Benches why not?
Furthermore, why should it be at this level of 28 strategic health authorities and not at regional level? What makes the planning of capital investment more apposite to the level of strategic health authorities rather than at regional level, whereas public health is handled at regional level? Why are strategic health authorities being set up that bear no relationship to local government boundaries or the Government's own regions?
As I mentioned in Committee, over the years there have been a massive number of changes to the structure of health services. In 1974, area health authorities were established; then came district health authorities; and then health authorities. Now we are to have strategic health authorities. One constant has been the NHS region, although there have been boundary changes and some consolidation. There will be nine regional directors of public health, who could well fit into a regional structure—certainly more comfortably than could the four regional directors of health and social care, whose areas will bear no relationship to any regional or local government boundaries.
In any reorganisation, it is vital to ensure proper accountability for health strategy. That could be secured by a regional organisation but is unlikely to be secured through strategic health authorities. In Committee, the Minister said that he saw a key role for strategic health authorities in performance management and banging heads together. Yet the Government's most recent document about delivering the NHS Plan states that although in effect they will be the local headquarters of the NHS and will hold to account the local health service, build capacity and support performance improvement, three-year franchises to run strategic health authorities will be let, with performance judged against a published annual delivery contract with the Department of Health.
That is Burger King come to Richmond House. Strategic health authorities will clearly be an integral part of the NHS administration, yet they are to be franchised. The Secretary of State has a well known infatuation with the private sector, but that is a love affair too far. Despite our debates in Committee, the new announcements only make the department's plans appear more half-baked. I urge the Government to think again. Why do they not at least consolidate the reforms in the Bill and the recent White Paper and return in a few months' time?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support every word so far spoken about the amendment. As I have a great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I offer him my genuine and profound sympathy for the heavy burden that he now has to carry in justifying this rubbishy clause.
The clause deserves to be known as a large slice of Milburn. I hope that it will be strung around his neck. It has his fingerprints and foot-marks on it to the full:

465
first, in all the importance that he attaches to names; and secondly, in his almost unlimited appetite for powers.
I remind your Lordships of subsection (4), which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order …. vary the area of a Strategic Health Authority".
He may abolish one, establish a new one or change one's name. I wonder why he bothers to come to Parliament at all. If anything, your Lordships are too obliging in giving Ministers immense powers, for which they ask taking for granted that they will be given. Almost invariably, they misuse those powers in such a way as to cause themselves and everyone else a lot of difficulty. I can only venture to suggest that the scrutiny exercise that we undertake is insufficient. It does not remove sufficient of the powers that unthinking Ministers grab to themselves just in case they may be necessary, in case they get into trouble and would otherwise have to return to Parliament.
I should like your Lordships to vote against the clause and remove it altogether. It is a rubbishy and tiresome provision. The only vice from which it is free, but from which the rest of the Bill suffers—I am pleased to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in his place—is the sin of legislation by reference. However, later in the Bill there are plenty of examples of that, to which I shall endeavour to call your Lordships' attention.
I cherish the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will remember that he gave undertakings to try to remedy the horrors of the Bill by making the Government's purpose clearer. I have looked hopefully for an amendment containing a Keeling schedule, or something like that, but I have so far failed to find one. If the noble Lord has by any chance fulfilled his undertaking, I hope that he will immediately call my attention to that and I shall give him a humble apology. I hope that the amendment will be carried.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, reading the clause, it struck me that something rather strange may happen. Paragraph (4)(b) states that the Secretary of State may by order,
"abolish a Strategic Health Authority".
Could he abolish them all at once by order, thus altering the whole scheme of things?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I warmly welcome the positive remarks that noble Lords have made about the clause, which I find most encouraging.
First, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was arguing two points. In the first stage of his argument, he suggested that strategic health authorities would be control freaks. We shall come to later amendments proposed by him and by other noble Lords, the overall thrust of which is to give strategic health authorities more power and to take it away from primary care trusts. That would be a great pity. We are not dealing with a
466
proposal to micro-manage the health service. We are at the start of a process of massive decentralisation to the primary care level within the health service.
I turn to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place on the day after the Budget. He said that our intent is to,
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/4/02; col. 715.]
He announced various measures consistent with the Bill's provisions to ensure that power is indeed devolved to the local level. That is our whole purpose for primary care trusts. By 2004, we will devolve 75 per cent of the entire budget of the NHS to the primary care level, where key decisions can be made about both provision of primary care services and commissioning of secondary and tertiary care services. That is the most visible possible signal of our intent to devolve to the front line.
Later, we shall discuss the role of organisations such as the Commission for Health Improvement. The whole point is that the structure that we are setting up will establish clear national standards and an independent inspectorate—the context within which we can then devolve decision-making to the local level far more than has ever happened before. If we have a foundation of national standards and an independent inspectorate, we will be able to devolve in the way that we seek.
Several questions were raised about the role of strategic health authorities. It is tempting to go through the list of their functions, as we did in Committee, but it would be better for me to resist that temptation. I am satisfied that the size of each strategic health authority is about right. It is pitched at a population of about one and a half million for each. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that that is small enough for them to retain a local connection but large enough to allow them to cover the kind of areas that we want for our care networks.
The noble Lord will recall the example of cancer networks in which the planning of services—primary, secondary and tertiary care—goes beyond existing NHS organisational boundaries. The boundaries of strategic health authorities will, in the main, cover those care networks. That is a persuasive argument for the type of boundaries that exist for the 28 health authorities that we have established, which will become strategic health authorities.
The people who have been appointed as chief executives of the strategic health authorities are of a high calibre. To the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I say that they know as well as we do that the importance of their role lies not in being heavy-handed or behaving like control freaks; it lies in being sensitive to the need to give as much room as possible to NHS trusts within their boundary to work as flexibly as possible while being able 'to intervene when things go wrong and cooperation is not working as required.

467
The existence of such reserved powers is not evidence of control-freakery; it is a sensible way of ensuring that there is a performance management system that allows the strategic health authorities to intervene in the kind of issues about which the noble Earl is concerned. His examples of teaching, research and specialist services are ones with which I agree. The success of the proposals will be in ensuring that such intervention is minimal.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked about potential disagreement among strategic health authorities about priorities and about the future development of services. The people running the authorities are grown-ups. They are paid quite well for what they do, and they include some of our most senior people. I would expect that, by and large, they will be able to reach sensible agreement. Of course, there may be occasions on which that will not be possible. On such occasions, I would expect that the directors of health and social care—we have one director of health and social care for each quarter of the country, four in all—will be on hand as trouble-shooters to broker a sensible resolution of disagreements, although I do not expect that they will happen frequently.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of the SaFF process, the customary round of agreement between health authorities and NHS trusts about the money to be spent in the forthcoming financial year. My experience of the process is that there will always be tensions between those who commission services and have the money and those who provide the services and want the money. We should not worry too much about noises emanating from the health service at the moment. In my time working in the NHS or observing it, I cannot recall a year in which there were no tensions in the SaFF process. Inevitably, under the new arrangements, there will continue to be such tensions between primary care trusts, which will hold most of the budget, and other trusts. However, those tensions detract from the overall structure that we have put in place.
Our purpose is to devolve to the primary care level. That is why I shall resist some of the amendments to be proposed later today that would wrest power and control from primary care trusts and place them with strategic health authorities.
I understand the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, about the structure of the Bill and the way in which some of the clauses have been written. He will know that I have some sympathy with his view. I wrote to the noble Lord informing him of the Government's intention to endeavour to consolidate NHS legislation in due course. There is, in the House of Lords Library, an amended version of a working version of the National Health Service .Act 1977, as amended by legislation up to the Health and Social Care Act 2001. I understand that that does not entirely answer the point raised by the noble Lord.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister, if only for his courtesy. I inquired about
468
this in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. My description of what I required may have been inadequate, but the document was not recognised in either place. I do not recall receiving the Minister's letter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall make sure that we send the noble Lord another copy of the letter double-quick. I shall also ensure that the amended working copy of the 1977 Act is made available.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I would appreciate it very much if the Minister could send me a copy of the letter, if only as an aid to memory. Presumably, it will arrive long after the horse has bolted and the stable door locked.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for us to get a copy to the noble Lord very quickly.
The history of the health service over many years includes many efforts by different govemrnents to restructure the health service. The format of Clause 1 follows previous legislation and previous reorganisations. It is good to see on the Benches opposite several Ministers who, in their time, were responsible for restructuring the health service and proposing to Parliament clauses that were similar to that before the House today. All of us who have been involved in the health service will accept that it requires a period of stability during which we devolve more responsibility to local level. That is the intended effect of the Bill. It is extremely significant that 75 per cent of the budget for the NHS is to be devolved to the most local level possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says; it is the intention that it should be so. However, why on earth does subsection (4) of Clause 1, to which I have already drawn the attention of the House, allow the Government—once having devolved—smartly to go into reverse and either abolish, modify or change in one way or another the authority which has now been established? If these changes were meant to be permanent, one could acknowledge them with some respect, but to make the changes and then say, "I will take them back tomorrow if I want to", is a rather strange way of going about the matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not think that the proposal departs from any principle that has been adopted in health service legislation enabling sensible changes to be made to the boundaries or names of health authorities. I believe that it is sensible to put this power on to the face of the Bill because in a few years' time, who knows whether, as a result of other changes, it might be necessary either to reduce the number of strategic health authorities, or to increase it. There may be reasons why the name might need to be changed. For example, a local authority may change its name. One might then want to change the name of the strategic health authority in order to reflect that.

469
I can assure noble Lords that, once having established 28 strategic health authorities, the Government do not intend suddenly to decide that we want to make changes. It is intended that the legislation in relation to strategic health authorities should last for a considerable period of time. This provision seeks purely to offer flexibility in the future for any organic changes that may take place in health service provision.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister is seeking the flexibility to make changes to the boundaries of strategic health authorities and so forth. But are not the Government asking for total flexibility in terms of the arrangements to which I referred earlier; namely, to deliver the NHS Plan by way almost of outsourcing the management and administration of strategic health authorities, which form an absolutely essential part of the NHS—or at least they seem to, as the Minister has described them—through this process of franchising?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may have missed the point in relation to franchising. One of the problems encountered over many years by the NHS has been the assumption that every organisation in the NHS is the same and performs to the same extent. We have failed to recognise that, within a national system, it is possible to have very successful organisations, but also some which are not so successful. The emphasis here, as it is in other announcements made by the Government, is to recognise that there are some very successful people in the health service and that in the future we want to be able to extend their ability to manage and lead services.
Through franchising we can, first, enable successful managers to take on a wider range of responsibilities—which is surely a sensible approach—and, secondly, if in the fullness of time there are people from outside the NHS who it is considered could do a good job within the NHS, then again, why not use the franchising facility to enable that?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is convinced of the case but, in effect, this will sub-contract the mainstream management of the NHS—not a facility of the NHS, an acute trust, a mental health facility or any other area in which subcontracting, private or independent provision is desirable. This provision will allow for the subcontracting of performance management of the NHS. What other examples could the Minister cite of successful sub-contracting of performance management in the public services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken such an inflexible approach to this matter. Corporate responsibility lies with the board of the strategic health authority, but if such a board were to decide that bringing in external
470
management would help that authority to achieve its goals, why should it not do so? What could be the objection to that?
Are we saying that the current appointment arrangements are exclusively the only arrangements that are desirable with regard to appointing senior people to the NHS? Surely we want to introduce a degree of flexibility so that we see a range of people coming forward to work in the National Health Service. I think that franchising is an excellent idea which will enable us to reach out far more widely than is the case at the moment. If, as a result, better services are provided to the public, then surely that is to be supported.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that we are debating this legislation on Report. Rather than opening up a new topic for debate, interventions made after the Minister has begun his response should be limited only to short questions for clarification.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I fully accept those words, but further clarification is needed on this matter. The words covering the delivery of the NHS Plan were not available when we considered the Bill in Committee. Certain elucidations need to be gained from the Minister.
The franchises appear on the one hand to be a form of outsourcing, while on the other hand they appear to be contracts of employment. Can the Minister clarify that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that we are probably moving outside the rules for debate on Report. Perhaps I may conclude my remarks by saying this. In developing and delivering the NHS Plan, it is our intention to provide high quality services to the public. I am sure we all agree that we need high-quality leadership to undertake that. We depend on high-quality management.
If, through franchising, we can—in the first case that I mentioned—ensure that those managers who are outstandingly successful can be given wider responsibilities, then surely that should be supported. If there are people in other areas of either the public or the private sectors who could bring to bear new skills which would be of help to the NHS, then again I believe that it is right for us to be keen to adopt those skills.
However, as we have seen from the appointments that have been made in the first round, the great majority of the people who will be leading the strategic health authorities are those who are currently serving within the NHS. I believe that they are of a high calibre and they understand the balance that needs to be struck between effective accountability to Ministers and Parliament on the one hand, while on the other hand allowing primary care and other trusts as much freedom at the local level as possible. They must ensure that throughout a proper balance is maintained. I am

471
confident that those who have been appointed will keep to that balance and that the fears expressed by the noble Earl will prove, ultimately, to be groundless.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their expressions of agreement on a number of the points that I have sought to make.
My message can be summed up quite simply: why not recognise the reality? Strategic health authorities are already showing every sign of being capable of taking the lead in driving through centrally-driven programmes. Let us recognise that they are doing that. In some contexts, that kind of prescriptive line management attitude is regrettable, but in others I would contend that it has something to recommend it. Prescriptiveness is regrettable in the day-to-day operational contexts which ought genuinely to be devolved to PCTs.
The Minister spoke of the prospect of intervention being minimal. I shall cite only one example which perhaps throws doubt on that. Dr Julian Neal, an executive committee member of East Hampshire PCT, was recently quoted in the BMA News Review. He spoke about the way in which strategic health authorities were instructing PCTs on how to allocate their budgets so that centrally-driven initiatives were funded before anything else and money channelled into secondary care. He said:
"When you hear the rhetoric it is good. They are talking about autonomy and decentralisation. But the reality is getting worse. It has never felt so micromanaged and centralised as it does now … We have very little control and that's demoralising for those working in PCTs".
That is a pretty depressing set of statements on a number of levels. What many PCTs want to do is to look for ways of taking the pressure off secondary care by investing more in primary care, but they are so hedged in by diktats from above that they are simply unable to do that.
We can see, of course, what is actually happening; it is what I mentioned a little earlier. Steve Gillam, who is director of primary care at the King's Fund and a GP, recently said:
"The money is being diverted into secondary care. It's going to pay off overspends. Even key areas such as clinical governance are being pushed down the priority lists by all the other must-do's".
The Minister spoke of the SaFF process and tensions. It is more than only tensions. In any structural reform of the health service the first thing that we need is clarity. With that in view, do not let us pretend that there is radical decentralisation and autonomy across the board when there is no such thing. I agree that 75 per cent of the budget being devolved is a significant departure as long as PCTs have real operational freedom, but do not let us use expressions such as "performance-manage" and "setting the structural framework" when what we mean in some important circumstances is "direction from the centre".
472
I shall not labour the point further. I note the wish of my noble friend Lord Peyton for me to press the amendment. I hope that he will forgive me if do not. It was wholly and exclusively designed as a probing amendment and it has been extremely useful to that end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES: PUBLIC HEALTH
(1) Each Strategic Health Authority shall have a duty to—

(a) improve the health of members of the public within its area; and

(b) ensure the delivery of such public health services as may be appropriate by Primary Care Trusts within its area.

(2) Each Strategic Health Authority shall appoint a Director of Public Health who shall be a member of the Authority."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we move on now to an issue which, since we debated it in Committee, has caused me and many others a good deal of concern—that is, how the new structures established by the Bill will deliver a coherent public health service. The Minister took the trouble, for which I thank him, to organise a briefing session for Peers on this subject last week. I found it helpful—as I am sure did all those present—but some of the concerns that I had prior to that session persist.
The Government have decided that the delivery of the public health agenda should rest primarily with primary care trusts. Each PCT will have a team dedicated to public health and a director of public health on its board. The Minister said in Committee that:
"The new directors of public health … will be the engines of public health delivery".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1156.]
Their focus will be on local neighbourhoods and communities. Specialist expertise in public health will be pooled through the medium of the proposed public health networks, which will be flexible in character and include, among others, NGOs.
Sitting above the 300 or so PCTs will be the regional directors of public health based in the offices of the nine government regions. It is the regional directors who will exercise the departmental public health function on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer and to whom the PCTs will be accountable. Their role will be one of planning and co-ordination; they will set up and service the public health networks; they will plan for emergencies; and they will tackle the wider issues associated with health inequalities within the regions.
Set apart from the line of accountability between the regional directors and the PCTs will be the strategic health authorities. The role of the SHAs will be to performance-manage PCTs in their public health functions. Each strategic health authority will have a public health doctor on its top team.
The first thing that strikes you when you look at this tree of accountability is how odd it is. There are two separate and distinct reporting lines: 303 PCTs

473
reporting to nine regions—a very flat structure, incidentally—and, simultaneously, those same PCTs reporting to 28 strategic health authorities for their performance management. The strategic health authorities—the role of which is, above all, meant to be strategic—will not, so far as concerns public health, act strategically at all. They will have a purely operational function. The strategic function will be performed by the nine regional directors. The nine regions will be distinct and separate from the four regions represented by the regional directors of health and social care.
While the nine regional directors will have responsibility for maintaining the public health networks, it is far from clear how accountability to, from and within those networks will be defined. Trying to apply the concept of accountability to informal and flexible networks seems fairly impossible. Within a network, accountability acquires an in-built fuzziness. I, for one, find that disturbing.
So odd does the system look that it is as if the Government, having invented a decentralised structure for delivering the bulk of primary and secondary healthcare, suddenly found themselves having to shoehorn public health into that same structure. Having decided that PCTs—and only PCTs—should be the engines of primary care, it is as if Ministers had little alternative but to decide that somehow or other PCTs would need to be responsible for the delivery of public health as well.
I am the first to agree with the Government that effective primary care is integral to improving public health. There is no argument about that. But health protection, health improvement, surveillance and reducing health inequalities—and the specialised skills that go with all of those—are issues that run much wider than an area or population typically served by a single PCT. Of course, the Government recognise this, which is why we have the concept of these so-called networks.
But the obvious question that arises is: why do it this way? Why in particular leave strategic health authorities out of the loop? Instead of these loosely defined networks and instead of vesting responsibilities in PCTs, which they are individually ill-equipped to handle, instead of having two parallel lines of accountability, why not acknowledge that there is a much readier and less complicated route that could be taken? That, as my amendment suggests, is to make strategic health authorities the initiators and drivers of public health programmes across an area and allow SHAs to performance-manage PCTs for the functions devolved to them. Would it not make more sense to allow the strategic direction of public health to rest with the strategic health authorities, each of which would have a dozen or so PCTs underneath it, rather than with the nine regions, each of which would have to direct and co-ordinate between 30 and 40 PCTS?
The extraordinary feature of the Government's model is the proliferation of public health directors and teams in PCTs—more than 300 of them—more people than can possibly exist at the moment with the
474
appropriate qualifications. Obviously not every public health director can be a doctor—nor would I regard it as necessary across the board—but it may well be the case that in a particular area neither the public health director nor his line manager at regional level was a doctor qualified in public health. That would run some big risks, both direct and indirect.
A consultant recently told the BMA News that,
"The process has made a mockery of professional qualifications because you don't seem to need them. It has destroyed and demoralised the profession".
Yet, despite that, we are told that all is well. The supreme irony is that individuals who have the relevant specialist qualifications are being given what I can only describe as the elbow. Twelve public health consultants received letters earlier in the year telling them that their jobs were at risk of redundancy, although I believe that the BMA has now intervened on that. I have heard of 20 senior public health consultants who have been parked at strategic health authorities for the coming year. I am told that that number is likely to increase. Of all the daft consequences of this enormous upheaval in the NHS, that has to be the daftest. We cannot afford to lose such people.
The delivery of the public health agenda is about coordinating a broad spectrum of discrete but associated activities. It requires firm and clear leadership from people who are capable of identifying what is needed and how to meet that need. Every participant has to be fully aware of how the key public health responsibilities have been allocated and how the services can be accessed. For PCTs to take the lead in this far from simple matrix of function is, I fear, a recipe for fragmentation and dissipation of effort. It is a forced and ill-thought-out answer to a very important set of questions. Those questions, about how exactly the arrangements will work and who will be tasked with doing what, are still being asked throughout the health service.
I am not suggesting that the Government have remained silent or inactive on these issues, but out there—and, indeed, in here—the details are still lacking. Why is that? Why, even now, does the BMA, among others, state that it is practically in the dark about what is intended? The Secretary of State is on record as admitting that the structural changes now under way in the health service present "huge risks". That was a refreshing admission, but if it is true that there are huge risks, why are those risks being magnified by a failure to articulate the strategy for public health in a way that commands the confidence of everyone?
I very much hope that the Minister can be a little more forthcoming and precise on these matters when he replies, because we badly need reassurance. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support Amendment No. 3, which was cogently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 4.

475
There is no doubt about the importance of the debate on the future of public health services. If we are genuinely to switch emphasis towards prevention and make an impact on health inequalities, we need to develop our public health service, not to mention all the issues of health improvement and surveillance mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
However, despite the Minister's worthy attempt in Committee to allay worries and the helpful meeting that he arranged to discuss the implications of the new organisation for public health, there are still considerable concerns and many outstanding questions on the issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made clear.
Changes have already been made in anticipation of the Bill passing through this House. I understand that public health directors moved from area health authorities to PCTs on 1st April. Those shadow strategic health authorities, which we were debating under the earlier amendment, are already in place.
We have had some reassurance from the Minister on the filling of director of public health roles. That appears by and large to have taken place. However, there are key questions relating to organisational capacity and continuity, how PCTs will deal with public health specialisms, the way in which new management systems will operate and the issue of resources.
As your Lordships have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, despite the need for capacity, the new system is already operating in a bizarre fashion, with consultants having been made redundant and then unmade redundant. It seems extraordinary that public health consultants have been parked at strategic health authorities for the corning year. Many of them have strong specialisms, including epidemiology, health information, statistics, preventive medicine, health promotion, communicable diseases, environmental health, development and evaluation of health services, teaching and research. Those are all valuable areas of specialism that we must not lose to the public health service. It is probable that these public health professionals will be tasked with short projects until their future is determined, but that is hardly a motivational way of dealing with valuable people. What an extraordinary state of affairs, when there is a great need for capacity in the public health service.
There are particular concerns about specialisms being lost. We have heard much in Committee and subsequently about the new public health networks, but there is no obligation on PCTs to ensure that particular specialisms are covered. The relationships will clearly be all about brokering within networks and between agencies to get things done, but there is little obligation on the PCTs as regards particular specialisms.
Furthermore, as the Minister admitted in Committee, if action by a network in a particular area is all about PCTs chipping into the resource pot, we will see a permanent game of NHS budget poker being played between PCTs up and down the NHS structure.
476
By their nature, networks will require a phenomenal amount of energy and organization—more than would be present if strategic health authorities had that responsibility. As regards management and accountability, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the responsibilities for different aspects of public health as between different parts of the health service risk being blurred.
Having heard the Minister and his officials, our concern is that the management structure is overcomplicated. It appears that performance management will be carried out by strategic health authorities, but actual management will be carried out by regional public health directors. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, how will those networks be held accountable? In Committee, the Minister talked about headbanging by the strategic health authorities, but what sanctions will they have? Would it not be preferable to give accountability to the strategic health authority, which is then line managed by the regional health director? We seem to have a topsy-turvy set of organisational proposals.
The Minister did not clarify in Committee what resources PCTs will have for public health. Nor do we know whether they will be ring-fenced. Yet here we are with PCTs already taking over public health services. Will they have a ring-fenced budget? Will they have adequate resources to fulfil the Government's agenda? All those difficulties need to be overcome if PCTs are effectively to discharge their public health functions.
The one bright spot relates to the new national agency, explained in Getting Ahead of the Curve. This is along the right lines, even though the way in which it is to be implemented, through the regulatory reform order procedure, is not satisfactory.
We on these Benches are very nervous about the new proposals. The Government risk getting so far ahead of the curve that they will fall off. I hope that the Minister can reassure us.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am reluctant to enter the debate, particularly as it concerns structure, because, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Peyton, I felt the Minister's finger on my collar. In previous times, when I was in government, we also reorganised. I hope that the Minister 'will remember our debates in Committee, when I sought strongly to get politicians out of meddling with the National Health Service. Although I had a lot of support from the Cross Benches and from the Labour Benches, I did not. get much support from the Minister on that issue.
I want to speak about public health, because I remember that before the Minister and I were in this House, he was a very strong advocate of public health. He sought strongly to promulgate, disseminate and follow the findings of the report produced by Sir Donald Acheson, a former Chief Medical Officer.
However, the person who has made the most difference in public health throughout the ages is my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. My noble friend was the architect of a most coherent plan entitled, The Health of the Nation, which concentrated on five key

477
areas; namely, coronary heart disease/strokes, cancer, mental health, HIV and AIDS, and accidents. Each of those areas had very specific targets—27 in all. The plan was concise, it was achievable, and it was targeted. When I became a junior Minister, it was my responsibility to implement the plan. It was one of the best parts of my job.
The plan was cited by the WHO—the World Health Organisation—to other nations as an example to follow. I remember attending conferences where the plan was extolled, which did not surprise me. It was so clear, well defined and strategic; it placed a huge emphasis on local involvement. That is my worry as regards the proposals now being put forward.
Having listened to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there seems to me to be a great lack of clarity in the way that the structures have been established. We shall lose a great deal without clarity. Public health is one of the areas that are squeezed out when the pressure greatly increases. As we know, in the health service the immediate always pushes out the important. Therefore, above all others, this area needs to be most carefully defined.
We also need a good deal of involvement in the area. It can be described as a "nannying" area, because it can be quite irritating. Much of the process is very negative; for example, "Don't do this", or, "Don't do that". The skill is to make it fun—to inject some pizzazz into it and to ensure that people really want to go with the grain of it. The proposed new teams are most important, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Howe that a public health specialist should be involved. When I mentioned that possibility in Committee, the Minister responded by saying that he thought I was being too purist, and pointed out that perhaps I was ignoring the work of health visitors, nurses and others, who could take on that role. I understand that. Those people do have a part to play in the process. However, I believe that leadership in this area is most crucial. But it must be leadership that is very well respected by other health professionals, especially the medical profession.
We achieved a good deal through The Health of the Nation. Of the 27 targets, only three showed no improvement; namely, HIV/AIDS, teenage pregnancies, and obesity, which are still very challenging. I have to stress that, in two years, we did not have one case of measles that was not imported. It makes one sad to consider the current MMR debacle, because I thought that we had almost eliminated the disease. One of the engines for change was the health education authority, which has been abolished. When we reach Amendment No. 27, I hope that we shall be able to discuss its replacement.
Finally, I should like to address the issue of the directors of public health. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe asked about these specialists and their independence. Traditionally, directors of public health in this country have had a special responsibility over and above that of management. We have expected them to use their integrity and their professionalism to say how it really is in the health
478
service. Those reports have been a touchstone, a marker in our social history. Their findings have made successive administrations feel both uncomfortable and embarrassed. However, such reports are hugely valuable because they are independent.
My noble friend mentioned the fact that the strategic health authorities will have performance management responsibilities in terms of public health. I should like to be clear in my own mind on how the Minister sees those people at the strategic level. Will they be medical managers, or will they be public health specialists? When one reads through their proposed duties, much of their work seems to be managerial. I believe that we need something beyond and above that level: we need people of much courage, who will be really passionate about their subject as they drive it forward. I hope that the Minister will pick up some of these points. The amendment before us nails down most clearly a duty on the SHAs and primary care trusts to improve the health of the nation, which is very important. I hope that the noble Lord will see merit in the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, within the umbrella of public health there are many different subjects that are specialties of their own; for example, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, the different sexually-transmitted diseases, and the hepatitis diseases, all of which are on the increase. Healthy eating, smoking, education, alcohol and drug abuse, and vaccinations are other areas to consider. It is a huge umbrella. When there is change, there is insecurity. It takes about two years to bed down new health authorities. The Minister's meeting was most helpful, but we need to know that adequate funding and resourcing will be available, as well as co-operation between health and local authorities. I support the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the way that he has succeeded in moving his department so quickly. I have now received a copy of his letter of 20th April, a very brief reading of which makes me almost tearful that I did not receive it earlier. However, this is a time—I hope—to be mildly useful and not, perhaps, a source of trouble to him before the end of this stage of the Bill.
As one of those people who has long attributed some of the problems and difficulties of the NHS to political meddling, it was a breath of fresh air to hear my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who has experience of the health department, make exactly that point. I thank her warmly for doing so. There is one point that puzzles me. The amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend states:
"Each Strategic Health Authority shall have a duty to … improve the health of members of the public within its area".
Similarly, Amendment No. 4, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has attached his name, uses almost the same words with regard to primary care trusts. Perhaps the Minister—or, indeed, my noble

479
friend—can say whether there is anything in the current duties of the SHAs, and those of the PCTs, that would exclude their seeking,
"to improve the health of members of the public within [their] area"?
Indeed, it seems to me that it follows almost from the name that such bodies would have no reason to exist unless it was their duty to do precisely that. I should be most grateful for some enlightenment.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, was privileged to he present when my noble friend the Minister gave a briefing last week. However, I came away with a different impression from that gained by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If one looks most carefully at what is currently lacking in the delivery of public health in its broadest terms, it is really concentrated at the primary care level. We have regional directors of public health and directors of public health at health authority level, but something is missing at the primary care level where much of the public's health needs to be addressed.
It seems to me that this proposal of a heavy investment of personnel with responsibilities for public health in primary care trusts is just what we need. Of course, they would need to work in networks and collaborate and co-operate across their "patch" and that is intended. It would be an impressive and worthwhile investment on the part of the Government. Those personnel would need to be monitored to make sure that they delivered. That would be done at strategic health authority level. As I say, the proposal would constitute a worthwhile involvement and investment on the part of the Government. We should support it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, there is much anxiety about the new system with regard to public health as has been evident in our debate. That is a natural anxiety. All of us who have an interest in this issue know that the way to bring about real improvements in the National Health Service is by improving the way we tackle public health; that is, by making people more aware of the effect of lifestyle on their health, enabling them to change their lifestyle if necessary and, above all, encouraging them to take more responsibility for their own health.
It must surely he clear that for such a range of public health functions to he effective they must be carried out as near to the patient and his or her family or carers as possible. It seems to me that only at primary care level can the needs of local populations, which will naturally vary, be understood and responded to. Only at that local level can needs be analysed and causes of ill health and health inequalities be responded to. Only at primary care level can leadership be exercised to ensure co-operation and co-ordination between services and to promote innovative solutions which are responsive to local needs. Of course, strategic health authorities will have an overseeing and a support role and that is right, but the main responsibility must lie with primary care trusts.
480
Amendment No. 4 seems to me to be unnecessary as the responsibilities of primary care trusts in relation to public health are clearly set out. Many directors of public health are already in post and developing wide-ranging networks and relationships which will enable them to draw directly on the experience of patients and, indeed, of their whole populations. As chair of the New Opportunities Fund I pay tribute to some of those directors of public health in primary care trusts for the excellent support they have offered the New Opportunities Fund in getting some of our public health programmes off the ground. The knowledge they have of their local communities and their commitment to meeting their needs is truly impressive. The duties placed on them already are more than adequate. The best thing we can do now is to support them in carrying out those duties and to help them to deliver on the commitment the Government have shown to public health.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, one point on which we are all agreed is that public health is important to the way forward and to ensuring that the health of the nation overall improves. The key issue is at what level the principal public health authority should be based. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, clearly expressed the view that it should be based at the strategic health authority level. The Government disagree. We think that that is too remote a level. It would be remote from local government and from the local community.
Looking back over the past 20 or 30 years I am sure that no one could say with confidence that public health has been sufficiently integrated into the NHS decision-making structure for the pursuit of public health goals to receive the support and vigour that is required. One of the reasons for that is that public health has often been divorced from the critical primary care level. I am convinced that to give public health the dynamism, leadership and success that it needs, we need to make the essential link between the public health specialist and primary care.
One of the most successful ways of developing public health programmes is in the GP's surgery. One of the most successful interventions in relation to reducing smoking is the advice GPs and their staff give to members of the public. There are persuasive arguments for saying that the principal public health authority ought to be the primary care trust. That potential is surely to be found in local neighbourhoods and communities in the programmes being developed to lead, drive and improve health and reduce inequalities and in forging relationships with local authorities as much of the effort involved in public health concerns getting local agencies to work, together.
I suggest that it is at the primary care trust level that one is likely to get the important links between the health service and local government. I believe that the strategic health authorities, which will have an average population of 1·5 million, would be too large for this purpose and would have to engage with too many different local authorities to be successful. At primary

481
care trust level one has much more chance of getting successful partnerships to work together across agency boundaries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised two issues. First, she referred—as she did in Committee—to the King's Fund report. I do not disagree with her comments on the need for devolution and the need for politicians to step back from micro-managing the health service. However, I disagree with her suggestion that we should set up a national public corporation, as it were, to do that. I have grave doubts as to whether in reality that would divorce the health service from political influence. I believe that the devolution model that we are adopting is likely in the end to be much more effective. Surely no better indication of that is our desire to ensure that public health is placed at the lowest possible level of decision-making.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that the calibre of the directors of public health will be very important. I have already said in Committee—that has been confirmed—that the post of director of public health in primary care trusts is open to specialists in public health from a range of backgrounds as well as to consultants in public health medicine. To enable them to carry comparable responsibility across the 10 core areas of public health practice those specialists will need to have training, experience and qualifications comparable to those of consultants trained in public health medicine who will be on the GMC specialist register. Our ability to extend to another group of professionals the opportunity to be appointed directors of public health at the primary care trust level constitutes a great advance in the public health movement.
I agree with the noble Baroness that these are high calibre appointments. We need them to be robustly independent. We need them to provide leadership in public health. We need them to be public figures whom the public can rely upon in terms of their pronouncements and reports on public health. That is what we expect to happen. That role is much better conducted at the primary care trust level than at the strategic health authority level. I do not believe that simply having 28 directors of public health would give the strength, viability and public visibility that we will realise from appointing a director of public health in all primary care trusts.
On the parking of people, the explanation is simple. As we wish to ensure continuity of service, we decided that all staff who are currently employed in such situations would be assured of a further 12 months of employment, from 1st April this year to 30th March next year, in order to give time for the arrangements to bed down and for primary care trusts to appoint full public health teams. I accept that among public health professionals, this is a time of uncertainty. However, that is surely the best way to ensure that they are kept on the payroll and that primary care trusts are given the time that is needed to establish their full public health teams.
482
I was asked why we seek to retain performance management at the strategic health authority level while giving a strong role to directors of public health at the regional level. On performance management, that is consistent with the whole structure and relationship between strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. I have already said that I expect that performance management to be "light touch". However, it is appropriate that the performance management role is conducted at the strategic health authority level.
On public health networks, whichever way one cuts the cake, there will always have to be flexible arrangements to ensure that one has the right level of expertise. That would be the case even if one decided to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and make strategic health authorities the principal public health body—there would still be a need to share specialties and to have flexible arrangements. As we have gone down the route of giving primary care trusts a public health lead, we have suggested—and will propose and develop—public health networks that take on board the point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I refer to the point about ensuring that primary care trusts work together and that specialisms within public health are effectively covered. That brings us to the role of regional directors of public health. As a result of their professional competence and knowledge, they are best placed to enable public health networks to work effectively.
On the proposal that those bodies will he based in the nine government offices of the regions, surely that is a way of pulling together the work within central government and local government in relation to public health. Much of the work of the regional offices of government relating to local authorities can have an important influence on public health policies generally. In addition, those regional directors will be accountable to the Chief Medical Officer and will work closely with the four directors of health and social care within the Department of Health. We will secure co-ordination between the work of government as a whole in public health and in relation to health and social care at that critical regional level.
At the end of the day, there is a clear decision to be made: where should major public health responsibility be? The Government believe that that is best placed at the most local level possible—that is, with the primary care trust—where the impact of working with general practice and other primary healthcare practitioners will be a very powerful tool in relation to securing effective public health practice. However, that will have the safeguard of networks that pull together the work of primary care trusts and the performance management by those primary care trusts from strategic health authorities. It will also involve the professional mentoring role of regional directors of public health. That is a coherent set of arrangements and, crucially, it rests the key public health responsibility at the lowest possible level within the health service.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this important debate and in particular to the Minister for his reply.
Restructuring the NHS involves inevitable upheaval. Part of the Government's problem is that they are starting this upheaval from a rather shaky base. They began their period of office in 1997, so far as public health is concerned, very well. The White Paper, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, contained much that was laudable. It followed the agenda set by the White Paper, The Health of the Nation, about which my noble friend Lady Cumberlege spoke with her usual authority.
To be fair, the Government have notched up some signal successes, such as the flu vaccination programme and the introduction of vaccinations for meningitis. However, when we look elsewhere—to the mushrooming of sexually transmitted diseases, the rise in HIV, the failure to maintain MMR vaccination rates, the rise in TB infections and the rise in malnutrition—their record is, frankly, pretty poor. Much of that failure, I am bound to say, rests at the centre. We need to realise what may ensue from upheaval to the health service. What we have had up to now, underpinning the delivery of public health, are functioning networks of key individuals. Those important relationships are now being disrupted and unpicked. Such disruption carries dangers of its own.
The King's Fund report, Public Health in the Balance, which was published recently, underlined the shortage of staff with public health skills in London. However, many of the messages in that report apply more widely. It states that fragmenting the teams that are based on health authorities and splitting them up into primary care trusts involves the risk of losing key specialist skills. The report found that there is a wealth of public health experience in London but also a high turnover of staff and a lack of appropriate qualifications. Strategic planning, including workforce planning, is vital if local needs are to be met.
Picking up those concerns, I heard what the Government said about why they had chosen to put in place a dual line of accountability for primary care trusts. I shall reflect carefully on the position that the Minister set out. I do not disagree that the performance management role should be performed by strategic health authorities. My suggestion merely was that strategic health authorities are well placed to do rather more—in other words, to take a strategic role. The overarching point that I was trying to make was that if one wants to upgrade public health, as we all do, one starts—surely to goodness—by defining one's objectives and the functions that need to be performed, and one then builds one's service around that. One does not do things in reverse—one does not start with a structure and then try to make public health fit into it.
I take some comfort from what the Minister said. I do not disagree with him that the public health agenda has not always been pursued at the level of primary care with the vigour that we could have
484
wished. There is much to be achieved through primary care trusts. There is a good case for centring much of the delivery effort at that level. However, issues such as the function of the surveillance of health promotion and health protection run much wider than primary care trusts and they need direction.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke about public health networks and commended the notion of flexibility. I say that flexibility is fine but that networks are inherently loose and vague. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that they involve a great deal of energy and organisation. I still maintain that the accountabilities in the Government's model are not ideal. That aspect of these proposals, on its own, is one that we may live to regret. However, I believe that this has been a helpful debate. It is time to move on, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Israel and the Occupied Territories
4.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on recent developments in Israel and the Occupied Territories, specifically in relation to Hebron, Bethlehem and Jenin, and in respect of the better news involving a UK contribution to ending the siege of President Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah.
"Since the House last debated this subject on 16th April, the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories has remained very tense. On Saturday, after four Israelis, including a five year-old child, were killed in the West Bank settlement of Adora, the Israel defence forces moved into the nearby town of Hebron. There have been reports that at least seven Palestinians have been killed and 20 injured in the fighting which followed.
"At the same time, the stand-off continues at the Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem, where 200 Palestinians, some of them armed, have taken refuge from the Israeli forces for the last three weeks. Three of the Palestinians inside the church compound have been shot dead by Israeli forces, including one last night.
"The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has raised his concerns at the situation with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and myself, as have leaders of many other denominations and faiths.
"However, talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are under way in an attempt to resolve the situation. Nine Palestinians have already left the

485
church compound. I understand that several dozen more Palestinian civilians may shortly leave, and that there will be deliveries of food to those who remain inside.
"During the debate on 16th April, many right honourable and honourable Members on both sides of the House expressed their concerns at reports alleging that the Israeli military had used disproportionate force during their action in the refugee camp in Jenin which began on 3rd April. At the UK's instigation, the United Nations Security Council on 19th April agreed Resolution 1405, which welcomed the initiative of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to send a fact-finding team to Jenin to establish what had happened.
"Following this resolution, the Secretary-General appointed a team led by Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland, and including Sadako Ogata, the former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Cornelio Sommaruga, the former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Bill Nash, a retired American Major-General, and Peter Fitzgerald, a senior Irish police officer. At General Nash's request, LieutentantColonel Miles Wade, a serving officer in the British Army, has been added to the team.
"However, I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing my serious concern that, 10 days after Israel first agreed to this fact-finding mission, it has yet to be admitted to Jenin. During the meeting of the Israeli Cabinet yesterday, further objections were raised to the arrangements for the team's visit.
"Let me repeat what I said to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres: Israel must co-operate without delay with the UN team in order to establish the facts. The Israeli Government themselves have claimed that their action was necessary and proportionate. If that is so, they have nothing to fear and much to gain from a fact-finding mission composed of such distinguished and internationally respected individuals.
"Potentially the most positive development over the weekend was the acceptance in principle by Israel and the Palestinian Authority of a United States-United Kingdom initiative to allow the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to leave his compound in Ramallah, which has been under siege continuously since 29th March.
"Under the terms of this initiative, Israeli forces would pull back from President Arafat's compound and from Ramallah itself and leave President Arafat free to travel both within the Occupied Territories and elsewhere and free to return.
"At the same time, six Palestinian men would be removed from the compound to a Palestinian facility in a secluded location in the Occupied Territories. Of those six, four have been convicted by the Palestinian Authority for involvement in the murder last October of Israeli Cabinet Minister Rehavam Ze'evi, one is the Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the
486
group which claimed responsibility for Minister Ze'evi's killing, and one has been detained because of alleged involvement in the Karine A arms shipment affair in January.
"Under the initiative, Britain and the United States have agreed to provide a small number of supervisory wardens to oversee the men's detention. The wardens themselves will be unarmed. Let me make this clear: it is the Palestinian Authority's prime responsibility to ensure the physical security of the facility and the personal security of the US and UK wardens.
"A month ago we sent out a scoping mission. An advance party of experts from the UK will arrive in the region this afternoon to begin to set arrangements in place and to satisfy themselves as to the personal protection of the wardens themselves. The UK wardens all have experience of working in similar situations with the OSCE.
"This proposal was first put to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in early November last year. I drew it to the House's attention again in our last debate 13 days ago.
"At this point, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the work of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, of others in the Bush Administration, and of American and British diplomats in Israel and the Occupied Territories who have helped to make the progress we have.
"But there is still much work to be done to bring this initiative into effect. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing the hope that no last-minute hitches occur and that these arrangements can be put into place with all dispatch.
"This is a significant step forward. But on its own it is not enough. It is now imperative that the two sides build on this modest measure of agreement, stop the violence and start talking to one another. The Security Council itself, in a series of resolutions in recent months, has laid down clear imperatives on both parties. Both parties are obliged to move to a meaningful cease-fire and to resume security co-operation.
"Israel should withdraw from Palestinian-controlled areas and must heed Security Council demands. Once he has been released from the siege, President Arafat will plainly be able to exercise much enhanced political leadership of the Palestinian Authority. He must take that opportunity and do all in his power to stop the violence and work for peace.
"Ministers and officials have been in constant touch with both sides to the conflict to stress the need for a constructive approach. This Government's commitment to helping to re-start a peace process is absolute. The same unity of purpose exists throughout the international community. But the hopes and expectations of a generation of Israelis and Palestinians rest above all on the shoulders of two men: Prime Minister Sharon and President Arafat.

487
"Now is the time for them to grasp the opportunity which international efforts have created and to demonstrate that they are truly committed to peace".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I thank her for doing so and I am sure that many of your Lordships will welcome the positive element contained in the Statement, as well as the very important references to other less positive aspects. Personally, I welcome very warmly the evidence of the direct role which the skills of British diplomacy are being allowed to play in relation to the deal which releases Chairman Arafat. Indeed, it is to that third aspect of the noble Baroness's Statement that I want to turn first.
As the Minister said, in theory, this deal should ensure that Chairman Arafat is much better placed than he has been while holed up in Ramallah to begin to reassert some control over his more extremist elements and to gain back some of the authority which has been lacking. It is a very small bridge that we have come to and crossed, and it is positive that the deal has been done—one hopes that that will be the case—but I should like to know a little more about how the supervisory wardens are going to work. Where are they going to be located? How long do they expect to be in this role? It is quite a novel involvement and we should like to have as much information as we can from the Minister on it.
Although Arafat may be better placed in theory, one wonders whether that is going to be the case in practice. Is it not the position that the Palestine Authority has really been destroyed, both physically and in terms of leaders, in the incursions by Israel into the Occupied Territories in recent weeks? Is it not very hard to see how the means of controlling extreme elements, and the reassertion of some kind of law and order by the Palestinian Authority, can really begin until the Palestinians again have the infrastructure, leaders and authority to play a solid part both in ruling their own area and in moving back to negotiations? What proposals are being considered for trying to rebuild the physical infrastructure and for channelling in funds that will not simply be diverted into terrorism and weapons? How can one begin to repair some of the physical damage?
As for the leadership question, can the Government share with us any thoughts on who is going to work alongside Chairman Arafat, who is no longer young? Vast energies are going to be needed. Is not the need for leaders on the Palestinian side who are not so connected with violence? Is not the need for leaders who do not only condemn the Israeli excesses, which have been clear enough, but who are prepared to condemn utterly the suicide bombers and the sickening martyr culture? One would look to the Palestinian side for that condemnation if the hopes for a return to negotiation are to open out.
488
That deals with the third part of the Statement. I shall, if I may, return to the first part—on the Church of the Nativity, which we discussed in your Lordships' House the other day. Surely the position remains that those who are holed up in the Church of the Nativity should let the non-combatants out. I gather that some have come out, but it must be right that all should now be released. If the Palestinian gunmen and the hardcore of Hamas and Al Fatah terrorists who are in there want sanctuary, that is one thing, I suppose, but if they want to carry their weapons in there and use the Church of the Nativity as a defensive position or as a device for hostage taking, surely that is not acceptable at all. Bearing in mind those facts, can something be done to bring the realties home to people before there are worse tragedies and more killing of more innocent people as well as the destruction of a very holy place?
Finally, Jenin is a very serious matter indeed. I agree totally with the Government that it must be in the interests of the state of Israel to hold an inquiry and bring into the open what happened. There are perhaps four very varied versions of what actually did happen. We have seen with our eyes the evidence of massive physical destruction, but we really do not know who caused it, who died in it, how much booby-trapping there was, or what kind of terrorist activity had to be destroyed within the camp. I totally agree with the Government that an inquiry should certainly produce answers to those questions.
Overall, it must be the aim—slowly, by these small moves, one of which we have heard about today—to move forward towards negotiation again, and towards settling the matters, deep and historical as they are, not by endless bloodshed and killing but by sensible and civilised dialogue and discussion.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Government's Statement on this extremely grave international problem. It is good news on Ramallah, and we congratulate the Government on the contribution that they have made to progress in that area. We also thank the Government for their continuing efforts in Bethlehem. Is not a similar agreement for the removal of the terrorists from the Church of the Nativity also possible there? I am very happy to hear that food has now been taken in. We know that there are wounded within the church and gather that some of the wounds are gangrenous. It would seem possible to allow a greater degree of flexibility in letting people out.
We note the British contribution to what is proposed. It would be interesting to know a little more about Colonel Wade's background and experience. We note that there will be further British contributions in terms of the proposed wardens. We also note, in the various discussions going on in the media, suggestions that, if there were to be substantial moves towards a settlement between Israel and Palestine, there might well be further calls on British and other European forces to police a settlement. Are contingency discussions going on not only with overstretched British forces, but, as we now know, with

489
overstretched German and French forces as to how contributions will be found for such a force if progress is made?
We agree strongly with the Government's remark that the United Nations inquiry team should by now have been accepted into Jenin. I understand that, yesterday, having been to Jenin, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, was on television and said that he did not find evidence of allegations of disproportionate force. I look forward to hearing his support for the proposition that the Israeli Government should by now have accepted that that team should be allowed into Jenin. If there is nothing to hide, then they do not need to hide anything.
We cannot have a situation in which the international community, led by the United States, is claiming the right for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, as is currently being discussed in Washington, justified on the grounds that Iraq refuses to accept inspectors except on very restrictive terms and that Iraq is in defiance of a number of UN resolutions, when we accept that the Israeli Government, on whatever grounds, are behaving in a relatively similar way.
I welcome also the news that those who are charged with the murder of the tourism minister are now to be dealt with in what appears to be a satisfactory manner that is acceptable to both sides. I think that we are entitled to ask for the Israeli Government, and for Mr Sharon as prime minister, explicitly to disclaim the views expressed by the tourism minister and others within the government that Israel is entitled to the whole of Judea and Sumeria and entitled to expel the Palestinians from that territory. That is, after all, part of the problem.
On Saturday, I read in an American newspaper that, so far, Mr Sharon has refused to accept that any settlements should be withdrawn. Clearly, a great many of the settlements will have to be withdrawn if there is to be a resolution. The basis for a settlement, as the Saudis have now proposed, is that there must be two states—one Israeli, the other Palestinian—on this territory. I think that we are entitled to ask both Mr Sharon and Mr Arafat explicitly to accept that that is the principle on which we should go forward.
Our support for Israel has rested on the quality of its government, its respect for law, and the restraint of its behaviour in the use of force even when at war with its neighbours. It seems to many of us that the destruction of the Palestinian economy, its infrastructure, even its government records and the entire apparatus of authority and of daily life has been disproportionate in its impact. Much of that has, after all, been paid for by European assistance over the past 10 years. Moreover, if we are to rebuild, European governments will undoubtedly be asked to pay again.
Israel's behaviour undermines the case for intervention in Iraq which is currently being presented in Washington. We must ask the American Government—and I hope the Minister can reassure us that the British Government are making this point to our American allies—to bring pressure to bear on the
490
Israeli Government to accept this basis for a settlement, as well as on what remains of the Palestinian Authority.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his contribution, and in particular for the welcome he gave to the role played by the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord asked a number of specific questions about the work of the supervisory wardens, where they would be located, and how long their role would continue. I am unable to answer all those questions. As the Statement indicated, the supervisory wardens would be unarmed. The physical security of the facility would be the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority. The location would be remote, and it is not clear at this point how long the process would take. We undertake to keep the House informed of progress on this. It is important to state that the supervisory wardens from the United Kingdom have worked with the OSCE and have experience in the Balkans, in Bosnia and in Kosovo, so they are well experienced in working in difficult and sensitive circumstances.
The noble Lord asked about the destruction of infrastructure in the Palestinian Authority. The European Union has played a key role, and has expressed concern about the destruction of infrastructure. We recognise that it is important that the infrastructure is restored. I am aware that there are discussions within the European Union on the matter.
The noble Lord asked also about leadership. This is an issue on which it would be wrong for me to speculate in terms of next stages in the leadership with respect to the Palestinian Authority.
The noble Lord asked about the importance of condemnation coming from the Palestinian side of the continuation of violence, and in particular of the suicide bombing. President Arafat has made that condemnation. We have called for it to be made in both English and Arabic because it is important that it is understood.
With regard to Jenin—raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—there are various versions of what happened. That is why we believe that the fact-finding mission needs to go in, to give us the information. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last week during Prime Minister's Questions, for example, that it would help Israel's reputation, given that Israel has said that the force that was used in Jenin was proportionate. Therefore, we continue to call for the UN fact-finding mission to go in, and to do so as quickly as possible. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is important that sensible dialogue and discussion continue to take place. It is absolutely clear that there will be no military solution to the conflict.
On the issue of what is happening in Bethlehem, we believe that both sides have to compromise. The situation remains extremely serious. Since noble Lords

491
discussed this matter., there have been a couple of positive events. Two bodies have been taken away, and nine teenagers were let out before the weekend. As was indicated in the Statement, we understand that food is going in. Talks must continue to secure a reasonable outcome for the release of those who want to leave the church. We have made that clear to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority, and we shall continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about possible discussions with regard to a contingency situation: if we needed to find contributions not only from ourselves but from our European partners in terms of finding resources for some kind of peacekeeping force. There are continuing discussions on the matter. Noble Lords will be aware that there was a discussion within the UN, and we continue to keep in touch with our European Union partners on the matter. When there is more to say, we shall make that clear to the House.
With regard to UN Security Council resolutions, it is important to remember that UN Security Council resolutions on the Middle East place different responsibilities on both sides. They call on the Palestinian Authority not to engage in terrorism, and there have been calls on the Israelis to make a number of movements. It is important for us to remember that. The comparison with the situation in Iraq is not one that I agree with. The situation in Iraq has gone on for 12 years. It is substantially different from the situation that we are discussing today.
Our policy is clear. We want to see a secure State of Israel; we want to see a viable Palestinian state; we want an end to physical settlements; and we want the issue of the refugees to be resolved. We continue to work with the United States Government and others, including Saudi Arabia, and we shall continue to work in a positive way with our partners. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested that we put pressure on the United States Government. The work that we have been doing and the outcomes that we have seen today are a good example of the way in which we have worked together.
5.17 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is it the intention that the UK/US initiative should subsequently be endorsed by the UN? Is this initiative taking place under the authority of the UN?
I have two specific questions. The term "supervisory wardens" is used. I take it that those undertaking this responsibility are not members of the Royal Military Police but that they are civilians. Is it intended that this will be a permanent UK/US responsibility; or will other nations subsequently take over this responsibility in what may well be quite a protracted assignment?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the initiative does not come under the UN. This was suggested by the United Kingdom some time ago. It was re-discussed recently and agreed by ourselves and by the United States. We
492
needed to move very quickly, which is why the United Kingdom and the United States have agreed to take this forward. It is not intended as a permanent UK/US initiative. We see it very much as a first step in terms of taking matters forward and as a bridge, as it were—a term used by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. As I said, the wardens will not be armed; they will not come under the umbrella of the Royal Military Police.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank Her Majesty's Government for their involvement in efforts to find a way to help to achieve peace so that both sides and their families and their children will not walk in fear, as they do today.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is correct. I was in Jenin on Saturday. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend two or three questions arising from that visit. First, is she aware that the Israeli Government are concerned about the terms of reference of the committee and its membership, as various leaders of that government told me, but that if that is settled, as they hope it will be, they indeed welcome the inquiry. They all say, without exception—they and the soldiers who were there, whom I met, and their leaders whom I met—that they have absolutely nothing to hide, and that it is a very complex situation.
Finally, has my noble friend been told by the United Nations and UNRWA, who were my hosts, what they told me, namely: that they have interviewed some 1,500 people from the camp; that they are satisfied that the number of deaths is 54 with some 18 people missing—most of them are probably either in hospitals or in prisons; and that 23 Israelis were killed in what was a fierce battle in Jenin? Jenin is regarded by the Israelis as a terrorist centre and a base for the suicide bombers, the results of whose operations I also saw. In view of that and of what the United Nations has said, does the Minister accept that the alleged massacre is a total myth, propagated by Palestinians and their allies and by the media, and that it certainly is untrue?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware that the Israeli Government have expressed concerns about the terms of reference of the committee and its membership. As I understand it, they are engaged in discussions with the UN Secretary-General. Our view remains that a fact-finding mission in Jenin is the best way of dealing with the differing reports coming out of the town. My noble friend mentioned figures that he was given when in Jenin. We have been given a number of different facts and figures from different people, and that is why we want the fact-finding mission to go in as quickly as possible. We continue to believe that the membership that has been announced for that mission represents a distinguished group of internationally recognised and well-respected individuals, as I said in the Statement.
Lord Richard: My Lords—
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I found it not only a positive Statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, but

493
also a balanced one. I am afraid that balance as a commodity is in short supply in many of the debates on the Middle East, especially in some quarters of our media.
I speak as someone who has spent a great part of his professional life fighting terrorism. I confess to a prejudice: I loathe terrorism in any form. I loathe it in the form that it is taking in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict at the moment, in which innocent civilians, including five year-old children, are the subject of targeted violence and murder. It seems to me that those who speak of the brutality of the Israelis—as one noble Lord spoke the other day in your Lordships' House—have to answer why they use that kind of expression. Do they believe that Israel has the right to exist within secure borders? If they do, surely Israel has the right to mount operations in its self-defence.
We all know—I will be the first to admit—that there have been excesses in the Israeli response. Of course, as noble Lords have said, there have been such policies as the settlement policy, which clearly is unacceptable and provocative and must be reversed as soon as possible. If people believe that Israel has a right to self-defence, the kind of unbalanced attitude that many people have expressed to the conflict must be reconsidered.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I can respectfully remind the noble Lord that many noble Lords want to ask questions and only 20 minutes is allowed for Back-Benchers' questions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am aware of the 20-minute rule and I shall be as brief as I can. I shall bring my remarks to a close. Israel perceives that it is under threat. This House has a deserved reputation for reasoned debate, objective judgments and analysis of international problems. Although this may sound like the worst of all clichés, there are two sides to this terrible conflict. No service is done to truth or to peace to pretend that there is only one.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in that a balanced approach is absolutely critical. We all know that discussions and debate about what is happening in the Middle East brings out deep emotions on both sides. There are differences that are deep-rooted and historical. That is why we believe that it is so important to find the means and mechanisms to continue dialogue and discussion. As I said earlier, it is the only way in which we can reach any kind of peaceful solution. A military solution is not the way, so we shall continue to listen to both sides. We shall continue to work with both sides and to bring pressure to bear on them and we shall tell each side when we believe that it is acting in a way that is disproportionate and excessive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is vitally important to recognise that time is of the essence in starting meaningful talks? There is a great temptation to allocate blame in the interests of
494
achieving a meaningful dialogue. I believe it is absurd to talk about achieving a solution to the issue of settlements now. It should be discussed but not as a precondition for the dialogue that my noble friend and the Government have initiated. Would my noble friend also accept that it is important to avoid the temptation that exists of allocating blame straightaway, whether to Israeli or Arab? The dialogue should be started from a clear basis.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Time is of the essence. We have been careful not to allocate blame when there has not been the evidence to support it. We have sought to be robust in our engagement with both sides and to try to ensure that UN Security Council resolutions that have been passed are adhered to. But I recognise that there is also frustration on both sides because we shall not start with a blank sheet of paper. We are dealing with a complex set of issues about which there has been dialogue and discussion over many years. Part of the reason that frustration is felt by many is because there are times when we seem to come extremely close to an agreement, and then it fades. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that it is important not to allocate blame, but to seek to work together in a way which is meaningful and positive.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement and support the decision taken by the Government. However, will the noble Baroness redouble the efforts of our Government to persuade the Israeli Government that this unseemly haggling over the fact-finding mission to Jenin is doing nobody damage but themselves? Will she also remind them that Israel's reputation never sank lower than in 1990 when it declined to admit a fact-finding mission after the killing of a number of unarmed Palestinians on the Temple Mount?
I hope that the efforts of persuasion can be successful because I am afraid that the Government of Israel are doing nobody harm but themselves. Does the noble Baroness agree that it is a priority to get an overall peace negotiation under way and that it will be necessary, if that process is to be sustainable, that it is not interrupted every time a terrorist atrocity is committed; otherwise we are simply handing the agenda over to the men of violence? That is what has happened for the past year. They will not desist if they think that each time they create an atrocity they can stop the peace process in its tracks, and they believe that worst is best.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the fact-finding mission must go in, and go in quickly. That point was made by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others to the Israeli Government.
I agree with the noble Lord also that it is important not only to get the peace negotiations under way, but also to ensure that they are sustained over a period of time and not interrupted. It is a matter of both sides

495
being brave in taking that step. We know from our experience in Northern Ireland that taking that step and being brave is probably the single most important factor in terms of obtaining a longer-term peace. We all hope that that will happen in the Middle East.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I too welcome the Government's Statement. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has taken a personal interest in the situation. Indeed, he met regional faith leaders earlier in the year. His personal envoy, Canon Andrew White, has been extremely active in trying to find a solution to the Church of the Nativity siege. We continue to be willing to play a constructive part if we can be helpful.
We in the Church receive many painful stories, as do others; in our case, from Palestinian Christians. We urge the Government and our Jewish friends in this country to encourage the Israeli Government to allow the UN fact-finding team to be admitted swiftly to Jenin. It is difficult to see how there can be progress until that takes place.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I welcome that statement from the right reverend Prelate. It is important that a constructive role is played by all faiths in this conflict. A number of different initiatives are being taken behind the scenes in that respect. I commend those and thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House for rising straight after my noble friend Lord Janner sat down. It was because, not perhaps for the first time in our 40 or 50 years' acquaintance, what he said provoked me to the extent that I wished to respond immediately.
Is my noble friend aware that the last two sentences of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Janner prove beyond peradventure the need for an objective assessment of what actually went on in Jenin? For my noble friend to say that the Palestinian story is a myth is, with respect, not helpful. I do not know whether it is—and he does not know whether it is, although he thinks that he has more evidence than I have.
Perhaps I may ask one question which I hope is practical. If the Israeli Government continue to deny access to the UN fact-finding team, what are the Government proposing that the UN should do, that the US should do and that we should do?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Richard that we need an objective assessment. We have all agreed that the fact-finding mission would be a way to deliver that, and we need that regardless of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Janner. This House and the Government are of the view that that fact-finding mission is necessary.
496
In terms of "What next?", we need to keep talking. In addition, the UN Secretary-General, Kai Annan, will make recommendations to the UN Security Council if the fact-finding mission continues to be refused entry.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, last week I asked the noble Baroness what representations we were making to remove the restrictions on the movement of President Arafat. I warmly congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken which we hope will end those restrictions.
Unlike most Members of this House, I listened to the debate in the other place this afternoon. I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, two horrific accounts from his honourable friends who recently visited Jenin. Does the Minister agree that it will be extremely difficult to find a more objective and distinguished team than Mr Sommaruga, Mrs Ogata and Mr Ahtisaari?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for recognising that we worked hard to end the restrictions on President Arafat. I am aware that at times in this House the noble Lord did not feel that we were working hard enough or fast enough.
We realise that there are conflicting accounts. I am aware, for example, that my honourable friend Ann Clwyd returned from her visit to Jenin with her own view of what had happened. That is why we are supporting the UN fact-finding mission. We need an objective assessment as quickly as possible to enable the whole international community to take a view.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
5.38 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS AND STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES REGARDING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND RESEARCH
Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities shall have a duty to safeguard and promote education, training and research."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, various themes emerge in this Bill. As the Government seek to devolve—a laudable enough aim—there is a real danger that certain responsibilities that currently exist within the NHS will not be delivered as PCTs look to the immediate needs of the majority of their immediate population. Those are areas of service which even now are delivered on a patchy basis, often dropping to the bottom of the list of priorities. We have already seen that happen with public health and have debated how best to ensure that strategic health author ties and PCTs have a duty and responsibility to deliver on that, and how fragmented teams in different PCTs may well find it a challenge to bring their concerns to the fore.

497
In much the same way, education, training and research are long-term needs within the service, which the Government must have a duty to foster, but which with the pressure of immediate events at local level may not seem the highest of priorities. It is rather like using money for long-term capital projects: it is down the line that the benefits are seen, yet it is today's budget and time that must be devoted to ensuring this future.
In Committee, we moved an amendment which spoke of the need for it to be a duty for PCTs to foster and safeguard teaching and research. We have now broadened that out. The amendment places a responsibility on strategic health authorities and PCTs to safeguard and promote education, training and research.
In Committee it was pointed out that some PCTs will have a duty concerning teaching, but the point here is to ensure that this runs throughout the health service and not just a part of it.
Presently, there is no obligation on managers to encourage teaching and research in these new PCTs. They have not been around for very long. Yet here they are with vastly increased budgets and therefore the power to make things happen—or not. This is a matter of national importance which must be carried right through to the local level.
I was glad that in Committee the Minister said that it is in the interests of the NHS and the Government to ensure that we address these areas. I was also glad to hear that he was sympathetic to the aims of my amendment. But he then argued that the Secretary of State retained the power to ensure that this was happening and that therefore my amendment was not necessary. I ask him to think again.
Let us look at the situation now without such devolution. We had the debate back in November introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, which highlighted the problem of insufficient people undertaking research and teaching and the enormous pressures on those who are carrying this out. But this is a problem that is already becoming more and more acute. If one looks at today's Evening Standard its headline is, "Promise of extra doctors". That is hopeless. The article makes the point that the Government's pledge to provide 15,000 extra doctors for the NHS cannot be met if severe shortages in teaching staff get even worse.
We hear in this article that at Guy's, King's and St Thomas' about 50 staff are at imminent risk—about 20 per cent of the workforce. The BMA anticipates that following consultation, 10 to 12 will go voluntarily, but there will be roughly 40 who are judged as "surplus to requirements". Of course we hear the usual tale that Guy's, St Thomas' and King's are looking to save money to reduce their debts. We all know that it is unlikely that other trusts in London will absorb those made redundant into full-time NHS contracts. So how, if the Government are to meet their
498
target for new doctors, will they do so if they are losing the clinical academics needed to teach the new students?
As a senior lecturer at Guy's, King's and St Thomas's, Dr Wierztichi puts the matter today in this way:
"It is crazy. The number of medical students is increasing but the number of medical academics is falling because of the redundancies. If the Government does not start seeing medical academics as a priority, it will be impossible to achieve the Government's targets".
That is what is happening now, today, before devolution, when the Secretary of State theoretically has more control over matters. What happens when matters are devolved? It does not reassure me to hear, as the Minister put the matter in Committee, that PCTs are empowered to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research. Empowered does not ensure. That means that they can, but it does not say that they have to.
The Minister also stated that an NHS trust may provide training. Again "may", not "must". But the noble Lord also said that research and teaching must be undertaken because the NHS must support teaching and research. But who will undertake the responsibility to carry through such a laudable aim? When a manager decides at a meeting between competing priorities, how do we ensure that research and teaching—or any such long-term aims—are anywhere near the top of the agenda?
I am certain that the Minister shares with all of us the desire to see teaching and research flourish in the NHS. However, that desire must be carried through into obligations on those who are in a position to decide whether or not it is carried out. Otherwise, with the best will in the world, and all the resources at the Chancellor's disposal, the NHS simply will not have the long-term future that I am sure the Minister and certainly we wish to see. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 8 which is grouped with Amendment No. 5. I support Amendment No. 5 and agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Amendment No. 8 goes a little further. There are two main differences between the two amendments. Amendment No. 8 extends the duty in relation to teaching and research beyond PCTs and strategic health authorities to include NHS trusts.
It is clearly important that there is a duty in relation to teaching and research and that that covers those who commission the services. Without that the funding will not be secure and teaching and research could easily be squeezed out by other priorities. But we must not forget the provider side of the equation. While trusts have powers under the 1990 Act in relation to teaching and research I believe that they do not have corresponding duties.
Secondly, Amendment No. 8 expands on what is meant by teaching and research. We typically think of that as covering medical teaching and research. The

499
noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke about that matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, reminded us in Committee that all primary care professionals and multi-professional teams operating in the community are also dependent on high-quality research. The definition in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 8 is designed to widen the net.
There are other differences in wording between the two amendments. I do not want to debate semantic points. The amendments are at one in wishing to ensure that teaching and research thrive and prosper. I believe that creating a duty would have a positive effect. It will strengthen the hand of those seeking budgets to cover teaching and research and ensure that that is kept high on the agenda for all who plan, commission and deliver services within the NHS.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 11 which is also in this group. It seeks to empower the National Assembly of Wales to direct local health boards in Wales to support and promote teaching and research. Of course it may be argued that the Assembly already has such power under Clause 6 and subsection (2) of new Section 16BB and that my amendment is unnecessary. But at least it serves the purpose of drawing attention to the need to promote teaching and research in the NHS in Wales as elsewhere. Indeed, I would have attached the substance of this amendment to the duties of health authorities in Wales, but there has not been much talk about health authorities, although of course they are to be created under Clause 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Noakes have already advanced the general case in relation to England. I shall not repeat those arguments, which are just as applicable, if not more so, to Wales.
I am especially concerned about the University of Wales, College of Medicine in Cardiff, which is the only medical college in the Principality, and not just because I am its honorary president. It requires the support not only of its local health authorities but of others, because the college places many of its graduates in hospitals and practices throughout Wales. It is clearly important that the 22 proposed local health boards and 15 trusts in Wales should support those placements, because they involve our future doctors and consultants.
The College of Medicine and some of the other colleges of the University of Wales provide other courses for health professionals and, again, the support of local health boards and trusts is essential—and likely to increase in the years ahead as the Government's modernisation plans develop and NHS staff require retraining to fulfil them.
Of course, the Minister's Statement after the publication of the White Paper referred not only to 15,000 extra doctors but to 35,000 more nurses. They must all he trained, and others will also require training. The College of Medicine in Wales trains dentists, nurses and other health professionals.
500
Indeed, it is the college of the NHS in Wales. It is vital that it is fully supported in its teaching and research at all levels of the organisation that it serves.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, to both of which my name is attached, and in support of Amendment No. 8. It may initially appear that there is a discrepancy between the wording of Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, but I shall explain that the spirit behind them is identical.
In his Statement on the NHS Plan, the Minister told the House that the investment would provide 35,000 more nurses, 15,000 more doctors, 40 new hospitals and 500 primary care centres. Of course, a new hospital requires many professionals other than doctors and nurses. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, highlighted the severe shortage of clinical academics—I must declare an interest as a clinical academic and vice-dean of the University of Wales College of Medicine.
Investment in the NHS requires training of new staff and their clinical placement. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, outlined, those placements are made throughout the NHS in Wales and are also for medical students and other healthcare students from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The placements are crucially important and provide the clinical exposure that is the strength of the United Kingdom training system. They are where students learn to integrate science and clinical care.
I have recently completed a visit to an NHS trust that takes students from the University of Wales College of Medicine. Chief executives of all trusts value the importance of an affiliation with a teaching institution. They recognise that that is how they recruit high-calibre staff and maintain clinical standards in their current staff, who are involved in teaching and are challenged by students.
I turn from teaching to education and training. Teaching is an activity from a teacher towards others, but much learning is now self-directed, so training may be a more appropriate word for the broader range of activity that goes beyond undergraduate or postgraduate education. Training requires facilities for continued professional development—library facilities, seminar rooms for teaching, tutorials and discussion groups—as well as protected time. All of that costs money.
The document, Delivering the NHS Plan, alludes to the development of the NHS university, which will allow individually tailored professional development. That is to be applauded, but it will also require resources.
Another area that has not yet been touched on is the importance of training and retraining of senior staff to maintain staff in the NHS, rather than lose them through early retirement. In June 2000, a BMA survey found that 62 per cent of consultant surgeons—419 out of 676—planned to retire early. That represents an enormous loss of expertise to the NHS. An Answer to a Question in the other House about early retirements

501
from hospitals stated that approximately one third of all retirements of hospital doctors was premature, through either early retirement or ill-health. Premature retirement was defined as prior to the normal retirement age of the NHS pension scheme—60. Of course, it is to be hoped that many people stay on beyond 60. I think that 60 is young to be retiring— I am sure that many noble Lords would agree.
I turn again to the document, Delivering the NHS Plan. It states:
"Foundation trusts will … abide by the NHS principles",
although it does not define those in detail, and that the new foundation trusts will,
"promote diversity and encourage innovation".
With innovation must come research, to which I now briefly turn. There must be research into models of care and the quality of care in each setting, to evaluate outcomes and to monitor care delivery through audit. But many outcome measures are yet to be developed.
In many areas, outcome measures are remarkably crude—for example, death rates, infection rates, failed discharge and so on—and do not capture the quality of life change for the individual patient. Patients must wherever possible leave the episode of care feeling better than when they entered it. Where that is not biologically possible, they should certainly feel that their distress has been lessened and that they and their families are supported. We should now be measuring those sorts of subtle outcomes.
There is also a need for quantitative and epidemiological studies, which all need funding. The research councils have inadequate funding, which does not meet the research cost to answer the current urgent questions in healthcare. There are costs in entering patients in trials, so even where an NHS unit, wherever it is, is a collaborator, a hidden cost is involved. But there is good evidence that patients in trials do better.
There is no better example of that than the management of childhood leukaemia. The coordination of trials meant that all children with leukaemia were entered in them. In my working lifetime, the picture has changed from a very high mortality rate when I first qualified to an expectation of successful treatment of the primary disease today. That is a real compliment to co-ordinated research. It is only with collaborative research across the board that such a thing can happen. For such collaborative research to be promoted in all sectors requires investment from the health service that must cross all boundaries, from primary to secondary and tertiary care across to the voluntary sector and into private partnerships.
I therefore seek reassurance from the Minister that the duty of education, training and research will be safeguarded, and that each strategic health authority in England and organisation in Wales will have a university representative on its board. That would ensure rigorous quality control of education, training and research to inform the strategic health authority and other planning bodies and that services falling
502
within the body's remit are evaluated. That also applies to primary care trust boards and all NHS trust boards.
The primary care sector will carry increasing responsibility. It will be more involved in teaching of all disciplines as more education and training occur in the community and with the increased budget for primary care and its increased workload and delivery of care. It is there that research questions must be asked, to allow cost efficacy to be assessed and ensure that needs are met. All those in healthcare, whatever their role, must have that duty explicitly laid out in the Bill, to ensure that the important safeguards of the quality of the service are not lost.
6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, Clause 6 sets out in legislative form the policy of the National Assembly for Wales. I read the Assembly debates—in Committee and plenary session—and I found that it did not turn its attention to the substance of the matter referred to in Amendment No. 11.
It is not for me to add anything to the arguments that have been so fully and ably expressed by those who have spoken. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 11. I have examined some of the consultation documents that were generated by PCGs when they sought PCT status. Many of them are excellent and are full of hope and commitment. However, I could find little mention of a serious intent to include teaching and research, save for specifically financed pilot projects. If the NHS Plan is to be successfully implemented, PCTs must contribute to the academic life of the NHS. For PCTs that cover a medical school or university, that is not just important: it is essential.
I shall not go into great detail about the number of placements necessary, but, as chairman of St George's Hospital Medical School Council, I know that it is already a struggle to find enough placements, not only for medical students, nurses and the professions allied to medicine, but also for social workers. That is important for the future of the health service. We shall have to work more closely in teams, and those who are part of the teams must understand clearly how the NHS works and how care—social care and healthcare—is given.
In Committee, the Minister said:
"1 also accept that there are concerns about the recruitment of clinical academics and more generally about the pressures on clinicians within our teaching hospitals in terms of the amount of time that they have for teaching and hard clinical practice".— [Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1117.]
The Minister was right to be concerned. At the moment, 73 professorial chairs are unfilled, 36 of which have been empty for over six months, and there are 118 unfilled senior lecturer posts, 64 of which have been empty for six months. Those are appalling facts for those of us who are serious about teaching and research.

503
Medical schools have also sustained devastating financial knocks delivered through the research assessment exercise. The new formula has had unintended consequences, and the medical schools' research budgets have suffered greatly. In London, there has been a reduction of 20 per cent in the funding for five-star clinical research, and GR funding, which used to be weighted in favour of medicine, has been removed. There really is a crisis.
If we are to attract high quality academic staff, it is essential that they have the time and space to carry out their teaching and research duties. I appreciate that the workforce confederations will commission teaching, but it IA ill be up to the PCTs to make provision for an environment that is conducive to teaching. I am concerned that PCTs will be so anxious to hit the Government's delivery targets and avoid another visit from CHI or prevent a run-in with the local authority's overview and scrutiny committee that they will avoid the added costs of teaching and research. I can understand that PCTs will be pressurised and will seek every ounce of energy and commitment from those working on the wards and in the surgeries. There will be no capacity to fulfil the academic duties that are so necessary to the future of the NHS.
In their monitoring, strategic health authorities must be generous towards academic clinicians and give them the permission to do what their academic posts demand in addition to their service requirements. I hope t hat that monitoring will take that into account. PCTs and strategic health authorities would welcome such a duty, to give them cover in relation not only to the commissioning of work but also to the day-to-day running of services.
I shall digress for a moment. I remember when my son took to motorbikes. That was in the days before helmets were compulsory. I was extremely concerned for his safety, and, once the law had been introduced, I was able to say to him, "I am sorry, but you must wear your helmet. It is the law". My noble friend Lady Noakes drew a clear distinction between powers and duties. I n this case, a power would be welcomed by the PCTs and the strategic health authorities.
In Committee, the Minister said:
"As part of the strategic role of each strategic health authority, I see a particular responsibility for ensuring that the conditions are right for enhancing teaching and research".—[Official Report, 18/3/02, col. 1118]
A sensible workload is part of the right conditions, and so is space. Already, we see that one of the dangers associated with designing new hospitals and health centres is that no margins are built in to provide the extra tutorial accommodation, library facilities, IT and general circulation space needed for adequate teaching. Experience of public/private partnerships shows that such facilities are the first things to be axed from building plans, so that budgets can be met.
In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic to our concerns. He said:
"I assure noble Lords that it is in the interests of the National Health Service and the Government to ensure that we address some of the problems that noble Lords have raised in the debate".— [Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1117.]
504
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I was filled with hope. I thought that we really would make some progress. However, the Minister resorted to Section 5(2)(d) of the 1977 Act, which he felt would suffice. With 73 empty professorial chairs, the NHS in serious turmoil and an ambitious programme vastly to expand the number of students—we all welcome that—does not the Minister think that putting a clear duty in the Bill would be of huge benefit in promoting and safeguarding the quality of education and training in the NHS?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I shall give an example. My cousin, who is a microbiologist, was attached to a teaching hospital and the university in Leeds. He found that he just did not have enough time to do clinical research, and he went to teach in Malaysia. He loved working there and is now settled in Australia with his wife and children. The world is small, when people have written interesting medical papers.
We must try to keep young, keen medical people who are research-minded in this country. I support the call for the promotion of teaching and research to be written into the Bill, as proposed in Amendment No. 8.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords., I too am aware of the concern that has been expressed in the House and elsewhere about the future of academic medicine. I shall explain to the House why I chose to intervene in the debate.
Before I came to your Lordships' House, I worked for Amicus, the trade union, many of whose members are healthcare professionals. When I went to Amicus, I was made aware of the need for research and training. Indeed, I have worked with our members over the years in pressing that need.
It is vital to recognise the importance of education, training and research. Not only should they be furthered but, as was pointed out so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, it is essential that the necessary funding is provided to support such activities.
I certainly support the idea behind the amendments but, having looked into the proposals and listened to the debates both today and in Committee, I wonder whether they are really needed. I take the points that have been raised by a number of speakers about the difference between a power and a duty, but I understand that we already have in place statutory powers in other legislation which ensure that education, training and research are not forgotten. Perhaps those powers should be looked at in more detail before we decide to put something more into the Bill, otherwise we may find that we err towards repetition.
For example, the Secretary of State has powers to ensure that research is undertaken. I am sure that both the current and future Secretaries of State will take those responsibilities very seriously. Health authorities and primary care trusts have such powers delegated by regulations. I know that some noble Lords do not

505
think that they are strong enough, but perhaps we should seek to express them more forcefully rather than adding anything further to the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stated that medical academics must be recognised as being of vital importance. Of course she was absolutely right to make that point, but perhaps I am a little more optimistic than are other noble Baronesses who have spoken so far. I believe that PCT and SHA members will ensure that they concentrate positively and constructively on training and research. I agree that expertise has to be retained and that research into models and quality of care is extremely important. However, I return to my main point: by introducing these amendments we shall err towards repetition. There are already in place in legislation powers that should be exercised.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments. I am often asked a number of questions about the quality of nursing education today and whether it has deteriorated. The usual attitude is that, "things are not what they were". My view of the current position is that nursing education is lacking in high quality clinical supervision from registered nurses in practice situations. I believe that that has developed as a result of a shortage of nursing staff. Perhaps education in the clinical setting is the last thing that a busy registered nurse will consider taking on.
Similarly, academics in nursing find themselves short of time to devote to clinical supervision. For that reason, I believe that rather than allow nursing education, and education for the other health professions, to fall to the bottom of the pile, we should look to placing a duty on the authorities to provide for the education of the professions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has already referred to the very informative debate recently initiated by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant. I know that he was distressed to have to leave the House this afternoon before we came to these amendments. He fully supports them.
I believe that the need to ensure that adequate research facilities for all the health professions are in place is of absolutely paramount importance. When we consider the duty of "quality", we refer frequently to the need for evidence-based practice. Unless adequate research is undertaken across all the health professions, so that we can say with some assurance that the care being given is based on sound evidence, then the quality of care will suffer every time. I, too, wish to add my support for these amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the principle underlying the amendments. As a superannuated clinical academic, how could I not have sympathy for them? However, I am not sure whether they would necessarily achieve what is desired.
506
Undoubtedly there are major problems with regard to academic medicine. We have heard about many of them from noble Lords this afternoon. We have nowhere near enough clinical academics, in particular at a time when the need for more teachers in medicine has never been greater. We are increasing by 50 per cent our medical student numbers, so that from around three years hence we shall produce some 6,000 doctors a year rather than the current figure of 4,000 a year. Someone has to be in place to teach all those students.
The problems faced by academics are numerous. Of course they have to deliver clinical services as well as fulfilling their teaching and research roles. All these points are outlined in a publication from the Academy of Medical Sciences on threats to academic medicine, which I recommend to noble Lords. I should express an interest in that I am vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences.
All that is made worse by problems with regard to the university funding formula. The research assessment exercise seemed to have been disproportionately biased against those disciplines relevant to medicine. Furthermore, all kinds of other difficulties are now arising, in particular in the London teaching hospitals, about which we heard earlier. However, this is largely a matter for the Department for Education and Skills and the Higher Education Funding Council. Of course the Department of Health has a major interest, but we cannot lay all these problems at the doors of the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities, although they will have to be supportive.
Most of the funding for teaching and research comes through other routes: through the universities, the research charities and the research councils, while the Research and Development Division at the Department of Health provides infrastructure support for such research and teaching. Thus while I believe that the PCTs and SHAs will need to play a role, we cannot expect them to deliver on all the deficiencies that can be identified in academic medicine; many of them lie at the feet of many other bodies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. As I said in Committee, it is very important that the NHS maintains high quality teaching and research, not only for the NHS as a service but also, I suggest, on behalf of the wider interests of this country. We have always enjoyed a high reputation as regards the quality of our teaching and research. That is why, for example, the research-based pharmaceutical industry invests so heavily in research into new drugs and medicines in this country. Clearly the Government have a responsibility for ensuring that we maintain overall our pre-eminent position in this area.
With regard to the argument over the amendments, I think it is clear that the relevant statutory powers already exist. Noble Lords have already referred to Section 5(2)(d) of the National Health Service Act 1977 which gives a power to the Secretary of State to,
"conduct, or assist [others]…to conduct, research".

507
Those powers are delegated to health authorities and subsequently to primary care trusts. Under paragraphs 14 and 15 of Part III of Schedule 5A to the 1977 Act, primary care trusts are empowered to,
"conduct, commission or assist in the conduct of research",
and to,
"make officers and facilities available in connection with training by a university or any other body providing training in connection with the health service".
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 states that:
"An NHS trust may undertake and commission research and make available staff and facilities for research by other persons".
Under Section 51 of the 1977 Act, the Secretary of State has a duty to exercise his functions so as to secure that there are made available,
"such facilities as he considers are reasonably required by any university which has a medical or dental school in connection with clinical teaching and with research connected with clinical medicine or, as the case may be, clinical dentistry".
I accept that in relation to some of those powers there is an issue in regard to power and duty, but surely my noble friend put her finger on it when she said that, given the powers which are clearly already there, the question is how to make sure that it happens effectively. That is the challenge. It will not be helped by placing a duty on the face of the Bill; it will be helped by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills taking their responsibilities seriously and ensuring that there is a coherent approach throughout the educational and health sectors.
I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and her concern that funding for teaching and research should not be squeezed out by other more pressing and immediate priorities of primary care trusts. But, as my noble friend Lord Turnberg pointed out, it is precisely to ensure its protection that NHS funding for supporting research and development, and learning and personal development, is managed as central budgets allocated directly to NHS providers, including primary care organisations. These funding streams are accounted for separately. Other dedicated funding streams for teaching and learning, such as PGEA and study leave for general practitioners, are also managed separately to ensure their proper protection. I do not believe that primary care trusts will be under pressure to spend that money for other purposes.
But it is not only a question of funding; primary care trusts have a positive role to play in engaging in teaching and research issues and in providing the right environment. That is why we are supporting the development of health and education sector partnerships at the strategic health authority level and below. This recognises the need to engage whole health and education communities and to consider the interplay between education, training and research and development issues and local health services. We see that partnership embracing not only acute teaching trusts and partners in schools and further education but also links between NHS employers and education
508
providers, on which the workforce development confederations that we have established are currently focusing.
I have suggested that the amendments cover areas and powers which the Secretary of State has been given already to support such teaching and research activities. However, I fully understand that particular arguments have been made on the recruitment and retention of medical teachers. As I suggested in Committee, the Government are giving a great deal of consideration to this matter. Much of the responsibility for dealing with the issue rests within higher education rather than with the Department of Health.
Universities employ clinical academics, with funds for research infrastructure, and the direct costs of teaching medical, dental, pharmacy and optometry students allocated to universities by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The NHS responsibility is for supporting the service costs of hosting research and development and clinical teaching.
I accept that there are pressures in this area: there is no doubt about that. It is because of that that the Department of Health and HEFCE have recently agreed a strategic alliance which covers education as well as research issues. The intention is to enable better joint working on these issues of mutual concern.
It is worth noting that, despite the concerns expressed about the availability of clinical academics, the majority of existing medical schools have considerably expanded their intakes since 1999 and most have plans for future growth. At the same time, four new medical schools, three new centres of medical education and a satellite graduate entry medical school are currently in the process of being created. I should say to those universities which took part in the application process that one of the issues they addressed in their bids to become new medical schools or to have expansion take place was that of having sufficient clinical academic staff.
In view of the concerns expressed about this issue, the department and HEFCE have agreed to set up a joint monitoring group to take an overview of the expansion of medical student numbers. The General Medical Council's education committee will also he involved. Although medical student education is not the direct responsibility of the Department of Health, our officials have been discussing with HEFCE what further action needs to be undertaken to respond to the perceived problem.
Ultimately, action at national level between the various government departments and HEFCE is the right way forward. I do not accept that writing duties on the face of the Bill, particularly in respect of primary care trusts, would have an influential impact on issues relating to the recruitment of academics in universities.
As to Amendment No. 11, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the role of the College of Medicine at the University of Wales in Cardiff. I acknowledge the quality of that university's medical education

509
department. I accept that for Wales its links to teaching, research and the clinical activities of NHS trusts are vitally important. However, ultimately, those are matters for the Welsh Assembly. If it has not yet had full discussions on those matters, I have no doubt that it will do so in the future. It is inappropriate to include specific limited examples in a general permissive power. That would frustrate the intentions behind the establishment of the Welsh Assembly.
I hope that I have indicated that the concern of noble Lords to ensure that teaching and research is given its proper place in the NHS is accepted and supported by the Government. I do not believe that PCTs will be the prime movers in dealing with issues such as the shortage of clinical academics, but they do have a role to play in ensuring that we have the right kind of environment in which teaching and research activities take place.
The substantive argument surrounding teaching and research is that they are matters for the department, other government departments and HEFCE to deal with. PCTs can support the process, but the argument is not advanced by seeking to add powers and duties on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank him for informing us about the joint monitoring group on medical student expansion. As part of this, will there be a university representative on the boards of strategic health authorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and noble Lords for their participation in the debate and support for the amendments. Much of what the Minister said today, as opposed to in Committee, is welcome news. Nevertheless, I and many others remain concerned about this area. I do not feel as optimistic as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, about how things are going. The status quo is not good enough at the moment. This is an opportunity to try to improve on matters and certainly not to let them go back.
I can think of one current example of an endowment that is supposed to be used for teaching and research, but is being fought for by clinical academics against the understandable desire of administrators to fill a black hole. A duty on the administrators in question would make that situation easier for the clinical academics. There are clever ways of getting round that. Increasing service costs, which the Minister mentioned earlier, is one way in which that money can be tapped into. I see no reason for optimism about the current arrangements.
There is still time for the issue to be addressed. I hope that further thought will be given to it, because there is a shared concern across the House to ensure that education, training and research are promoted in
510
the NHS at every level. I hope that we can find a way to move forward that would command the support of your Lordships. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Directions: distribution of functions]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"READINESS OF PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS
(1) The Audit Commission shall investigate every Primary Care Trust with a view to establishing whether that Primary Care Trust is ready to carry out functions which the Secretary of State may transfer to it by way of a direction under section 16D of the 1977 Act.
(2) In carrying out an investigation under subsection (1), the Audit Commission shall consider in particular—

(a) whether the Primary Care Trust has staff of the right number, quality and experience to deal with the functions which may be transferred; and

(b) whether the finances of the Primary Care Trust are sufficient to meet the functions which may be transferred and any deficits which are to be transferred to it.

(3) If the Audit Commission considers that a Primary Care Trust is ready to carry out the functions referred to in subsection (1), it shall publish a report to that effect and shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) If the Audit Commission considers that a Primary Care Trust is not ready to carry out the functions referred to in subsection (1), it shall not publish a report under subsection (3) but shall publish a notice setting out the matters that would need to be dealt with before a report under subsection (3) could be issued, and shall send a copy of the notice to the Secretary of State.
(5) If the Audit Commission has published a notice under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may request the Audit Commission to carry out a further investigation with a view to publishing a report under subsection (3).
(6) The Secretary of State may not make a direction under section 16D of the 1977 Act unless the Audit Commission has published a report under subsection (3).
(7) The Secretary of State shall pay the Audit Commission an amount equal to the full costs incurred by the Audit Commission in acting under this section."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 3. It deals with the readiness of primary care trusts to take on the additional responsibilities that the Government plan to place on them. We had a useful discussion in Committee on the readiness of PCTs. However, that discussion did little to assuage the doubts that I and other noble Lords had raised. That is why I am returning to the subject.
This amendment is different from that tabled in Committee, which would have deferred the requirement for 100 per cent conversion to PCT status for a year. In the event, we learnt from the Minister that the vast majority of PCGs were scheduled to be converted to PCTs by 1st April. While we had considerable doubts about the conviction of local health professionals to those conversions, the plain fact was that it had happened. The moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on. We have to accept that PCTs are now a fact of life.

511
However, conversion to PCT status is only the beginning of the story, not the end of it. Conversion to PCT status allows health authorities to delegate some of their functions to PCTs. However, we know that the Secretary of State's aims, as set out in Shifting the Balance of Power, are for PCTs to be responsible for planning and securing the totality of care and services that their population needs. To that end, at least 75 per cent of NHS funds will be in the hands of PCTs in due course.
In practice, PCTs will be expected to carry out virtually all the functions of current health authorities. We have 300 or so PCTs, many of which have been in existence for only a matter of weeks. They are taking over the functions of what used to be 90-odd health authorities, until the other part of the health service restructuring forced that number down to 28.
The key issue addressed by the amendment is whether PCTs will be ready to take over the new responsibilities. The Government have said that they will delegate those responsibilities directly to PCTs from October this year. When we asked the Minister about the Department of Health's process for testing whether PCTs would be ready, we received answers that I found disconcerting. The Minister told us that the decision to allow PCTs to be formed was made on the basis of a number of criteria and that, provided those were satisfied, a PCT would get the go ahead. If the PCT then took on more responsibilities, that was a matter for the board. The strategic health authority also has a role in ensuring effective leadership.
I was grateful for the details about the initial criteria, which the Minister supplied last week, but they have not put my mind at rest. The criteria have a lot of abstracts, such as vision. Even the criterion of fitness for purpose focuses on processes to get adequate staff.
In Committee, I asked the Minister a number of detailed questions about the availability of properly qualified and experienced staff, including chief executives, finance directors, directors of public health and commission staff. I referred to many of the informed studies that identified weaknesses ranging from information management to governance. Remedying those defects is not a requirement of the approval criteria. As long as a PCT has a process, it will pass muster. It is clear that the Secretary of State will be happy to delegate functions to PCTs once the Act is passed without inquiry as to their readiness.
The amendment would provide for a detailed examination of each of the PCTs by the Audit Commission. Noble Lords may recall that when we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, the requirement was for an examination by the Commission for Health Improvement. The Audit Commission is more independent than CHI, although we shall return to that question later. The assumption in the amendment is that the Audit Commission would carry out readiness investigations.
The scheme of investigation is simple. The Audit Commission would investigate the readiness of every PCT to carry out the functions that were to be
512
delegated to it. If the Audit Commission was happy, it would publish a report saying so and send a copy to the Secretary of State, who could go ahead and issue his directions delegating functions. If the Audit Commission was not happy, it would issue a notice setting out what needed to be dealt with. The Secretary of State would then be able to ask the Audit Commission to go back, have another look and, if it was then happy, issue the report.
There are two aspects of that procedure that I should like to note. First, the Audit Commission should publish its findings so that they are available not just to the Secretary of State, but to the strategic health authority, the patients forums, local authorities and others. Transparent processes are healthy processes. Secondly, subsection (2) deals specifically with two aspects of readiness. The first is
"whether the Primary Care Trust has staff of the right number, quality and experience".
That is crucial. It will not be enough to say, as the Minister said in Committee, that there is a PCT development programme in process, or it is up to the chief executives to acquire the right staff.
In that connection, perhaps the Minister will comment on the fact that it has now been decided that the annual development programme for PCT leaders is regarded as "neither appropriate nor helpful", according to a letter from the Modernisation Agency on 15th April. It is up to PCTs to decide whether to take part. Do the Government now believe that PCT people do not need a development programme, or is this a recognition that PCTs are struggling so much that time out for so-called development would be a straw that broke the camel's back?
The second aspect of subsection (2) is finance. If it is not clear that the PCTs have adequate finance to meet their responsibilities, as well as any inherited deficits, they should not go ahead. Financial stability must be an important prerequisite. In Committee, I spoke to a separate amendment dealing with the transfer of deficits to PCTs. I was disappointed that the Minister told us that the Government were set on saddling PCTs with the deficits of their forebears. It is important to see whether the PCTs can cope with the deficits that they will inherit.
I acknowledge that the criteria for PCT formation include detailed financial management questions, but they are not being considered immediately before PCTs are burdened with extra responsibilities. Finance is tight. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that PCTs will be struggling with the deficits that they have inherited—deficits in the strict accounting sense and the much more important hidden or underlying deficits. The amendment would test, on a PCT-specific basis, whether those pressures can be coped with and whether there is sufficient money in the system overall, on an NHS-wide analysis.
I hope that the Minister will welcome this revised amendment and see the need for a detailed examination of PCT readiness before going ahead. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, during our discussions on Report, no reference has so far been made to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put enormous sums of money into the health service. I am wondering to what extent primary care trusts are being told that they can anticipate increased funds for the future. If they are to receive 75 per cent of the health spend, which is so much bigger, it seems strange for them not to take that into account when making appointments. If they are experiencing difficulty in attracting adequately qualified people to fill key posts for the future, are PCTs being told that they can upgrade somewhat as regards qualifications and salaries? Are they being told that the Chancellor's infusion of cash can affect their attitude to the debts that they inherit; and, indeed, to their general spending plans?
It seems strange to be engaged in this and previous discussions without reference being made to the fact that the spending of PCTs will be enormously increased. If account is not now taken of future funding, it will be very difficult for those bodies properly to use such money. Indeed, it should affect the thinking from this moment. When he replies, can the Minister enlighten the House in this respect?
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I used to have anxieties about the state of readiness of primary care trusts. However, I recently had the opportunity to meet quite a few chief executives, chairmen, and non-executive directors. I was extremely impressed by their level of readiness, and especially by their confidence and eagerness to get on with the job. They are not envisaging taking on their considerable responsibilities without support; nor, indeed, should they be expected to do so. Adequate support is available and will be provided in terms of both training and information.
Primary care trusts are already becoming a resource for each other as regards shared learning, examples of good practice, and so on. Once again, we must return to the purpose of this reorganisation; namely, to shift the balance of power and the decision-making to primary care level. We must resist anything that detracts from that aim. In my view, the proposal to ask the Audit Commission to investigate the state of readiness would be both cumbersome and expensive. Therefore, I oppose it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right with regard to her experience when meeting members of primary care trusts throughout the country. In all our debates—on Second Reading, in Committee, and now on Report—many doubts have been expressed about the capability and capacity of primary care trusts to take on the responsibilities that they have been given. However, I have not come across the degree of doubt expressed in this Chamber when talking to those working in primary care trusts, and those in the health service generally. There is very genuine enthusiasm at the
514
primary care level for those responsibilities, and for the potential of primary care to have such a dynamic influence on the rest of the NHS.
Although I accept that we must do everything that we can to ensure that PCTs are able to take forward the major responsibilities that they have now been given, we should not talk ourselves into the rather doom-and-gloom scenario outlined by some noble Lords. Judging from my meetings with members of PCTs throughout the country, I believe that they are well able to take on such responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is surely right to ask us to consider the funding context in which PCTs address their future strategies. The noble Baroness will know that the Budget announcement in terms of NHS allocation does not kick in this financial year. Specific allocations to the health service will need to be made in due course for the next financial year. However, she is right to point out that that gives PCTs an ability to look ahead over a five-year period so as to get an idea of the scale of likely funding. That will enable them to plan forward with a much greater degree of certainty than has often been the case with the NHS where annual allocations were often not notified to authorities until a very late stage.
The amendment specifically suggests that the Audit Commission should publish a report when a PCT is ready to carry out its functions. I am the first person to acknowledge the role of the Audit Commission, which has a very good track record in ensuring economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the delivery of health services. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the commission to make the kind of decisions envisaged under the proposed new clause. Ultimately, the decision as to whether a PCG should become a PCT, or whether a PCT should take on certain functions, is surely a matter for the Secretary of State to decide in the light of all the information to which he has access.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for identifying the four key areas about which the Secretary of State must be satisfied: the benefits of what will be achieved; the degree of support for the proposals; the fitness of the proposed organisation to deliver; and the impact on other organisations. However, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make that decision. I can tell the noble Baroness that Ministers have been extensively involved in reaching considered judgments as to the readiness of primary care groups to take on primary care trust status. We have not hesitated to refer proposals back for further work and consideration. Indeed, we have rejected proposals on a number of occasions over the past year, or so. It is in our interests, as much as in anyone else's, to ensure that PCTs have the necessary capability.
We want to support PCTs in their development. In Committee, I mentioned a number of initiatives that we have taken in order to help PCTs reach the necessary position in terms of capability and skills. I agree with the noble Baroness in relation to the issue of management capacity. We are talking about new

515
organisations, which will need time to develop their management capacity. However, I have been encouraged by the calibre of people who have applied to become PCT chief executives. With the available programme of support, we shall be able to ensure that leadership in PCTs is of a very high order.
I should also point out to the noble Baroness that it is not just a matter of executive directors. The chairmen and the non-executive directors will also have a significant role to play in ensuring that boards reach sensible decisions. Again, the calibre of chair appointed to lead primary care trusts has been of a high order. At the end of the day, it is a question—really, a judgment—of whether we believe that PCTs are capable of performing this very responsible task. I believe that they have the ability to do so. The support that they will receive through the modernisation agency, and through other mechanisms, will assist them in their task. However, it is a matter for Ministers to make such judgments. It would not be right to ask the Audit Commission to carry out a role in relation to that function.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify his answer to my question. Can he say whether or not primary care trusts are being told that they can upgrade salaries and qualifications in anticipation of receiving more money?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the question of staff salaries, primary care trusts will be bound, as are other NHS organisations, by national terms and conditions agreed between the department and staff organisations. However, there is a great deal of flexibility in the health service now in relation to what staff can be paid for particular job responsibilities. At the moment we are in discussion with relevant staff interests to introduce much greater flexibility in the future. Certainly I hope that in the future primary care trusts will be able to take part in those enhanced flexibilities.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I also thank the Minister for responding. I do not doubt the enthusiasm that he has reported today and on previous occasions. That is wholly consistent with my knowledge of managers in the NHS. However, enthusiasm does not make them ready to assume managerial responsibilities and that is the direction in which the amendment takes us.
I believe that there are significant risks. The Minister talked about issues of managerial capacity. My solution was to ask the Audit Commission to look at that. I accept that it is the Secretary of State's decision at the end of the day. However, I genuinely would have been more reassured if I had heard that the department had some robust process that could inform the Secretary of State after approval of a PCT.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I tried to describe
516
the process that led to the approval of primary care trusts. Although I do not claim that the amount of paperwork involved is always a symbol of a rigorous process, the reports that Ministers received in relation to applications from PCGs to become PCTs were extensive. They covered issues of management capacity as well as other considerations.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. I was not trying to suggest that the process of becoming a PCT was handled on a less than rigorous basis. My point was that the decision to approve a PCT occurred some time before the PCT assumed the significant additional responsibilities that are implicit in the provisions of the Bill that is before your Lordships' House. I refer to a gap as between considering a process sufficient in terms of acquiring PCT status but not considering whether that process achieves the quality of result that is desired. It is that gap that I focused on.
I issue the gypsy's warning; namely, that I hope that I do not have the opportunity to say from this Dispatch Box, "I told you so". In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"SPECIALISED SERVICES
(1) The Secretary of State shall not direct Primary Care Trusts under section 16D of the 1977 Act as to his functions in relation to specialised services as defined in subsection (3) but may so direct Strategic Health Authorities.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not direct Primary Care Trusts or Strategic Health Authorities under section 16D of the 1977 Act in relation to national specialist services as defined in subsection (4).
(3) Specialised services for the purposes of this section arc the services covered by the National Specialised Services Definition Set issued by the Department of Health from time to time.
(4) National specialist services for the purposes of this section are the services which are the responsibility of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group from time to time."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the topic of specialised services which we debated in Committee. The amendment is an improved version of the one we debated in Committee. It has two objectives: first, that the Secretary of State cannot devolve commissioning of specialised services covered by the National Specialised Services Definition Set to primary care trusts but may devolve to strategic health authorities; and, secondly, that the Secretary of State cannot devolve the commissioning of national specialist services covered by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group to either PCTs or strategic health authorities.
I do not think that there is any controversy with regard to the second of those propositions as I do not believe that the Government have suggested anything else. Indeed, even the Minister with his unbounded enthusiasm for PCT capabilities has not, I believe, suggested that they take over commissioning from the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group.

517
The real issue concerns specialised services. I think that it is common ground that it is unlikely that individual PCTs will consider commissioning specialised services on their own. These are services which are currently covered by regional specialised commissioning groups. They cover 37 services, some of which are still in draft.
The arrangement that Shifting the Balance of Power envisaged, and was urged on us by the Minister in Committee, is that PCTs should commission collaboratively. But that assumes that all PCTs will want to work collaboratively, with one PCT leading and others providing the funds. It is by no means clear that they will. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, told the Committee that he had spoken to some non-executive directors of PCTs who said that they did not want to work in that way. And there are real concerns that the primary care focus of PCTs will lead them away from acute commissioning in general and away from commissioning low volume, high cost specialised services in particular. The prevailing primary care orientation in PCTs is unlikely to make successful specialised services commissioning through collaborative mechanisms a racing certainty.
The Minister had an answer in Committee for the possible reluctance of PCTs to buy into local collaborative commissioning. He said that if a PCT was,
"not prepared to play ball…the strategic health authority would have the opportunity to intervene and bang heads together".—[Official Report, 14/3/02; col. 1025.]
Noble Lords who have followed the passage of the Bill thus far will know that "head banging" is the colloquial term for performance management. The Minister said that he did not expect many PCTs to refuse to form consortia. But the mere fact that purchasing consortia are required is an indication that commissioning for specialised services has been delegated to the wrong level. The most natural level is the strategic health authority. The Minister said in Committee that commissioning consortia,
"might cover the population size of the strategic health authority or involve going across one strategic health authority boundary to another".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1170.]
Shifting the Balance of Power specifically states that strategic health authorities will sit on the specialised services consortia of PCTs.
What is all of this telling us? It is as clear as daylight that the natural level for specialised services commissioning, given the structure of the NHS that the Government have forged, is the strategic health authority. Many of us here may think that 28 is too many for that tier in the NHS. Indeed, I should be prepared to lay money that that number will come down through mergers. But that is the structure that we have and within that it is more logical to devolve specialised service commissioning to strategic health authorities as they most naturally represent the population for whom services will be commissioned.
The Minister told us in Committee how he envisaged PCTs working in networks, not just for specialised services but also for public health and other
518
areas that go beyond the relatively small populations covered by each PCT. If those networks do not function well enough, the strategic health authority would have to step in and, to use the euphemism, "performance manage" them. That rests on networks being a natural way of operating. The Government's concept of health service management is through a lot of ever more complex networks and partnerships. That is simply too complex and ignores the fundamental principle of organisation design, which is maximum simplicity.
I do not doubt that managing the health service is a complex matter but I do doubt that creating complexity for the sake of it is a sensible approach. I should stress that we on these Benches do not oppose the devolution of functions. It was we and not the current Government who started the firm push towards decentralisation in our 1990 reforms. But we do not agree with decentralisation to unnatural levels or with over-complex management structures.
As I said in Committee and will say again now, specialised services are vital services and must be protected. It is in our view wholly wrong to use the infant PCT structures in some kind of experimental re-engineering of networks to undertake this essential commissioning task. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the Minister discussed in some detail on the second day of our debate in Committee the question of specialised services and the way in which they would be commissioned. As we have heard, the Government's proposals involve the dismantling of the current regional specialised commissioning groups and the creation of commissioning consortia. The reason for that, as the Minister said in Committee, involved the interrelationship between primary, secondary and tertiary care, rather than treating specialised services as an isolated service to be resourced and dealt with in a completely different way from that applied to other services that will be commissioned by PCTs in the future. Despite those words of attempted reassurance, many of us believe that the Government's current proposals to devolve NHS specialised commissioning responsibilities to primary care trusts in that way could lead to a deterioration in the national provision of specialised services.
Clearly, different primary care trusts will have different commissioning expertise. Who will be responsible for poor commissioning in, for example, specialised heart surgery? Who will monitor performance, and so on? Who will even guarantee that there will be the necessary expertise within a particular consortium? That could, we believe, lead to a new postcode lottery for specialised services, in which the availability of treatment for those serious illnesses was decided not on clinical need but on geographical location.
The Minister mentioned the interim role of the regional specialised commissioning groups (RSCGs) in handing over capacity and skills to primary care

519
trusts. That is extremely welcome, but why cannot those bodies be kept in place as a permanent repository of expertise and information? Much of the Bill is already so virtual as to give rise to real concerns. We have public health networks, patients forums coordination and now the consortia. All of that seems to stem from the Secretary of State's unwillingness to have any clear lines of accountability whatever.
Although the primary care trusts that join the consortia will be bound by existing financial commitments, they will have complete discretion about whether or not they wish to prioritise spending on particular specialised areas and join an individual consortium in the first place.
The RSCGs will have no power to compel primary care trusts to join consortia. Will the strategic health authorities be able to do so, other than by banging heads, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested?
The proposed system of PCT consortia could lead to a substantial disruption in the provision of specialised services. The Minister's words in Committee were helpful as regards the transitional process to cover circumstances in which LHA service agreements run out and existing consortia do not effectively cover specialised commissioning needs. However, the fear on these Benches—and, clearly, on other Benches—is about the longer term. We believe that the arrangements in the Bill are not satisfactory and we have considerable doubts about the future of specialised commissioning.
Earl Howe: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am very concerned about the risk that we are running in relation to specialised services—that of destabilising the commissioning mechanisms that have been built up over the past few years. It seems that there are huge dangers in dismantling the regional system of specialised commissioning for services such as paediatric and neonatal intensive care, cleft lip and palate, burns and plastic surgery and haemophilia. Much careful work has been done at the regional level in terms of developing coherent plans for vital services such as those. That work must be safeguarded; it must not be jettisoned.
My noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned the work of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group, which deals with highly specialised services such as rare cancers and liver, heart and lung transplants. The work done by the NSCAG has created coherence and consistency across the country. I hope that the Minister will reassure us in his reply that there is no threat to the work of that group.
My concern as regards any commissioning that takes place above the level of the primary care trust—I suppose that this anticipates a later provision in the Bill—is that there is a lack of clarity about the arrangements for patient and public involvement in the commissioning process for services of that kind. A rule of thumb should be followed: wherever commissioning takes place—whether at national level, or lower down in the structure—that is the place at
520
which the consultation must be conducted. Consultation cannot be ignored in that context because it is a key part of the quality agenda. I believe that that makes it essential for there to be a specific duty to consult at the right level. We shall deal with that point later. Having a hotchpotch of primary care trusts consulting their local communities in different ways would be unacceptable because it would not be possible to determine whether consultation on a particular change covering a specialist service, for example, had or had not been effective; nor would it be clear who could be held to account for it.
If the Government are wedded to their plans—I take it that they are—I commend to them the idea of a joint commissioning committee in a group of primary care trusts, with clear responsibilities for consultation and patient and public involvement as well as clear accountability and audit arrangements. For that, it may be necessary for PCTs to pool their budgets and to delegate their legal duty to commission. Perhaps the Minister could comment on those ideas when he replies.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the Minister knows full well my interest in specialised services. Perhaps I should declare an interest: I broke my back and had my life saved at a spinal injury unit. Those units are spread across the country; there are seven in England. They go far beyond strategic regions; many of them are super-regional.
Primary care trusts can be parochial. Through the self-help group that I founded with the Spinal Injuries Association, I have come across many people who were not sent to spinal injuries units. My noble friend Lady McFarlane is well aware of the problems and costs of dealing with pressure sores, which can be prevented with good nursing. That involves not merely specialised medical people but also nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. It is vital that those patients go quickly to a specialised unit; otherwise, the whole process becomes very expensive. They can spend up to an additional year getting the problems treated and solved through plastic surgery and all sorts of other measures. Urinary tract infections and the treatment of the bowels may be involved. I have previously discussed such issues in the House. I am aware of the case of a young man who went to Charing Cross Hospital with a broken neck. There was no free spinal unit. No nurse would evacuate his bowels. Noble Lords can imagine the distress that that caused a young man in his twenties. However, that is the sort of situation that arises.
The Minister visited a spinal unit, and we are grateful to him for that. He knows what I am talking about. There are many other highly specialised conditions, including neurological conditions. Some GPs may not have even heard of some of those conditions. Sometimes the training of medical students does not include specialised services; for example, in relation to haemophiliacs, HIV patients and, of course, cancer patients. One could go on. It is a disaster if such patients do not go to a specialised unit quickly.

521
Therefore, I want to ask the Government why they do not include this issue in the Bill in order to place some emphasis on its importance. I know perfectly well that many specialists want to hold on to interesting patients and then disaster happens.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if it is necessary, it may be worth returning to the central thrust of the Bill; that is, our commitment to establishing one body which is as close as possible to the public that it serves with a comprehensive responsibility for the health needs of the public in a particular area. For that reason, we see it as essential that the responsibility for commissioning specialist services rests with primary care trusts rather than being placed somewhere else in the system.
Whenever devolution or delegation is proposed, understandably there are always anxieties about whether one should devolve this or that function. I know that the Liberal Democrat Benches will join with us generally in resisting those arguments because frequently the benefits outweigh the risks that are advanced.
The general thrust is that jointly commissioning specialist services by agreement or through a lead PCT is very different from, and we believe vastly better than, having no power at primary care trust level for making judgments about the form of specialist services that are required best to meet the needs of the public.
Having said that, noble Lords have raised a number of concerns about specialised services. We know that in such services patient numbers are small and quality can be achieved only by bringing together a critical mass of patients in each centre. That means that relatively few centres will offer treatment and there will not be a specialist centre in every locality and every local hospital.
As has been mentioned, specialised services are defined by reference to the National Specialised Services Definitions Set, the first version of which was published in December last year. It was a major piece of work commissioned by the Government involving contributions from clinicians, managers, commissioners and patients. It has been published on the department's web site.
Under shifting the balance of power, primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning health services for their local populations. As I indicated, we believe that rightly that should include specialist services. Why do we believe that the anxieties that have perhaps properly been expressed in this debate will not be realised? First, PCTs will be expected to work together on a consortium basis to secure specialised services. That will be an expectation from the department and, more specifically, from the strategic health authority. If, against any bounds of common sense or argument, they are resisted, then ultimately the strategic health authority has the power of direction, although one does not expect or believe that that will be necessary.
522
However, there is no clarity in that respect. The strategic health authority has a duty to ensure that effective consortia arrangements are in place.
Secondly, PCTs are expected to work together in order to maintain continuity and ensure stability. In the short term, clearly PCTs will be extremely busy in the next 12 months or so but they will be expected to honour existing agreements—financial and otherwise—that have, in the past, been negotiated by regional specialised commissioning groups.
Therefore, the existing systems will continue for at least the next year, allowing people to settle in and then, through discussion within a locality or strategic health authority, to hold discussions and make decisions about whether or not any changes in the past practice of commissioning might be desirable.
In order to support that process, regional specialised commissioning groups will continue for at least a further year, with PCTs replacing the former health authority members. RSCGs will have a specific role in developing PCT capacity to commission specialised services as part of a planned transition to successor arrangements. As part of that, in the context of specialised services it will be particularly important to ensure that enough people with the right skills continue in their role.
A number of encouraging reports—I believe that a survey was carried out in January this year—show that PCTs are already beginning to engage very successfully in discussions about taking on commissioning roles for specialised services. But it is not possible to come up with a single geographic model for specialised functions. In some cases, the only sensible commissioning unit will be at national level. In response to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the national level commissioning body will continue with its role, although, in time, the functions with which it deals will evolve because that is the nature of medical service and medical science.
However, it is not possible to say that the strategic health authority is the right body to take on responsibility in certain areas. I have given the principal reasons why we believe that PCTs should have the comprehensive responsibility for services for their public, including commissioning services. Functionally, the strategic health authority might be appropriate in relation to some functions but not in relation to others. There will be a whole pattern of service needs and service distribution which will vary from that. Therefore, there is no single "Holy Grail" answer in response to where all such specialised commissioning should take place.
As I indicated, the role of the strategic health authority will be to oversee the consortia arrangements, with regional directors of health and social care ensuring that the specialised services that go beyond strategic health authorities are also delivered properly within that region.
The Government are adopting a pragmatic approach to commissioning arrangements for specialised services. As I have signalled, current

523
commissioning arrangements will be continued for at least the next year. Local experience will then inform how they should evolve in the future.
However, the Government have given serious consideration to the valid points raised by noble Lords during the Committee stage of the Bill. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that my right honourable friend John Hutton announced at a joint meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on 21st March that over the next six months he would head a review into commissioning arrangements for specialised services, in particular, for the regional-type services covering several strategic health authorities, with a view to issuing guidance in the autumn on arrangements beyond 2002–03.
The review will canvass views on how best to integrate the current RSCG arrangements with the new health and social care regional boundaries so as to ensure that highly specialised services covering large geographical areas are properly planned, funded and monitored.
Finally, I turn to a number of the questions raised by noble Lords during the debate. I have marked that the national commissioning body will continue. In answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as to who would be responsible for commissioning, for ensuring that the commissioning is carried out expertly or for monitoring the commissioning quality at PCT or at consortia level, the answer is clearly that it will be the strategic health authority or, if it is at the supra-SHA level, the regional director.
As to why regional directors should not continue, I believe that that was covered in the previous points that I made. The answer was that that was the case for two reasons: the first was devolution; and the second was that there is nothing perfect about a regional level.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, indicated his concern about the risks of dismantling, as he saw it, well-developed and coherent plans for specialist services at regional level. But, of course, such structures may well not be dismantled. They will certainly continue for at least another year. One would then expect to see a process of evolution, as people felt that improvements could be made to them, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper.
With regard to the question of patient and public involvement, I should have thought that that would need to take place at a number of levels. Clearly, the question of whether or not a patient considered that he was being properly served would always need to be dealt with at PCT level. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, gave a very human example of where one would expect a challenge to take place if a certain practice persisted. However, one would also expect there to be the potential to scrutinise a consortium arrangement and a specialised service arrangement. The nature of scrutiny will of course differ in each of those three places according to the functions they are pursuing.
524
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked about pooled budgets. It is perfectly possible as part of a commissioning agreement for PCTs not only to commission jointly but to pool and share risk by putting funding into a pooled budget. One can well see circumstances in which that would be both sensible and desirable.
I am grateful for the many points raised in this debate and in Committee. We recognise that these are substantial changes. However, we fundamentally believe that they will in time lead to a better service for the public. That is why we resist the amendments.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. The concerns which have been raised are fundamentally about accountability and the strength of the accountability relationships. There is deep scepticism about the efficacy of networks as proper accountability arrangements for something as important as specialised services.
I was heartened, however, to hear that the regional specialised commissioning groups will stay in position for "at least another year". The "at least" was significant as the Minister seemed to be saying that subsequent events will be determined by how the arrangements progress. I should hope that the arrangements will not be dismantled if there is any significant doubt that PCTs can handle them on their own. I was also interested to hear what Mr Hutton has announced in another place about a review. I shall read with interest the comments of both the Minister and Mr Hutton on the matter.
Therefore, I do not think that it would he appropriate to press this amendment today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Northovermoved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"THE HEALTH INSPECTORATE
(1) There shall be a body corporate known as the Health Inspectorate, which shall take effect from 1st April 2004.
(2) The Health Inspectorate shall assume at that date the functions undertaken prior to that date by—

(a) The Commission for Health Improvement, and

(b) The National Care Standards Commission.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments to the legislation relating to the health service in England and Wales as in his opinion facilitate, or are otherwise desirable in connection with, subsections (1) and (2)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 seeks to establish a health inspectorate incorporating CHI and the National Care Standards Commission. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, moved the provision in Committee and we supported him. 'We had a particular and longstanding concern—which has been supported in your Lordship's House but overturned in another place—that independent hospitals should come within the same inspection system as NHS hospitals. That point is the subject of our Amendment No. 23.

525
The case for Amendment No. 23 also was argued in Committee. As we seem to have prevailed in the matter, perhaps I do not need to rehearse the arguments. However, we are seeking to probe the position in the light of the Chancellor's Budget Statement on 17th April; the resultant statement by Alan Milburn in another place on 18th April, which was repeated to your Lordships by the Minister; and the document Delivering the NHS Plan. In the section on "Strengthening Accountability", that document states that there will be an,
"independent, single new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection which will bring together the health value for money work of the Audit Commission, the work of CHI and the private healthcare role of the National Care Standards Commission. The new single Commission will have responsibility for inspecting both the public and private health care sectors".
Given that we have been calling for just such integration for a number of years and in various health Bills, we welcome the fact that we have finally persuaded the Government of our case. Although it may seem slightly churlish of me, I find it irresistible to refer to the Minister's reply in Committee—on 18th March; not so long ago—that such a merger was "somewhat premature". One has to wonder how a matter of a few weeks and the Easter holiday has given him sufficient pause for thought to decide that a merger is no longer premature.
Indeed, the Government have adopted our proposals with such enthusiasm that even more organisations are to be merged. Welcome though that conversion is, however, I feel some sympathy for the Minister. One consequence of this Bill's passage is that we shall soon have to unpick other arrangements. Should not the Government stop right now—as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones suggested when we first considered the Bill—collect their thoughts and work out what they really need to do? Perhaps my amendment should not simply have sought the merger of CHI and the National Care Standards Commission but sought to merge this Bill and its successor. Meanwhile, I recognise that there seems to be agreement on merging some of the current inspection organisations and strengthening their independence from government. In the spirit of wishing to know exactly what the Government have in mind, I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 22, which is grouped with Amendment No. 10.
Although Amendment No. 22 is similar to Amendment No. 10, Amendment No. 10 proposes the setting up of a new body—the health inspectorate—to take over all of the functions. Amendment No. 22 takes the different and more targeted approach of combining only the independent health sector functions of the National Care Standards Commission and the relevant functions of CHI. In that respect it is like Amendment No. 23.
In Committee, we proposed an amendment in the terms of Amendment No. 10. However, we recognise that the Government's policy has moved on, and we
526
are confident that the Minister will welcome Amendment No. 22 as it more closely reflects government policy. The White Paper Delivering the NHS Plan sets out the Government's own aims, which include the merger of the private health functions of the National Care Standards Commission with those of CHI.
This group of amendments concentrates on merging the inspection functions of CHI with those of the National Care Standards Commission relating to independent hospitals. These amendments will not transfer the Audit Commission's value for money functions which are part of the Government's White Paper proposals. We believe that audit issues are separate from inspection issues. When the Government choose to present legislative proposals to address those issues, we shall of course consider them carefully. Nevertheless, it is not yet abundantly clear that the transfer of the Audit Commission's functions is a good thing. However, it clearly would be a good thing to merge the relevant inspection functions of CHI and the National Care Standards Commission. Like the Liberal Democrats, we on these Benches have been arguing for such a merger ever since we debated the Care Standards Act 2000.
Timing is another difference between Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 10 sets up a new body and allows until April 2004 for the provision to take effect. However, the National Care Standards Commission has been in existence for only a few weeks and it would make sense to transfer its functions now. Although it would be complex and take some months to establish a new body, using CHI as the vehicle for merger would allow much faster implementation.
I recently had the opportunity to talk to the chief executive of the National Care Standards Commission, which is very much an embryonic organisation. The chief executive is trying to create a coherent whole out of 2,000 or so staff who have been drawn largely from local authorities across the country. Inevitably, the organisation does not yet have a clear ethos and corporate style. Although it is being structured and developed for the agenda which was first set for it, that is not happening in a manner that matches the Government's latest statement of intent.
I am quite clear that the chief executive, whom I have known for a number of years, will be energetic in his desire to forge a fully functioning National Care Standards Commission and that he will work towards whatever structure will facilitate the ultimate transfer of its functions. However, I am also clear that it is not a good use of his time, or that of his management team, to concentrate on bringing the private healthcare functions fully within the National Care Standards Commission. It would be much better if they could concentrate on transferring those functions to CHI so that the style, ethos and structure can be determined from the outset in a new home. It is also not fair to the independent hospital sector to have them exposed to different regimes over time.

527
The Government have announced that the inspection of independent hospitals will be carried out by CHI on behalf of the National Care Standards Commission. But that still leaves significant functions in the hands of the commission. It seems that the only sensible course is to let CHI forge the managerial identity of all of the independent hospital functions. It does not make sense to keep them in separate bodies, however much co-ordination and co-operation takes place.
I look forward to the Minister's comments. I fully expect him to welcome the move towards government policy exhibited by these Benches and by the Liberal Democrat Benches.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall speak briefly, as the dinner hour approaches. I could not resist twisting the Minister's tail a little further than my noble friend Lady Northover has done, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Words such as "water under the bridge" and "blinding lights" spring to mind in respect of the Secretary of State's—and indeed the Minister's —conversion.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister of his words in Committee to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He said:
"There is nothing between us on this matter, therefore. Our intention is that there will be a convergence between the activities of these four bodies, including CHI and the National Care Standards Commission, drawing together their expertise in joint work where appropriate, and sharing best practice".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1202.]
The reference at the time was to health and to social care. It is interesting, therefore, that between March, when the Minister uttered those words, and the publication in April of Delivering the NHS Plan, the Government changed their mind about how many audit and inspection bodies they wanted.
I appreciate that it is difficult for the Minister to keep up with the pace of reform ideas within his department and indeed outside it. I wonder whether all this is the result of having policy-makers at No. 10, at the Treasury and at the department itself, all vying for influence, so that it is not known finally what a policy outcome will be until the protagonists have worn themselves out in argument. I assume that that took place some time in early April.
Further questions arise in connection with the new body. As my noble friend indicated, these amendments have been superseded and could well have been substituted with a much grander amendment. But whatever the structure, the quality of information generated by trusts which will be subject to inspection and audit is of great importance. I ask the Minister to comment on the recent Audit Commission paper, Data Remember, which highlighted the need for much better management and production of data, particularly non-clinical data. I am sure that the Minister has the facts discovered by the Audit Commission, which in many respects were quite depressing in terms of the quality of data, particularly non-clinical data, that are available to inspection and
528
audit. It does not matter whether that is the Audit Commission or the new body. The new body will have to have that data available to it.
I share much of the agnosticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as to whether the value-for-money inspection aspect of the Audit Commission needs to be merged into the new body. Clearly, we shall await the proposals. However, I ask the Minister to comment on an interesting statement made last week by Sir Andrew Foster, the controller of the Audit Commission. He said that the Government are taking a "risk" in launching the commission for healthcare audit inspection while radically reforming the structure of the NHS. He is very close to the audit and inspection process.
There is a further situation. On the same page of the Health Service Journal—which I know the Minister reads when it is hot off the press—there is an article relating to Dame Deirdre Hine, who it appears will not be carrying on in the same function with the new audit body. The issue is to some degree about whether the new body will have a developmental agenda or whether it will be purely audit and inspection. Many people feel that CHI has been successful in its developmental approach. It has not been a purely punitive, performance and target based body. There has been quite a degree of mentoring, coaching and so on about its activities. Many people and many managers in particular have welcomed that approach. It would be unfortunate if some of those elements were lost in creating the new body.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I want to speak against the amendment. The Secretary of State has already announced the need for organisational integration of CHI, the National Care Standards Commission, the SSI and the Audit Commission to create the commission for healthcare, audit and inspection, and to integrate the health work of CHI with the private healthcare function of the NCSC and the work of the Audit Commission. I understand that this has been welcomed by those who work in that field.
It should be remembered that the work of the National Care Standards Commission has only just been established. A major reorganisation and shake-up such as is set out in Amendment No. 10 is not feasible or desirable at this stage.
Of course, all existing bodies should work in the closest co-operation and they have already expressed their intention to do so. A single new body for inspecting healthcare in both the NHS and the private sector is already planned. This merger needs time and sensitivity to settle down, and we should not seek to complicate the situation further as would happen if the amendment were to be accepted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her probing amendment, which I have great pleasure in responding to. All I can say is that I believe that there is complete consistency in all that I have said on these

529
matters in this House, going back over the years of pleasure that I have had in bringing NHS Bills before the House.
So far as concerns my remarks in Committee and where we are now, what the Budget Statement and the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health took forward was the consideration in the Kennedy report, which argued for a review of the regulatory bodies to ensure greater clarity and greater consistency. That is what has happened, and the announcement took place two weeks ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised an interesting question as to whether we should have put together a health and social care inspectorate rather than two single inspectorates. We considered carefully whether we should go down the route of establishing a single health and social care inspectorate—to which the amendment moved by his noble friend would lead, although the title "health inspectorate" would not be very appropriate if we went down that route. An assessment took place and a number of criteria were considered. They included the impact on the burden of service providers, the effect on organisational stability, the effect on the cost of inspections and a number of other matters.
In the end, we came to the conclusion, particularly given the nature of the organisational change that would have to take place, that it would be better to keep to a health inspectorate and social care inspectorate, but making it clear to the new organisations—and primary legislation will be required—that they would have a duty to co-operate together. As I have said, legislation to establish the new inspectorial bodies will be introduced as soon as we have worked through the practical details and as soon as parliamentary time allows. As to whether I introduced a new definition of what "somewhat premature" means, the six-week gap between my saying that and now should not be taken as a general precedent for a definition by government as to what "somewhat premature" means.
Life moves on, and the question now is how to ensure that in the interim we continue arrangements with the National Care Standards Commission and with CHI to ensure that their current functions are managed effectively, while setting up as soon as we can the interim arrangements for taking forward our new proposals. As noble Lords will know, CHI is currently able to review arrangements for clinical governance in NHS services provided by the independent sector, including those provided by independent hospitals. We are examining how we may take forward that work.
The Bill gives CHI a new function of inspection against published standards and that responsibility will be extended to services for NHS patients wherever they are treated. We have deliberately made provision in the Care Standards Act 2000 for CHI to be able to exercise the functions of the National Care Standards Commission and vice versa. Of course, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we shall seek to ensure that those arrangements and agreements are
530
completed as quickly as possible. I have no argument with her in terms of wanting to ensure that that is put in place as quickly as possible.
I noted with interest what the noble Baroness had to say about her discussions with the chief executive of the National Care Standards Commission. He made a statement when we announced the decision for two inspectorates, and said that he welcomed the proposed legal requirement for the new commissions to co-operate with one another. He also said that we must ensure that the interests of service users are at the heart of the reform. In our project plan for taking this work forward we shall work closely with the commission, with CHI and with the Audit Commission to ensure that there are smooth transition arrangements.
It is worth making the point that the new health inspectorate will be staffed largely by current employees of CHI, the commission and the Audit Commission. Of course, they will continue their existing important work until the new body comes into being. We appreciate that the transfer of staff needs careful thought and we shall ensure that that takes on a seamless transition to minimise the impact on current staff. On the issue of working together in the interim, we shall meet with CHI, the National Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission to ensure that that happens as effectively as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the decision of Dame Deirdre Hine not to seek re-appointment to CHI when her term of office comes to an end. I take this opportunity to place on record my and the Government's appreciation of the tremendous work that she has undertaken.
On whether the inspectorate will be an inspectorate or a developmental agency, one needs to be abundantly clear that it will be an inspectorate. That is our intention. We have always seen the modernisation agency as the main developmental arm of the National Health Service, but we expect the new inspectorate—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord kill the rumour that the Secretary of State would rather like the inspectorate to be like Ofsted with Mr Chris Woodhead?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the first time I have heard the suggestion that Mr Woodhead may be appointed to the health inspectorate. It would be wrong of me to engage in speculation about who would be appointed because that will follow from the process of legislation. That sounds rather unlikely.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I meant "like Mr Woodhead" and not actually Mr Woodhead. That would be a fate that I had not contemplated for the new Audit Commission.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as far as I know there is no one like Mr Woodhead! I pay tribute to Dame Deirdre Hine and I say quite clearly that the body is to be an inspectorate. Of course, we would

531
expect the inspectorate to build on the achievements of the commission, CHI and the Audit Commission. We are building up a great deal of expertise as to how effective inspections work. I certainly agree with him when he implies that inspection is not just about sticks, but also about carrots and about acknowledging successes. If one reads the reports by CHI, one will see that while, quite rightly, they pinpoint problems and concerns, they also highlight successes within individual organisations.
On the Audit Commission, I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I make it clear that we are talking about the value-for-money studies and not the more general responsibilities of the Audit Commission that will remain with that commission in relation to the NHS. On data quality issues, the Audit Commission report did not paint an altogether wholly depressing picture. Beware of Audit Commission press releases that sometimes do not always reflect the degree of comment within the Audit Commission's report itself. Yes, it pinpointed problems but it also showed areas where the NHS has improved. We have made clear to the NHS that boards of NHS organisations are responsible for their own quality data. There are distinct signs of improvement in quality, but we shall urge the NHS to do even better in the future.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg to differ with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is not noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, or those on her Benches who have drawn closer to the Government, but the other way around. Amendment No. 10, which was formerly a Tory amendment, is a probing amendment, a vehicle and not a detailed prescription. It was tabled in order to explore exactly what the Government have in mind. I am not sure how far we have achieved that. It is certainly very welcome when a Minister, in his consistency, moves from opposing us to supporting where we stand. I would welcome such consistency any time. We look forward to seeing the Government's detailed plans as soon as possible. In relation to private hospitals they cannot come too soon. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fillkin: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.48 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled People in the Performing Arts
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that cultural attitudes towards the employment of disabled people in the performing arts are a barrier to their successful employment in this area.
532
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate. I also thank Equity, the London Arts Board and the Arts Council for their helpful briefings.
I tabled this debate to put the spotlight on issues relevant to disabled people who want to work in the performing arts. I want to ask Government what role they believe that they have to play in ensuring that disabled people have an equal opportunity to obtain work and how much action they believe is best left to the world of the performing arts itself and more widely to all of us who go to the theatre, enjoy music, watch films and TV and listen to the radio.
I have planned this short debate for some time, but the catalyst was seeing Eric Sykes perform on stage. His star quality was not dimmed by age or his hearing and sight difficulties. Not a bit of it. His sense of comic timing and delivery enchanted the whole audience.
It is axiomatic that the performing arts should reflect all of society and therefore that they should harness the ability of disabled people to play a full part. It is the right thing to do and it can make good business sense too. Star quality is not confined to performers who have no disability.
Why is it that disabled performers today face a similar situation to that of black and Asian performers 30 years ago—that is, few are given the opportunity to perform at all and are likely to be confined in the main to stereotypical and limiting roles?
I was intrigued to read the Eclipse report published last week by the Arts Council in partnership with the Theatrical Management Association. It plans to combat what it perceives as institutional racism in the theatre sector. It sets a target of March 2003 for every publicly funded theatre organisation in England to have reviewed its equal opportunities policy and ascertained whether its set targets are being achieved and, if not, to draw up a positive action plan to develop opportunities for African, Caribbean and Asian practitioners. And does the Minister endorse that report tonight? Does he believe that that may be a way forward to tackle the barriers faced by disabled people?
Who should take action? What could or should they do to change cultural attitudes which inhibit the employment of disabled people in the performing arts? The Government have a crucial role to play in the way in which they direct employment and social security policy. The last Conservative government put the Disability Discrimination Act on the statute book and that will reach its final stage of implementation in 2004.
Much has been done to improve physical access to arts venues. But there is still a severe lack of access to backstage areas. Particularly for the small arts venues, there are huge financial barriers to the implementation of access policy. Arts venues are often housed in elderly buildings, many of them historic, where the modifications required to improve access facilities require major building works. What resources and support are the Government making available to assist venues to achieve full physical access?

533
It is also vital that disabled people should have access to the same professional training opportunities as their non-disabled colleagues. Most accessible training opportunities are still provided by under-resourced organisations such as Heart 'n Soul. That is an arts organisation which offers creative opportunities to people with learning disabilities. Though in receipt of some public funding, such organisations are registered charities and rely heavily on support from trusts and foundations.
Can the Minister tell the House whether there are any higher education courses in the performing arts accessible to people with learning disabilities in particular? I am told that the Razor Edge Theatre Company, in association with the Rose Bruford College, is currently trying to set up such a course but that financial support for it has not yet been confirmed. I note of course that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 extends the scope of the DDA to cover education. By 2005 all bodies responsible for the provision of education and other related services will have a legal duty not to discriminate against disabled students and other disabled people. What measures are the Government taking now to assist educational bodies to adjust their recruitment policies, their courses and their buildings so that they can comply with the new Act?
The Government could also assist by increasing the flexibility of the benefits system still further. The performing arts are staffed to a significant extent by people undertaking short-term, temporary and part-time contracts. After all, that is a way of working that often suits disabled people who cannot always work full-time for indefinite periods. However, people need to be able to return easily and immediately to benefits following a period of work. Due to the inflexibility in the benefits system, many disabled people working in the performing arts draw a salary way below their worth or indeed do not accept any remuneration at all.
While I appreciate that the threshold of therapeutic earnings recently increased to £20 a week, that still gives disabled people little income allowance before their benefits are affected. Does the Minister believe that disabled people should be able to enjoy pay parity with their colleagues without the fear of it leaving them exposed in other areas of their lives? Is the Minister aware that the Access to Work scheme has great potential but in its current form is failing to meet the needs of disabled people who are seeking work in the arts?
I am advised by the London Arts Board that specific problems are as follows. First, many arts contracts are part-time or short-term. But the ATW application process can be extremely slow and complex and therefore in some cases it is simply not an option. Freelance work is very common in the arts sector, yet it can be very difficult for freelance workers to gain access to ATW.
Secondly, working in the performing arts often means that one is travelling to work in non-office environments. That can generate needs which ATW
534
does not meet. For example, it is very difficult to get personal assistance covered by ATW. Finally, ATW is not available to disabled people in work experience or placements in training. How do the Government plan to address those three problems?
So far in my speech I have concentrated on the responsibility of government, since it is the raison d'être of any Unstarred Question that one asks the Minister to answer questions. Ministers in your Lordships' House are required to give very much a virtuoso performance. They are required to respond to questions concerning all departments and not just on those for which they have primary responsibility. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, tried to say last Thursday that he did not have to answer for the DTI. But I am afraid he does—that department and all the others. However, in sympathy with him because some of my questions require a detailed knowledge of benefits and educational matters, I gave advance notice of those questions to the DCMS.
Beyond the responsibility of the Minister, I am aware that there are responsibilities vested in the world of the performing arts and in all of us, the audiences, which are just as, if not more, important. I hope that other noble Lords will have time to touch upon them. Perhaps I may give brief examples. First, lottery distributors need to ensure that there is a fair distribution of funds. The Arts Council of England has done valuable work. For example, in 1993 it set up the apprenticeship scheme which works with arts organisations to create opportunities for people with disabilities to get access to employment with arts organisations. It is currently working on an arts and benefits guidance booklet to enable disabled people to make informed choices about work and benefits and hopes that that will be published this summer.
In the arts world, producers, writers and casting directors all need to take a positive approach to the employment of disabled people. Does the Minister agree that they should be aiming at inclusive casting? Is the Minister aware of the valuable work done by Equity to highlight the ability of disabled performers in its publication Spotlight?
Perhaps above all else we the audience have the main role to play. We can take a constructive attitude. We can have an open mind and a willingness to engage with the issues and challenge our own perceptions of what constitutes an entertaining and successful performance. So are we stuck with a vicious circle or can we break free? The vicious circle is that the arts can play a vital role in changing attitudes, but the general invisibility of disabled people, particularly in the performing arts, and to a woeful extent in television, will not change until all the issues I have mentioned today are addressed. The problem is that the issues will not be fully addressed until the arts help to change our attitude towards disabled people.
Next year is the European Year of Disabled People. Let us be ambitious. Let us set that as our deadline for breaking free of the vicious circle.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing this debate on this important but, it has to be said, frequently overlooked topic. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said, which is perhaps not a position in which I would ordinarily find myself.
I start by declaring an interest in that I am the now outgoing executive director of the National Theatre and the principal designate of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, both organisations which have a part to play, and indeed are working to play their part, in addressing the issues raised by this Unstarred Question.
The Question seems to address two separate although obviously related matters; first, whether there are in fact impediments to the employment of people with disabilities in the performing arts; secondly, whether those impediments are the result of a cultural bias against such people, whether in society at large or specifically within the performing arts. The probability, based on the available evidence—of which the noble Baroness put a great deal before us—is that the answer to both questions is yes. That could be a very short debate. But that simple answer conceals a complex reality, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. The following are quotations from Promoting Change, which is a handbook produced by the Employers' Forum on Disability.
"Many people react to disability in ways that are rooted in unfamiliarity coupled with lack of information.
People may find it difficult to change their way of looking at disability because the term covers a wide range of very different people and they simply do not know who 'disabled people' really are. Only wheelchair users or perhaps blind or deaf people may come to mind.
Many people are deeply uneasy or even frightened by their level of discomfort or lack of experience".
We should not forget that that is the context in which issues of this kind are discussed, whether in relation to the arts or any other aspects of employment.
Historically, I am sorry to say, the arts have not always been in the vanguard in ensuring employment opportunities are available for disabled people, although over the past 20 years some important steps have been taken to improve matters. I am not just referring to opportunities for performers. There are many other jobs to be done, from stage management to payroll management, and from lighting technician to press officer. The people who fulfil those functions are as vital to the success of any production as the actors, dancers or musicians who appear on the stage. The Arts Council's apprenticeship scheme which the noble Baroness has already mentioned, in which I am glad to say that the National Theatre participated, has helped to ensure that some disabled practitioners in these areas have been able to gain experience through secondments.
However, the most visible way to improve the profile and status of disabled people in the performing arts is through the wider and more integrated employment of performers. There is some way to go
536
before we can say that that has been achieved. In relation also to what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said in connection with the employment of performers from ethnic minorities, it has taken a long time for these issues to be pushed up the agenda, both of the performing arts and of the funding organisations. The issue has always been there, but it has taken a long time for us to be able to say with any degree of confidence that we have made progress. I fear that these issues do take a long time.
However, companies such as the Graeae Theatre Company and the CanDoCo dance company have been working for years producing excellent work using disabled performers and performing for large and mixed audiences. These companies have done a huge amount to break down the barriers and to show just how extraordinary can be the impact of seeing performers whose ability to communicate is in no way limited, and indeed is sometimes actually enhanced, by their disabilities, as the noble Baroness said. But the big challenge remains that of getting more mainstream training organisations and mainstream performing companies to see the possibilities, rather than the difficulties, of including performers with disabilities routinely in their plans.
One of Graeae's founding members is the actor Nabil Shaban. Nabil has had a distinguished career in theatre, film and television. He has also been a forceful advocate for the right of disabled performers to be considered on equal terms with their non-disabled colleagues. I am sure that he would not mind my saying that over the years I have spent a few uncomfortable hours listening to him point out the shortcomings of my own, and other, organisations as far as concerns our record of employment. I hope that he will also not mind my saying that in order to employ him, which we were delighted and privileged to do at the National Theatre, we had to make quite a few adaptations to facilities backstage, and to review our health and safety policies and procedures, to ensure that he could work in a dignified and independent way within a building built with absolutely no concession to the possibility that any performer might be less than fully mobile, fully sighted or with full hearing.
These days, theatres, like all other places of public resort and entertainment, generally try to provide a decent service to their disabled paying customers. The DDA has made sure that if they do not, sanctions can be brought to bear. The National Theatre provides a range of services for its disabled patrons, including proper wheelchair access, signed performances and audio description. In 1996 it received a substantial award from the National Lottery, mainly to refurbish the public areas of the theatre. Many of the improvements were directed towards making it easier and more comfortable for disabled audience members to visit. I regret to say that less attention was paid to the rearrangement of the backstage areas. I venture to suggest—indeed, the noble Baroness has already suggested this—that one of the biggest disincentives

537
for arts organisations, particularly smaller, less well-funded ones, to the employment of performers with disabilities is the challenge—mainly financial—of providing appropriate facilities.
Speaking at the launch of the London Arts Disability Action Plan last November, Jenny Sealey, who is the current artistic director of Graeae, asked:
"Are people not employing disabled actors because of lack of accessible rehearsal spaces? … This is a very real issue in London … Where there is good rehearsal space the owner of the space has to hire it out for commercial gain and small companies get priced out".
She certainly has a point.
There is also the question of education and training. I learnt a couple of days ago that the Guildhall School of Music and Drama has selected a severely physically disabled student to join its three-year acting course from next autumn. The fact that this was being reported to me as a matter of some note tells us something about how rare it is. Integrating disabled students into the kind of training that Guildhall and other similar colleges deliver requires thought, imagination, change and a willingness to concede that there is more than one way of being an actor. Body and mind must be trained certainly, but talent comes in many different shapes. As educators we must be open to our responsibility to identify and encourage it, however it presents itself and whatever obstacles may be in the way—although I ask my noble friend the Minister to recognise that there are additional costs involved in such inclusivity, which training organisations find hard to bear from currently available resources.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, as audiences we must learn to set aside our preconceptions. In a world unhealthily preoccupied with narrow models of physical perfection, this can be a challenge.
A couple of years ago, during the National Theatre's Connections Festival of youth theatre, we presented the work of a group of young people from Scotland. All the performers had disabilities—mostly learning, but some physical. It was a very big thing for them to be performing at the National Theatre, but it was also a very big thing for us to be working with them. They were doing a play of their own devising about falling in love and the difficulties that the well-meaning world of caring parents and anxious teachers put in the way of disabled people making relationships. It was a powerful piece.
Within the group was a young man with severe cerebral palsy. He was confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak or control his movements. As far as possible he was completely integrated into the action of the play. He was wheeled about the stage either by a carer or by one of his fellow performers. At a key point in the action there was a silence. Out of it slowly emerged a series of strange and unfamiliar sounds. We looked for the source and gradually realised that he was. Someone was holding a microphone in front of him and he was speaking. The sounds he made had
538
astonishing, unexpected and almost shocking beauty. It was an extraordinary contribution to the whole event.
Of course it was intensely moving. It could not fail to be. But more than that it was revelatory. I learnt something about my own prejudices that evening; as I have on so many other occasions when I have seen performers harness and overcome their disabilities to show me something that I could not have learnt in any other way. The reason it is important that all performing arts should be inclusive is not just that performers with disabilities deserve opportunities to practise their art—they certainly do—but because we the audience can learn so much from seeing them do so.
The Government have, I recognise, a firm ongoing commitment to improve employment prospects for all disabled people. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister, when he comes to reply, will refer to the initiatives which the Arts Council and other bodies are currently progressing to address issues specific to the arts. These include the apprenticeship scheme, which I have already mentioned, and a handbook of good practice on employing disabled people which the Arts Council is also preparing.
I wonder whether my noble friend would also look with his colleagues in other departments at the issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has mentioned, of whether the current benefit system could helpfully be reviewed to minimise the likelihood of barriers to employment being created in this area.
I should like to end by quoting again from the words of Jenny Sealey of Graeae Theatre. At the conclusion of her speech at the launch of the London Arts Disability Action Plan, she said:
"I believe that attitudes as well as physical barriers are stopping disabled representation on the stage. Surely there are only two possible reasons for this state of affairs: either disabled actors are no good or there is institutional discrimination at work. I believe that Graeae and others have proved that the talent is there, albeit somewhat raw, of course, as training opportunities have been scarce … And in many ways some of the … advances in access for audiences—signed performances (never the night you want to go), captions, wheelchair access, audio description and the rest compound the crime as disabled people are finally given the privilege to spectate as the able-bodied world parades itself for their entertainment".
These are powerful, angry words. We have a lot of work to do before they will cease to resonate.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, who has once again introduced a most interesting debate of concern to disabled people. I thank her for raising the issue so thoroughly and for probing the Government on what action they may take. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for her excellent speech. I hope not to be too repetitive.
We have all laughed at the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore "Tarzan" sketch. Peter Cook, playing the casting agent, tells a one-legged Dudley Moore,

539
"You are applying for a role more usually associated with a two-legged artiste. I have nothing against your left leg. The trouble is, neither have you". That is classic comedy but it also raises some fundamental questions about the employment of disabled people in the performing arts. Can people with a discernible impairment be cast in roles where that is not specified in the script? The joke rests on the perception that the answer to that is, "No, they cannot". The result is that there is a major reluctance to employ disabled people in the performing arts.
As other noble Lords have said, the other main barrier to disabled people being employed is the paucity of training for disabled would-be actors. Drama colleges traditionally refuse places to disabled people on the grounds of the self-fulfilling prophecy that they could not possibly get work.
The obvious barriers faced by disabled people in the arts led to a reaction that has come to be known as the disability arts movement. One of its main spokespeople is Sian Vasey, to whom I am grateful for her advice on the subject of this debate. From its beginnings in the 1980s, the disability arts movement wanted to combat more than the purely physical and attitudinal barriers to disabled people's participation in the arts. It also aimed to deal with the cultural barrier of absence—disabled people did not exist. Rarely in mainstream art is the experience of disability depicted and disabled people are seldom to be seen in cultural output of any type. The prime objective of the disability arts movement is to achieve visibility for disabled people. It is committed to creating a world where disability genuinely has a place and to ensuring that the issues that disability raises are given a cultural platform.
Performance was one of the first sectors of the movement to flourish. Other speakers have mentioned the Graeae Theatre Company of disabled actors, which was formed in 1981 and now runs a continuous programme of challenging and exciting work under its outstanding director, Jenny Sealey. I declare an interest as a former trustee. There is also the Strathcona Theatre Company and the Heart 'n Soul musical theatre company, both of which focus on the talents of people with learning difficulties. Those groups all perform work of the highest standard and are now well established.
The work of Candoco, a dance company formed by spinally injured ballet dancer Celeste Daneker, is outstanding, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned. Anyone who sees the beauty of David Toole's dance using solely his arms—he has no legs—becomes aware of the limitations that we have traditionally imposed on that art form by our insistence on physical perfection.
A handful of individual performers who gained their experience from those companies are now staging their own work and achieving recognition. For example, Nabil Shaban, Caroline Parker and Mat Fraser have all recently put on shows in Edinburgh that have transferred to fringe venues in London. Among other
540
individual performers are a number of successful stand-up comedians who have created powerful routines entirely from disability related material.
Turning to the issue of the lack of training for disabled performers, disability theatre companies have to date been almost the sole source of training, but that is clearly a huge role to take on and one that would be better done by training establishments. A small number of drama colleges are now dealing with the chicken-and-egg situation of no training, therefore no job; no job, therefore no training, and are taking disability seriously. The Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts runs a course called Solid Foundations, which awards a certificate of higher education in the performing arts specifically for disabled people. Others taking specific initiatives are the Arden in Manchester and the New Vic in Newham.
The Royal Academy of Dance has given time and thought to the issues and developed a policy that is careful not to exclude disabled people from its programme of classical ballet exams. Its policy document states:
"The RAD will make every effort to accommodate applicants and students with special needs. All applicants must meet the programme entry requirements and must demonstrate their ability to an acceptable level within the programme specific Selection Criteria … Over and above this, the needs of each applicant with disabilities will be investigated and negotiated with the individual on a case by case basis to ensure that s/he will not be disadvantaged. If, after every effort has been made, it is not possible to accommodate an applicant's needy then it may be that the applicant cannot be offered a place".
As Candoco has shown, certain kinds of impairment would not be a barrier to a career in classical dance and a positive approach will enable a start on this career path.
Little statistical information is available in the field. The Arts Council of England ran an initiative to increase the employment of disabled people in the arts back in 1997. According to its chair, Paddy Masefield, at that time 650,000 people were employed in the arts and cultural industries, of whom one in 1,000 was a disabled person. More recently, the Arts Council of England annual survey of the whole arts workforce in the year 2000 reports that only 2 per cent are disabled people.
Equity compiles a directory of disabled performers that it publishes jointly with Spotlight. That is available free of charge and offers a free listing for performers. Equity, too, has no statistics but gets regular calls from people looking to cast characters who are disabled. It therefore feels that there is progress in such casting. However, according to Equity, there is far less interest in employing disabled actors to play characters who are not specifically disabled.
That brings us right back to the problems faced by the one-legged artiste who wants to play Tarzan—or perhaps not Tarzan, but plenty of roles need not be played by able-bodied actors. There is massive unexplored potential that would benefit not only disabled actors but the whole world of drama, allowing it to break barriers and find fresh talent. Some examples of successful integrated casting include

541
Nabil Shaban playing Hamlet and the Tottering Bipeds theatre company production of Waiting for Godot with two Graeae-trained disabled actors playing Vladimir and Estragon. Graeae itself has staged imaginative productions of Ubu, The Changeling and other standard texts written with an able-bodied cast in mind.
The issues involved in such integrated casting are perhaps more complicated than those involved in the integrated casting of black people and others from ethnic minorities, but inroads are being made. I therefore suggest that the time is right for a concerted employment and training initiative, hosted by a range of relevant bodies, to build on the foundations that have largely been laid by disabled people's own efforts. We need to cut through the negative assumptions and the lack of imaginative casting.
Disabled people have cause to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for raising the issue in such a timely and constructive way.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has once again scored a hit from a nice sideways angle. The three noble Baronesses who have spoken have used virtually every point that I had thought of—I had thought that I would be able to cite the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore sketch myself.
The main thing that occurs to me about government action on this matter is that they now—but only recently—have most of the necessary legislation in place. When the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 comes into force—I believe that that will be next autumn—the artificial cut-off for organisations employing fewer than 15 people will end. That will probably serve as a wake-up call to the entire arts industry with rather far more force than it at present imagines.
What usually happens in sectors that have to deal with disability legislation is panic. They say, "Oh my God, we can't do anything. What will happen? It will be the end of us". Then there is a period of calm reflection, followed by some action. That will probably go on throughout the arts movement. Much subsidised theatre will have to do some deal with government to tackle the problems. There is always the excuse of the ancient building that has something or other backstage that cannot be moved. Usually something is done on such occasions, and I suspect that, with a little will—inspired by the knowledge that it will be illegal not to do something—much will be done. The same process is about to affect the training and education institutions that provide our performers.
The removal of the exceptions made under the DDA by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 will ensure that anyone who receives public money for training and education will be drawn into the matter. If I started to draw on examples I would, I am sure, mix them up, but that is the situation as I
542
understand it. Thus, the Government are in a situation to make sure that there is training. If we accept that education is a good thing in itself—we are talking here about education and training, and I do not know where the cut-off point is between the two—it should not be the case that someone may find it less or more difficult to get work in a certain field. That argument should carry only limited weight. The Government will fund many such courses directly or indirectly, and they must apply pressure. That is how I see the Government's role. It is a rather narrow channel, but they can ultimately cause things to happen; they will be the catalyst for change.
As has been said, there are many examples of disabled theatre companies which have said, "We can perform and entertain. We can create something meaningful". That should not come as a surprise. The arts world has embraced one large group of disabled people for a long time—dyslexics. There are few occasions on which one would refer to the late Oliver Reed and Susan Hampshire in the same breath—both successful actors, both dyslexic. Dyslexic people find theatre a convenient art form. They are not restricted to using bits of paper in front of them; they can express themselves in other ways that suit very well. It is such flexibility that has created the tradition that theatre is—small "1"—liberal. The theatre has generally been slightly ahead of most parts of society in bringing people in. It is worth remembering that Shakespeare did not write for women, for instance. Ethnic minorities and people of different sexual orientation have also found a home in the theatre before other places.
We are asking people to do no more than take a slightly sideways look at what has been done. Often, we talk about disabilities that are visible and can he perceived. We will have achieved full integration when it is perfectly normal to find someone in a wheelchair playing a part normally taken by someone who can walk. That is the real test, as it would be with any form of discrimination. Someone said to me that we would be able to tell when women had reached the same status in society as men when a woman did not need to be slightly better than the men to get to a certain level but only as bad as they were. The same would be true of any form of disability integration. When it becomes normal to see parts being filled by disabled people, we will have achieved it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke of a chicken-and-egg situation. If people are trained, they will eventually be used; if they are not trained, nothing will happen. If the Government are prepared to make sure that the organisations that they fund do train people, something will happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, raised a practical point about the benefits system and the idea that the benefit might be used to cover costs additional to basic living costs. The Government must tackle that issue, which does not apply only to those in the performing arts sector. The benefit trap for people with disabilities is well recognised. Pressure from here may help, although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport versus the Department for Work and

543
Pensions might be a David-and-Goliath situation. However, every little helps. We must apply more pressure to make the transition from benefits to work—or work with benefits, as it must be in certain situations. If that does not happen, there will be no continuous throughput of people.
The theatre should open itself up to a new way of looking at a large number of people. It will have to do that, and it is capable of doing it, provided we point it in the right direction. The Government are in a position to apply considerable leverage by making sure that anything that is dependent on government help for its workforce or to keep itself running starts to address such issues.
We are asking for equal rights for the disabled; we are not asking for tokenism. We are not asking on behalf of people who cannot bring anything to their field. They must have an equal opportunity. That is what is required. All that we can expect the Government to do is to make sure that the door is open; it will be up to society as a whole to see that people go through that door.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for raising this important issue and the way in which she did so. She struck a positive chord when she quoted Eric Sykes as an exemplar. She recognised that that most famous of Oldhamers would be of particular interest to me, as I represented the town in the other place for many years and met Eric when the town celebrated its 150th anniversary. He is one of our outstanding examples of achievement and talent. As the noble Baroness said, he is a wonderful example of someone who triumphed over an interesting and difficult disability to reach the high regard in which he is held by the nation.
The noble Baroness will forgive me for saying that I understand the emphasis that she put on the Eclipse report. There is no doubt that the report is of great importance, but it is only a week or so old, so it is difficult for me to give a definitive government response. Suffice it to say that we recognise that the report emphasises how important it is that there should be an end, in so far as it exists, to any form of institutional racism in the theatre. We know that there have been one or two cases of late in which it has been contended that the theatre has not always lived up to the highest standards.
Without in any way prejudicing our response to the report, I can make it clear that the Government believe that there is no place in society for institutional racism in any quarter. The Macpherson report made that clear. Noble Lords know that in due course we shall be producing our own response to the report. I recognise the salience and immediacy of that report to the issue we are debating this evening.
Several noble Lords have mentioned that new legislation, the Disability Rights Commission and new benefits have already gone some considerable way
544
towards improving the position of disabled people in society. However, noble Lords have also indicated that there is absolutely no room for complacency. I am grateful to all those who identified areas in which much still needs to be done. It is important that the Government play their proper role in ensuring that effective improvements are made.
There is no doubt that disabled people are under-represented in audiences, on the boards and in the publicity materials of arts organisations. We are working in close partnership with arts sectors to build a clearer picture of the employment of disabled people at all levels in the arts. That vital knowledge will enable us to build appropriate and meaningful pathways to take the sectors forward. All areas of the arts must be supported and encouraged actively to recognise that everyone has the right not only to act, sing and dance, but also to manage, innovate and direct.
Too often when one considers the performing arts, one thinks only of that which takes place on stage and, to a certain extent, at the front of house. We consider less the crucial roles which can and ought to be taken on by all sectors of our society in support of a performance. A successful approach must be holistic, built on specific expertise and sustainable in the long term.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the problems which obtain with regard to physical access for disabled people to theatres and other venues. We recognise the nature of this problem. On occasion even our more modern theatres can give rise to difficulties so far as concerns audiences, and even more so for those who wish to play their part in working to support and contribute to artistic productions. But our Victorian theatres obviously present particular difficulties in this respect. Suffice it to say that we welcome initiatives such as the Civic Trust Access Award sponsored by English Heritage. It celebrates the provision of successful access to historic buildings and sites. The winner this year—an entirely appropriate choice as regards our debate this evening—was the Royal Court Theatre. It has achieved a successful reconciliation of meeting the access needs of disabled people within the conservation requirements of a very historic building.
It can be done, although a great deal still needs to be done to ensure access for those who wish to attend our great and exciting productions. However, the noble Baroness also pointed out that access must also be provided for those who wish to earn their living in support of theatres. At the present time, the restrictions and limitations of the backstage, to say nothing of the problems for audiences, all serve to inhibit the proper participation of certain categories of disabled people. They cannot play their full part in, our performing arts.
In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out that the development of legislation is conducive to our making signal improvements over the forthcoming months and years. The full implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will support our approach in

545
the arts. The legislation will establish comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people which would necessarily include access to the arts. We support a requirement of the interpretation of the law that it should not be seen as the bare minimum, but rather a provision that is generous and made in the best spirit. Contributions to the debate from all sides have indicated how important it is to establish "best spirit" in terms of the will to achieve improvements in this area.
Noble Lords also made it clear that disabled people participating in the arts should achieve full equality in pay. That ought to go without saying. We all know that it is possible for people to discriminate unfairly and that challenges have to he made through tribunals of all kinds and even in the courts. However, let us make no bones about the fact that the whole thrust of the Government's position with regard to employment law seeks to ensure that pay inequalities which are unjustified in terms of people's competence to fulfil their role must be rooted out.
I very much appreciated the references made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, to those theatre companies which have made special contributions to the advance of the cause of the disabled in the arts. I refer to the CandoCo theatre company, the Graeae Company and the Heart'n Soul company. All are immensely talented and innovative companies being led by disabled people. They clearly demonstrate that excellence need not be compromised. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they are not concerned with the issue of condescension; indeed, they show how past expectations are now being dismantled, thus helping to ensure that disabled people can play their full part.
However, the performing arts are notoriously competitive and provide a precarious profession. That does not alter our aim to equalise opportunity for all, but education and professional training are key factors in achieving that. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 significantly amends the Disability Discrimination Act—a point identified by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—and places new duties on providers of post-16 education. Some £172 million has been allocated for the years 2002–04 to support the implementation of new post-16 educational duties, although no doubt it will take some time for the funding to work its way through.
Perhaps I may make the obvious point that access to higher education requires people to meet certain standards for all courses. People must prove themselves competent before they engage upon a course. However, the thrust on all sides during our debate suggested that there should be no arbitrary and unfair discrimination against the disabled; far from it. It should be recognised how much disabled people can benefit from courses which perhaps may need to be tailored to their specific needs, but which still meet the requirements of the HE institution. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for identifying those courses which are at the forefront of increasing
546
opportunities for disabled people to be trained in areas in which their capacity for playing their part in the performing arts will be enhanced.
In their broader objectives, the Government are seeking to place 50 per cent of young people on higher educational courses beyond the age of 18. It would ill fit that objective if we failed to ensure that those who suffer from disabilities were not given the structures and proper consideration that enabled them to participate as much as possible. So we look forward to educational opportunities expanding in those terms.
I turn to the issue alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins; that is, the way in which disabled people are portrayed in the media. It is another factor in improving the involvement of disabled people at all levels across the arts, but it is not a question of gestures and tokenism. What is required is the sustainable and meaningful involvement of professional disabled people. That needs to be encouraged and we ought to take advantage of those who triumph over considerable difficulties and go on to establish themselves as role models, serving as an enormous encouragement to the next generation coming along.
A fine example of creative and innovative means of raising issues of disability awareness and representation is the disability rights campaign, Actions Speak Louder Than Words. It has at its centre the film "Talk", which portrays a society where non-disabled people are a pitied minority and disabled people live full and active lives. The film moves away from the traditional approach to disability awareness with excellent results. It won the best short film award at the Third Rushes Soho Shorts Film Festival and will be used as part of the national curriculum as of 2002. It is already being used as part of the disability awareness programme of companies such as British Airways, the BBC, the Halifax and many others.
It is important that we get through the performing arts positive role models and a representation of disablement and the way in which difficulties can be overcome, a point alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the European Year of Disabled People. While the picture in the United Kingdom is not perfect—as has been amply identified in the debate—we do have a lot of good news. It is important that we share these achievements both within this country and beyond—for instance, the Royal Court's achievements in reconciling access to historic buildings; the Graeae Theatre Company's successful collaboration with the English National Opera Baylis on educational outreach projects. The significant initiatives we have taken show that this country intends to be at the forefront of achievement in the European Year of Disabled People in 2003. We want to be in a position to indicate how much progress has been made in the United Kingdom so far as concerns disabled people and their employment in the performing arts.
Proper concerns have been raised about the way in which disabled people are treated in our society at the present time. On previous occasions the noble

547
Baroness has chided me for my inability to appear as a renaissance man covering a wide range of departments and I am going to let her down today. I am not sure that I can deliberate with her in great detail in regard to benefits and the disabled. She will recognise the Government's commitment to providing to our disabled fellow citizens sufficient resources to enable them to play as full a part in society as possible. This is against a background of public will for recording an increase in achievements in this area.
I do not underestimate the breadth of the problem or the complexity of the issues which confront us. We have talked today about a very important but very limited area of employment. We all recognise that the performing arts can play a symbolic and significant role in communicating to the wider nation the need for improvement and change—and how that change could be effected to the benefit of disabled people—but, nevertheless, we as a society have a very long road to tread. We may congratulate ourselves—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was prepared to concede—on having certain crucial aspects of the legislative programme in place, but that is still some way from the effective discharge of the functions required under the law and the improvements flowing from it.
Lord Addington: My Lords. I tried to indicate that the easy part will be the passing of legislation. The difficult part will be chasing it up and making sure that it is used.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right—although most of us do not find passing legislation particularly easy, certainly not from the Dispatch Box on this side of the House. But the noble Lord is right, implementation of the legislation will present extra challenges.
Barriers to the employment of disabled people are not acceptable to the Government, in this field or in any other field. We are working to break down barriers and to promote opportunities for everyone in society, including in the arts. I am grateful for the opportunity to engage in the debate on this issue, which was so successfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The Government acknowledge the part that they have to play in advancing the issues we have discussed today.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for three minutes until 8.48 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.45 to 8.48 p.m.]

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
8.48 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 6 [Local Health Boards]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Funding of Primary Care Trusts]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Funding of Local Health Boards]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Expenditure of NHS bodies]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Duty of quality]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 23 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Further functions of the Commission for Health Improvement]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 not moved.]
Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) The Commission for Health Improvement shall present annually its report to the health joint select committee."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 30 has been grouped with Amendment No. 26A.
This is a probing amendment to ask the Government how they propose to monitor the inspection bodies and how that monitoring might be conducted. When the issue was previously debated, on 21st March, the Minister helpfully explained that a Select Committee of both Houses must be established by Parliament and it is not appropriate to seek in a Bill to suggest to Parliament how it should operate. I am most grateful to the Minister for that helpful clarification.
However, time has moved on rather rapidly, as we have already heard tonight. The document Delivering the NHS Plan has been published. As others have already said, it suggests that discussion on the Commission for Health Improvement may by now be obsolete as, to quote the Minister, time moves on. The Commission for Health Improvement is to be brought into the proposed independent single new commission for healthcare audit and inspection, or CHAI, with a longer pronunciation on the vowel sound. This new single commission is to publish an annual report to Parliament on national progress on healthcare and how resources have been used. A similar new single inspectorate for social services is also to be formed from a merger of the Social Services Inspectorate and the National Care Standards Commission. This commission for social care inspection, or CSCI, will also publish an annual report to Parliament on national progress on social care and an analysis of where resources have been used.
Given that the two bodies to be incorporated into those two new inspection commissions currently cover England and Wales, it is very important that there should be a capability to question those bodies in detail. As devolved arrangements will structure NHS services differently, it seems essential that the bodies can be quizzed in detail about their findings. It is also important that they can be questioned as to evidence

549
of their cost-effectiveness, to be sure that they are not imposing an ongoing burden on the health service without proven value for money in their functioning. They should be able to demonstrate clearly that it is they who are driving up standards, as opposed to research findings and other developments that occur in healthcare, which may independently be driving up standards—to return to a phrase that I have used previously on research, confounding variables that may give the same result.
Apparently, legislation will be needed to establish those new commissions. So, no sooner will this Bill pass from us than it will be amended by further legislation hot on its heels. Under that proposed legislation, both CHAI and CSCI are to be more independent of the Government than their constituent bodies have been. The aim of Amendment No. 26A is to explore whether a committee of both Houses might be established in the interim. Such a committee would need to have representation from all four parts of the United Kingdom to consider issues that are partly or fully reserved functions.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the exact mechanisms whereby debate may be had to establish such a committee that could examine the reports delivered to Parliament from the inspectorate bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, it appears to be for the convenience of the House that I speak at this point to Amendment No. 30, although, as noble Lords will find out, it addresses slightly different issues from those that the noble Baroness has just addressed. I shall continue nevertheless.
Amendment No. 30 deals with the independence of CHI, which we debated briefly in Committee. Since then, we have had the Government's White Paper, Delivering the NHS Plan, in which they set out their proposals for the new commission for health audit and inspection. One aspect of that new commission is that it will be more independent of government than the Audit Commission, CHI or the National Care Standards Commission. Commissioners will be appointed by the independent appointments commission rather than by Ministers. We were delighted that the Government are moving towards recognising that greater independence for such bodies is desirable. The Minister resisted the idea when we discussed a previous amendment.
I shall not go through the details of the amendment, which would make changes designed to create greater independence for CHI. I shall highlight just two of them. The amendment would amend Schedule 2 of the Health Act 1999, which set up CHI, taking away the Secretary of State's powers of direction. If we are trying to devise a genuinely independent body, giving the Secretary of State massive powers to tell it what to do will negate that independence.
In Committee, the Minister made much of the effectiveness of CHI's work. We have no wish to criticise its work. Nor do I claim that there are
550
instances of CHI's work not appearing to be independent. However, we know how insidious powers of direction in the public sector are. Everyone in the relationship—CHI, its chairman, its chief executive, the Department of Health, its staff, the Secretary of State and others—knows that the directions are there. The powers colour the relationship even if they are not used. In effect, they undermine independence.
I could not say that I was truly independent if someone else had the power to tell me what to do. Much of the way in which relationships are conducted between bodies such as CHI and departments is about subtle inflections. We can be sure that the relationship recognises who ultimately pulls the strings.
Financial independence is another aspect of independence. That is why subsection (2)(e) of the proposed new clause would take away the Secretary of State's discretion as to how much he pays CHI. If someone else determines how much money I get each year, that person determines what I can do and, more importantly, what I cannot do and I am not independent. The same is true of CHI. The 1999 Act simply says that the Secretary of State will give CHI what he thinks is appropriate. It is important that CHI should be given what it needs to carry out its functions. There should be an open and transparent discussion about the amounts needed. CHI should not have to come with a begging bowl to see what scraps the Secretary of State chooses to throw in. There should be a more equal relationship, based on what CHI needs to do.
The Government have announced their additional independence proposals for the new inspection and audit body. The amendment would accelerate that process of independence for one important component of the new body—CHI. I hope that it commends itself to the Minister, as it is now fully in line with government policy.
9 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 26A and 30, which relate to two key principles: the first is to ensure that the NHS, and its inspection systems, are as independent of government as possible; and, secondly, that the NHS, and those working within it, must ultimately be answerable to Parliament. Amendment No. 26A talks of CHI answering to the health Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. We are also putting forward this idea in relation to the regulation of health professionals, and shall return to it later.
If the Minister responds by saying that he believes this proposal to be impossible—or even premature—I shall point out that his newest document speaks of reporting annually to Parliament,
"on national progress, on healthcare and how resources have been used".
Something tells me that his line in consistency is, once again, bringing him closer to us, which I welcome. Similarly, we have argued for the greater independence

551
of CHI and—lo and behold!—we see in his document that his new merged creation that will incorporate CHI is to be,
"more independent of government than the Audit Commission, CHI or the NCSC".
My feeling is that it is time to go home, while we await the Minister's new proposals that will shortly supersede all that he has been arguing for here.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State appears to have accepted that accountability for clinical governance and performance standards should be separated from the management of the delivery of healthcare. Currently, when it comes to inspection and bodies like the Commission for Health Improvement, the Secretary of State still calls the shots on the criteria by which hospital trusts are to be judged. But the regulatory system must be publicly accountable and transparent. For that reason, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Northover, the professional regulatory bodies and the proposed new commission for healthcare, audit and inspection—and, indeed, the commission for social care inspection—should be subject to direct overview by Parliament through a Select Committee, not by the Secretary of State.
From the recent White Paper, to which some noble Lords have referred, Delivering the NHS Plan, it is unclear exactly what the proposed accountability of the new commission for healthcare, audit and inspection will be. As has already been mentioned, the paper states that the new commission will be more independent of government than the Audit Commission. I am sure that many of us will use that as a stick with which to beat the Minister during the progress of forthcoming Bills in an effort to ascertain whether or not that yardstick is being fully applied.
In his current state of grace or knowledge, can the Minister enlighten us as to whether or not the commission will determine the standards and targets to be met without the intervention of the Secretary of State? There are some crucial questions to be answered. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us at this stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, believes me to be currently in a state of grace; indeed, that is rather more encouraging than his usual remarks about my position.
The amendments before us are most interesting. They bring us back to one of the essential components of the The Way Forward for the NHS; namely, the Commission for Health Improvement and the health inspectorate, for which we shall bring forward legislation in due course.
I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that it seems to me that we must distinguish between the annual report to Parliament, which forms part of a provision under the Bill, and the separate question as to how Parliament deals with such a report and the work of the commission. It is right to distinguish
552
between those two facets because it is not for the Government to dictate to Parliament on how it discharges its functions. That is my essential difficulty with an amendment that proposes the establishment of a Select Committee.
If I am asked how Parliament discharges its own responsibilities, I should point out that it is abundantly clear: through Questions, through debates, and through the work of Select Committees, Parliament is able to question and call in witnesses from the Commission for Health Improvement, and other bodies, and thereby discharge its own responsibilities. However, that is a matter for Parliament to decide.
Having been responsible for some of the organisations about which we are debating—such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—my experience is that Select Committees are most interested in the affairs of such bodies; indeed, they have no hesitation in undertaking reviews through which they call in witnesses, including the bodies and those affected by what they do, as well as Ministers. I have no sense of Parliament not being able effectively to scrutinise the work of CHI, and its successor body. My difficulty is that I could not support an amendment that sought to dictate to Parliament the establishment of a specific Select Committee. At this stage of the Bill, I do not believe it is appropriate to take such a move. However, if it were decided, by Parliament to establish such a committee, it would be the duty of NHS bodies to co-operate with it. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government would encourage that process.
I turn to Amendment No. 30. I should point out to noble Lords that one example of the effect of accepting such amendments would be to give the commission the power to deal with matters like remuneration and allowances. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, really considers it appropriate simply to hand over that kind of power, lock stock and barrel, to the Commission for Health Improvement. Surely, public accountability and the discharge of the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament suggest that that matter should rightly fall to the Secretary of State.
We have already made clear—and shall certainly do so when it comes to the health inspectorate—that we expect the commission to continue to operate at arm's length from Ministers, as is the case with other non-executive public bodies. Indeed, it is a key feature of executive non-departmental public bodies that the Secretary of State remains accountable to Parliament for the performance of the body in question. As a vital part of the constitutional arrangements to ensure public accountability, so far the Secretary of State has appointed the chairman and other members of the commission. Clearly, the debate has moved on and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, when we announced plans to establish an independent single new health and social care inspectorate, we made it clear that the commissioners of the new inspectorate would not be appointed by Ministers but by the NHS

553
Appointments Commission. That seems to me to constitute an acceptance that the new body will have more independence. It is an important step forward.
I now turn to the general direction-making powers which the amendment would remove. We debated that matter in Committee. At that time I made it clear that they were reserve powers. There is no question that they should be used as a matter of routine; but one has to accept that there is always a possibility, I hope remote, that a serious problem could arise in relation to the commission's activity or governance which, for whatever reason, the commission failed to address. Surely it would be right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for how that body acts, should be able to take whatever action is necessary at the time. If an executive non-departmental public body receives funds from the Secretary of State, as is the case with a commission, surely it is appropriate and necessary for there to be some control to guard against financial impropriety and to ensure that funds are applied for proper purposes as set out in the Bill.
However, as I said in Committee, one would expect that kind of intervention to be rare indeed. The whole case behind the Government's proposals and programmes for the National Health Service is to put in place a rigorous inspectorate which is fully independent in the way it conducts its reviews and inspections. There can be no advantage whatsoever in the Government seeking to influence such an organisation in the conduct of those inspections. The whole strategy of the Government depends on having a robust independent organisation undertaking those inspections. It must make sense that, as with all non-departmental public bodies, there are safeguards that allow intervention to take place in what one hopes would be wholly exceptional circumstances where the public interest would demand that that takes place. Having said that, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have listened carefully to the arguments; that we are moving the agenda on with the announcement made by my right honourable friend two weeks ago; and that we are committed to a robust independent body to undertake the inspections.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad to hear that he found the amendment interesting. He clarified the matter by distinguishing between the annual report to Parliament and how Parliament would deal with such a report and monitor it. He clearly outlined that, under the Select Committee structure, Ministers can be questioned and called to account. I understand from that that he is implying that the questioning on the reports as laid before Parliament would come within the remit of the current Select Committee structure.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I was trying to say that it is for Parliament to decide how arrangements will be set in place. I described some of the ways in which currently bodies can be called before
554
parliamentary committees. If Parliament decided to set up a separate Select Committee, it would be the responsibility of NHS bodies to co-operate with it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. It would be helpful for the public to be assured of the mechanisms whereby Parliament will rigorously evaluate the inspection processes. The inspection processes will be more distanced from government than was previously the case, as has been set out in the document to which we alluded and which has been quoted.
The question of reserve powers becomes very important as the process of devolution gets further under way. It is particularly important for areas of health services that develop differently to be sure that the inspection bodies are functioning appropriately, independently and at a level of equity in their judgment of services which may be fundamentally different in different parts of the United Kingdom. Certainly, the Secretary of State funds the bodies as they stand, but if there is irregularity or misappropriation of money, I should have thought that the ultimate sanction was to withdraw the funds. That would have to be justified.
The question of influencing an inspectorate has been raised. That is a concern because an inspectorate may find and report on occurrences in the NHS as it devolves that are not favourable to the government of the day and it may also find that the investment of moneys—even new moneys—has not achieved the required outcome. It is for those reasons that this has been an important debate which has emphasised the need to maintain the independence of the inspectorate and the way in which its members will be questioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
The Commission for Health Improvement shall have such further functions as may be prescribed relating to the management, co-ordination, provision or quality of public health services for which prescribed NHS bodies, service providers, local authorities or other bodies have responsibility."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would give the Commission for Health Improvement responsibility for public health services that are operated by NHS bodies and it would allow CHI to investigate a report on how well public health responsibilities were carried out by the NHS.
We have already had a significant debate today on public health—we did so in the context of primary care strategic health authorities and regional directors of public health. Those debates were led by my noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. There is one clear message from those debates—that there is considerable anxiety about how well the

555
bodies populating the Government's new NHS universe will respond to the challenges of public health.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will the Government say whether public health is important? I know that that is a "motherhood" question; the Government will of course say that public health is important. However, if that is true, will the Minister say why the White Paper that was issued a couple of weeks ago, Delivering the NHS Plan, made no reference to public health? Some of us found that an astonishing omission.
My second question is harder. How do the Government show that they think that public health is important? My noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord. Clement-Jones, displayed the confusions that lie at the heart of the Government's approach to public health—much rests on untried and untested public health networks which are run by primary care trusts. They are struggling to get the right quality and quantity of staff to handle those responsibilities. Above those bodies are strategic health authorities and regional directors of public health, with overlapping, and to some extent indistinct, roles. Many of us are sceptical about the efficacy of all of that and raise questions about how serious the Government are about public health if they are subjecting it to such a bizarre structure.
The amendment is designed to put some degree of oversight into public health, using CHI as the agent. If public health services are not working under those new structures, we can rely on CHI to say so.
When we discussed a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister said that the term "public health" was not statutorily defined and could be very wide indeed. My response is to say that a wide definition is exactly what the amendment would require. I have no problem whatever with the term bearing its natural meaning and not being artificially restricted. If the Minister has a specific definition in mind, I am sure that noble Lords will be prepared to consider it.
In Committee the Minister gave us some comfort by saying that the Government recognised that there was an issue in this regard. He said:
"the Government are giving serious consideration to how the issues can best be taken forward and to the extent that CHI's remit needs to be revisited in these areas".—[Official Report, 21/3/02; col. 1581.]
Since then. I have not heard or seen anything to diminish our concerns about public health. If anything, the lack of a reference in the White Paper increased our concerns. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government have considered the matter further and that they are minded to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for again raising the issue of public health. She asked whether public health was important to the Government. As she would expect, it is very important indeed.
556
She also asked how the Government showed their commitment in that area. If we look back to 1997, we can see a long series of actions that reinforce the critical importance of public health to the health of our nation. The list includes the development of area strategies in relation to inequalities in health; the work around sexual health; the issues that have been raised in a number of national service frameworks, many of which, as part of their overall strategy, focus on public health elements; the various targets that have been set; and the development of health action zones. That is a long and impressive list which we shall continue to develop in future. Indeed, I would argue that the Chief Medical Officer's announcement earlier this year of a plan for a health protection agency, which we discussed briefly in our earlier debate about public health, provides another example of how we wish to bring together some of the current national public health functions and co-ordinate them rather more effectively with what is happening at local level.
There can be no question about it: public health is important to the Government. We are confident—we debated this matter at some length earlier this afternoon—that from the arrangements that we are putting in place will come a far more powerful public health function because we have made the essential connection between public health and primary care. As noble Lords will know, I am confident that this is the right area on which to place much of our emphasis.
That said, I understand that the noble Baroness has raised a substantial question which, as I said in Committee, certainly needs to be given careful consideration, particularly in favour of giving recognition to the importance of public health services. As the noble Baroness knows, in Delivering the NHS Plan, we stated that a new commission for healthcare audit and inspection would be established. In the light of our discussions in Committee, we have decided—I am happy to assure noble Lords that this is the case—that we shall give careful consideration to the role that that new commission might have in relation to public health services, particularly where the public health responsibilities of primary care trusts are concerned.
However, the issues are complex in terms of clarifying the range of public health services that might appropriately be brought within the new body's remit, the relationships with both the bodies responsible for those services and those currently responsible for their inspection or regulation, and the legislative consequences arising.
The Bill before the House today gives CHI several important roles. At this stage, I should be reluctant to add to those roles in the way suggested by the noble Baroness without full consideration of the implications. However, I hope that she will accept my assurance that we are giving serious consideration to how these issues can be best taken forward, in particular in the light of our announcement about the new health inspectorate.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I was pleased to hear that the issue of public health in the context of CHI or of a new commission is still live; that is, it has not been closed down. It is perhaps a matter of regret that the Minister will not accept the amendment now as the PCTs get under way with the new public health functions. As several noble Lords have said today, there must be considerable doubts about how they will work in practice.
Despite the optimism that the Minister has expressed, there are considerable doubts about how the system will work in practice. The ability to inspect the public health functions now would be a good arrow in the armoury of CHI. Nevertheless, I am at least pleased that the Government are still considering the matter, and I suppose that I can only say, "Roll on the next NHS reform Bill". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Commission for Health Improvement constitution]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"PATIENT CHOICE
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in carrying out his functions under the 1977 Act to ensure that, so far as it is reasonable for him to do so, persons who receive services under that Act are given a choice as to the time, manner and location of those services."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 31, which seeks to create a new duty on the Secretary of State to give effect to patient choice. I should not like the Minister to think that my favourite bedside reading at present is Delivering the NHS Plan. However, I shall quote from it again. A whole chapter of Delivering the NHS Plan is dedicated to choice for patients. Paragraph 5.4 of chapter 5 states:
"For the first time patients in the NHS will have a choice over when they are treated and where they are treated. 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".
Amen to that. However, I cannot resist pointing out that the roots of the policy lie in our reforms of more than a decade ago—reforms largely reversed by the Government after 1997. We rejoice that the Government have had a Damascene conversion to putting patient choice at the heart of their policies.
I should like to be able to take more time to explore the mechanisms—especially the financial mechanisms, which seem to be extremely complex—for giving effect to policies such as money following patients. I should also like to be able to explore the technology implications, especially given the Government's failure to date to progress the information
558
management and technology agenda within the NHS. However, the key issue is to get the principle of patient choice firmly embedded in the NHS.
When we discussed this amendment in Committee, I had expected a warm welcome from the Minister. Now that the White Paper has been published, I expect a welcome that is considerably warmer than the one I received in Committee. What the Minister said then was,
"I do not think that it would be appropriate to put the matter on a statutory basis. It is much more a question of policy to be decided by the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, 21/03/02; col. 1582.]
The Minister was effectively saying that patient choice might have been the Government's policy, but they wanted to be able to change it at will without the inconvenience of legislation. That seemed to suggest that patient choice was not a wholehearted policy of the Government. However, we now have the White Paper, and it suggests that patient choice is indeed a government policy which should supersede the Secretary of State's whims or transitory will. I therefore invite the Minister to put the issue beyond doubt by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but, after reflecting on our discussions in Committee, I believe that this is ultimately a matter for Ministers and government policy, rather than an issue to be addressed in the Bill.
It is tempting to have a wide-ranging discussion on the internal market. However, I shall desist from talking about the grossly unequal effect of that market, in which patients of fundholders got a lot whereas the rest of the patients got very little. I shall also desist from talking about the incredibly bureaucratic structure that was put in place. All I shall say is that this is a real commitment to patient choice by the Government. I think that the noble Baroness herself made it clear from her commendable reading of our Delivering the NHS Plan that this is a very important matter on which we wish to make progress.
Essentially, the aim is that, by 2005, all patients will be able to choose the date, time and place of their treatment. Indeed, one of the "must do" targets set out in the NHS Plan is that, by the end of 2005, all patients will be able to receive treatment at a place and time that suits them. This is a clear and public commitment and—through the additional resources that we are making available to the NHS—we are demonstrating that commitment by piloting patient choice from July.
Patients with coronary heart disease will be able to benefit from patient choice. Where a patient has been on an in-patient waiting list for coronary heart disease treatment for more than six months, he will be offered swifter treatment in a different NHS hospital, in the private sector or indeed in another EU country. We are looking to extend the pilots across other specialities

559
and in different areas. That is the importance of what we are proposing. We are not simply picking out a few GP practices where the arrangements will be on offer. The intent is that all GPs and all patients will have greater choice.
In view of the record of the previous government, I am surprised that the noble Baroness raised the issue of IT. When one thinks of those IT disasters, it is no surprise that, by the mid-1990s, there was a wholesale loss of confidence within the NHS about major IT projects.
I accept that the NHS has a long way to go in order to get the IT up to scratch in the way we all want. However, I am impressed by the commitment of people in the NHS to make IT happen, and by the success of some recent national projects. There is no doubt that we need to give this matter further attention. There is no doubt that it has to become a priority for the Government and for the NHS. IT systems will be part of the essential infrastructure which will enable us to ensure that patient choice will be a reality.
560
I repeat what I said in Committee. I do not consider that this matter should be on the face of the Bill. It is a matter of policy for the Government. We have unequivocally stated our intent in this area and we are committed to making sure that it will happen.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am left with a puzzle. This is a matter for government policy but not a matter for legislation. I am not sure that I know when government policy should or should not be a matter for legislation. The White Paper contains many government policies, some of which are for legislation and some of which are not. I shall have to consult wiser heads than my own and reflect further on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  School Curriculum: Global Perspective
  School Curriculum: Global Perspective
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Explosive Remnants of War
  Explosive Remnants of War
  Immigration Control: Protection of Children
  Immigration Control: Protection of Children
  Race Monitor
  Race Monitor
  Treasury: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Treasury: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Government Contracts: Security and Competitive Tendering
  Government Contracts: Security and Competitive Tendering
  Public Sector Jobs
  Public Sector Jobs
  Privy Council Silver
  Privy Council Silver
  Armed Forces: Fijian Recruits
  Armed Forces: Fijian Recruits
  Armoured Tracked Vehicles: Mileage
  Armoured Tracked Vehicles: Mileage
  MoD: Assets of Cultural Significance
  MoD: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Defence Procurement Agency
  Defence Procurement Agency
  Service Pensions: Taxation
  Service Pensions: Taxation
  Hunting with Dogs
  Hunting with Dogs
  Defra: Written Consultations
  Defra: Written Consultations
  Rural White Paper
  Rural White Paper
  Farming and Food: Collaborative Ventures
  Farming and Food: Collaborative Ventures
  National Scrapie Plan
  National Scrapie Plan
  Individual Learning Accounts Scheme
  Individual Learning Accounts Scheme
  Sector Skills Councils
  Sector Skills Councils
  Classroom Assistants
  Classroom Assistants
  School Companies
  School Companies
  Education Bill, Chapter 2
  Education Bill, Chapter 2
  Pupil/Teacher Figures
  Pupil/Teacher Figures
  Apsley House
  Apsley House
  House of Lords Working Practices
  House of Lords Working Practices